Yeah it appears that they feel that current "accepted" "climate change" theoretics are contrived so that the need for "chemtrails" becomes excusable...
"they are medicating the planet for our own good!"
What is wrong with being a Conspiracy Theorist?
- Thread starter Jan Ardena
- Start date
"they are medicating the planet for our own good!"
No, it makes sense. But it's not so easy in practice- I Know.
It's a fine balance and a tip of the scale often comes from a poster who is pretending innocence when, in fact, the poster is presenting according to an unspoken agenda.
This type of dishonesty is the bane of proper debate. I do try to give benefit of the doubt when I can and maybe I take it too far, sometimes. It's not unusual for me to end up disappointed for having done so.
I admit, I had a similar thought... But didn't want to interrupt the mood, you see.
Wynn is unpredictable.
I'll argue with Wynn often. Disagree more often. But would be a fool to ignore Wynn.
We all get a little hypocritical sometimes. As long as we can own up when it's shown...
Might be easier if you provided a source for this 'article' and citations and such...Excerpt of an Article published recently [re: Chemtrails conspiracy]:
{Excerpt goes here}
believe it or not!
I don't know about chemtrails, but to pretend that human caused climate change is an indisputable scientific fact, is awfully dumb.
Chemtrails are nothing more than a stupid myth created by some VERY ignorant, idiotic people who cannot even understand something as simple as ordinary water vapor (a gas) condensing. That's really pretty sad, actually. But I have difficulty feeling sorry for idiots. <shrug>
Climate change, on the other hand, is still debatable as to the cause but the evidence is continuing to stack up in favor of the human factor.
The bigger issue is how meaningful/useful these exchanges are to begin with.
Even in the potential ideal case, how meaningful/useful can these exchanges be? What is their aim?
Can a debate be amicable at all?
While I am aware that we are probably referring to quite different things here (ie. you believing that I often talk about things I am clueless about, while you supposedly knowing the Truth about them), I will not focus on that, but instead point out that
it seems impossible to participate in exchanges on forums like these without assuming an objective, omniscient position for oneself to begin with.
Arguably, a true blue subjectivist would not participate in such forums at all, as such exchanges would be anathema to them.
yeah I know but due to admin of spam issues it is not worth trying to post links that are not really necessary. If you need it let me know and I'll send it in a Pm.
I believe that it can be amicable and I also believe that there is significant value to online forum participation.
The value of course is dependent on what you are questing about. What problems you are trying to solve or get leads to a solution that appear to be otherwise unsolved to satisfactory levels.
Generally speaking a poster who starts threads is generally interested in some sort of result. Persons who only respond to threads are also but typically more for amusement than insight. IMO
That's not what I'm talking about, actually. I'm addressing your point that people here express their opinions in the form of objective fact, and positing that you do the same. This has nothing to do with what you know about a given subject, it has to do with you--like most of us--presenting your ideas as fact.
No omniscience is required, obviously. One can present their opinions as "correct" without assuming they have special powers. It's called being confident. The real test is whether or not one can admit that they are wrong, and I find you to be no different than most on that count.
Arguably, a "true blue subjectivist" couldn't get out of bed in the morning, since they could never really be sure of anything.
Well, please do.
Meanwhile, I stumbled onto this off topic bit of banter while searching for something else entirely... Dunno what to do with it so I'll shove it up this thread.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121004134731.htm
Well, please do.
Meanwhile, I stumbled onto this off topic bit of banter while searching for something else entirely... Dunno what to do with it so I'll shove it up this thread.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121004134731.htm
Well, well. That article underscores something that I've been saying for decades - far too many people (notably including some on this site) allow their silly, petty politics to drive their thinking.
And it's not far off the mark (subject of the thread) because it really IS a conspiracy of sorts. What I mean is that once these people find that many of the opposing party take a particular position, they will *automatically* take the opposite stance *without* even giving it a thought!
P.S. Don't try to name those individuals who are members here - it might get you a temp ban.
Well, well. That article underscores something that I've been saying for decades - far too many people (notably including some on this site) allow their silly, petty politics to drive their thinking.
And it's not far off the mark (subject of the thread) because it really IS a conspiracy of sorts. What I mean is that once these people find that many of the opposing party take a particular position, they will *automatically* take the opposite stance *without* even giving it a thought!
P.S. Don't try to name those individuals who are members here - it might get you a temp ban.
Then I'll try my hand at off topic again: It raises questions about the power of "educating" people about political issues.
A lot of people talk of awareness and education when it comes to issues like Global Warming, teen sex and various other political hot topics.
Now, I'm not going off the edge here and claiming education has no value. I believe that it does.
I just wonder how much.
Back to your regularly scheduled programming.
I'll try to post the link here and see what happens:
Swedish official admits toxic ‘chemtrails’ are real, not a wild conspiracy theory
http://thewatchers.adorraeli.com/2012/10/07/swedish-official-admits-toxic-chemtrails-real-wild-conspiracy-theory/
the article I refer to suggest that there is a difference between normal water vapour and these emmissions...
they may be nutters but they aren't that stupid.....
I'll try to post the link here and see what happens:
Swedish official admits toxic ‘chemtrails’ are real, not a wild conspiracy theory
http://thewatchers.adorraeli.com/2012/10/07/swedish-official-admits-toxic-chemtrails-real-wild-conspiracy-theory/
Ok running a search on this, I find repeats of the article, clones, really... all over the place. Not on CNN, mind you... they are all excursively on C.T. websites.
Which are also full of aliens, bigfoot and all manner of claims. Not lending any credence, there.
I cannot find any verifiable evidence from the article on any reputable site.
Godlikeproductions, in the meantime, is all over it.
Frankly, there's nothing to find that suggests that this whole article isn't yet another fabrication.
Oh I already guessed as much... as with any of these things even if it was seemingly reputable it would still be hacked down to being a paranoid conspiracy theory simply because if true, the global ramifications are to large and significant.
However it certainly seems like a very popular one..
And now they have this confused video that doesn't quite spell out who is saying what..."fringe green MPs, qualified scientists....hmmm"
Paranoia is not the exclusive domain of the public and can make it's way into those more hmmmm....reputable areas of officialdom....
"If you see a planes emmissions not doing what they are supposed to do enough times by enough witnesses then no doubt someone is going to come up with some sort of theory about it"
Obviously too many people have witnessed "strange plane emmissions" and no one is providing proper answers to their concerns, thus a conspiracy theorist is born.
Bullshit. The article claimed that the Gates had admitted to efforts to stop Global Warming- yadda yadda- It's sensational and would be all over the news.
Because it can't without calling it's claim into heavy question. As it is now it simply suggests- it casts doubt- which is usually how CT's work. No evidence, just questions.
Not doing what they are supposed to? Elucidate.
It's not so obvious.
In case you haven't noticed, I'm kind of an idiot.
Please educate me.
I am sure you can read the full article yourself and gain what you want from it...
a quick google shows 9,100,000 pages associated with Chemtrails..tells you enough to know that there is quite a bit of "concern" out there...from both the CT'a camp and the skeptics camp...
147,870,787 views for this.
Link.
I scoff at your measly 9 million.
No, it only shows the number of hits. It is not a social study on "Concern"- from skeptics, especially.
Let's face it: Chemtrails is one of the DOOFIEST CT's out there.
Ok, I take that back.
Hoagland's Martian bunny is.
But chemtrails are hot on its heels.
Nothing except when the person starts to believe that the theory is more than JUST a theory....
Ever day people speculate on all manner of things, and most of the time people can dstinguish between speculation and fact. A conspiracy theorist who fails to see this distinction is commonly what is being referred to in this thread as a paranoid nutter... and well ....because they can not distinguish betwenen fantazy and reality then I suppose that could be a reasonable, abeit simplistic,assessment.
The whole point of the burden of evidence, innocence until proven guilty, the benefit of the doubt etc is to maintain a sense of perspective and a base line from which to eventually find out a truth or a lie.