Why should the average person believe the mainstream?
- Thread starter Kellisness
- Start date
That's not surprising - considering the person we're dealing with is obviously not the brightest bulb in the house.
Bells
Staff member
Really?
You have posted a thread in the World Events forum, asking why the average person should believe in the "mainstream". It would seem you do not believe in the mainstream. Does that mean you are either below average? Or do you consider yourself to be above average?
At its crux, you are arguing that conspiracy theories are true. And this is not the only thread you have started where you argue this.
For example, I would imagine that it is a minority of the human population who believe in the whole reptilian theory. Why do you think this is so? Could it possibly be that the greater majority of the population have recognised and seen for themselves that the theory is bunk and that there aren't reptilians living in caves and running the world through so called elite bloodlines?
My advice to you and Mr Icke.. stop watching "V".
So essentially you're asking "Why do people not believe in things that are probably not true?" Or "Why do people not believe in things for which they have no evidence/ no exposure to?".
:shrug:
As for the OP, you might as well ask "Why does the average person not have a degree in physics/ art/ pottery-making?"
It's a null question: people tend to go with the "mainstream" unless they have a specific interest in not doing so - "thousand-year old conspiracies" & c don't affect their daily lives as such - "knowing", one way or the other, doesn't put bread on the table.
Get use to it, it's the main reason why governments run like they do. Every average person will have an opinion and might even openly state that opinion, but when it comes to coordinating that into an overall structure, people either don't get it to work or they find a clandestine group of conspiracy buffs attempting to undermine it so they can maintain power.
Every time a politician gets in and goes back on their words, or proves to be corrupt, it's technically peoples own fault for voting them in, it's their own fault for allowing that corrupt system of politics to continue allowing such people in. The problem is that you can't ask for changes, you can't wish for changes and obviously if you attempt to force changes you'll find yourself going against the grain of those that what to maintain "their control".
Simply put, if you don't like what people are going with in the mainstream "Un-Subscribe".
Every time a politician gets in and goes back on their words, or proves to be corrupt, it's technically peoples own fault for voting them in, it's their own fault for allowing that corrupt system of politics to continue allowing such people in. The problem is that you can't ask for changes, you can't wish for changes and obviously if you attempt to force changes you'll find yourself going against the grain of those that what to maintain "their control".
Simply put, if you don't like what people are going with in the mainstream "Un-Subscribe".
Kellisness
Registered Senior Member
What an idiotic response.
In other words you can't answer my questions and have realised how ridiculous the OP was.
Okay.
If only we could!
In other words, you've found yourself SO outclassed here that you have to resort to childish threats, eh kid? Just can't take the heat with adults around.
Why not do us all a favor and go away - FAR away!
Kellisness
Registered Senior Member
Stupid ignorant sheeple.
Bells
Staff member
Kellisness, dude, seriously, stop while you're so far behind.
Threatening and abusing members because they dare to challenge your unsupported and unsubstantiated posts in this thread (and others I might add) will only add to your now growing list of woes on this site.
If you cannot answer the questions asked of you in this thread, if you cannot respond to the challenges with proof or back up your claims, reacting like a child and comments about taking it outside, etc.. Well it makes you look like a twat.
And we don't want you to look like a twat.
If you cannot support your claims or debate issues without resorting to the whole 'lets take this outside' and 'you're a stupid head' argument, it may be best to not make such claims in the first place. The same applies to if you cannot and are unwilling to even discuss it or respond coherently.
Threatening and abusing members because they dare to challenge your unsupported and unsubstantiated posts in this thread (and others I might add) will only add to your now growing list of woes on this site.
If you cannot answer the questions asked of you in this thread, if you cannot respond to the challenges with proof or back up your claims, reacting like a child and comments about taking it outside, etc.. Well it makes you look like a twat.
And we don't want you to look like a twat.
If you cannot support your claims or debate issues without resorting to the whole 'lets take this outside' and 'you're a stupid head' argument, it may be best to not make such claims in the first place. The same applies to if you cannot and are unwilling to even discuss it or respond coherently.
But lots of people apparently don't believe these things, despite all the evidence that they are true.
The "alternative news" is full of crackpot conspiracy theorists. The "average person" who takes the "alternative news" as fact is usually unqualified to make his own judgments when he disputes the "mainstream". What's going on there is that your unqualified person distrusts authority and so will believe anything that doesn't come from one of those authority figures he doesn't like. These unqualified people are mostly rebels without a clue.
Take climate change, for instance. There are lots of questions about the details. But step one is establishing that it is occurring. And guess what? Over 95% of scientists who are actual experts in the field believe in anthropogenic climate change. Not because they are following the pack, but because they are qualified to draw correct conclusions from the evidence.
You rely on experts all the time. When you're ill, do you go to your great aunt Maud and ask her to make some special tea to cure your infected leg? Or do you go to a qualified doctor to get some scientifically proven antibiotics?
When you're doing your tax return and you need help, do you ask your mate Dave at the pub to do it for you, or do you hire a taxation consultant or accountant?
When your car breaks down, do you ask the guy you met in McDonalds to fix it for you, or do you take it to a registered motor mechanic?
Then why, if you want to know about something like climate change, do you rely on some unqualified nut who has a facebook page, rather than on the IPCC - an organisation of qualified and experienced climatologists?
In general, people don't have time to investigate every claim in detail, so it's in our nature to accept what most others seem to believe to be true, unless there is some reason to think otherwise or investigate further.
I think that most people, if pressed, would admit that they don't know if Bin Laden was responsible for 911 (for example), and (if honest) that they don't care enough to check it out.
I suggest that you'll find that most people don't unquestioningly accept media reports. Anyone with even a tiny bit of sense is able to realise that journalists have a job to do, and that job is to sell news, with reporting actual facts running a distant second.
Which is a good thing, because a lot of mainstream media is just crap. Unfortunately, many alternative news sources have similar problems. When an alternative source disagrees with a mainstream source, how do you personally decide how to proceed?
You won't usually get criticism for questioning the mainstream, you'll get criticism for a) not following through and learning from the responses to questions, and b) not questioning proposed alternative theories.
"Those people" are science zealots. There are a few around, and they do tend to get an easy ride because they're generally less annoying than the anti-science zealots.
But don't confuse science zealots with "mainstream 'scientific' types". It can sometimes be hard to tell which is which, but if are able to maintain an open, questioning, and learning (not teaching/preaching) tone to your posts, then you can ignore the ignorant taunts of the science zealots, and learn the good stuff from the people who know what they're talking about.
Kelish you know why it's a waste of time?
Basically this is how these types work. They reject everything that doesent conform to there belief system. In order words, they dont believe in anything that doesent have emperical testability thus we can say "God could exist based on .." or "Power groups can exist based on... " and they can say "Its not proven" even though we are following a line of logic that is sequenced together and is based on common sense and proof. Now unless it blatant; the masses will refute it ; than when its common knowledge the aptitute of thinking turns into "nothing lost, nothing gained" and than eventually turn into "meh"
and unless they see a direct link implicating a group screaming there trying to take over the world or proof of god reigning from above they will continue stating the burden of proof is on you evading thought provoking discussion because weve been so used to just having things get figured out for us instead of doing it ourselves.
even though you have evidence and your logic is deducted and based on sense and evidence unless its the physical kind of evidence being revealed directly implicating the illuminati, god, or some other secret or supernatural thing that cannot be refuted in any way, youll be called a crank.
Thus pointless those who are not narrow minded will see and those unwilling to do so will remain with there eyes closed. For the purpose of which I do understand.
Basically this is how these types work. They reject everything that doesent conform to there belief system. In order words, they dont believe in anything that doesent have emperical testability thus we can say "God could exist based on .." or "Power groups can exist based on... " and they can say "Its not proven" even though we are following a line of logic that is sequenced together and is based on common sense and proof. Now unless it blatant; the masses will refute it ; than when its common knowledge the aptitute of thinking turns into "nothing lost, nothing gained" and than eventually turn into "meh"
and unless they see a direct link implicating a group screaming there trying to take over the world or proof of god reigning from above they will continue stating the burden of proof is on you evading thought provoking discussion because weve been so used to just having things get figured out for us instead of doing it ourselves.
even though you have evidence and your logic is deducted and based on sense and evidence unless its the physical kind of evidence being revealed directly implicating the illuminati, god, or some other secret or supernatural thing that cannot be refuted in any way, youll be called a crank.
Thus pointless those who are not narrow minded will see and those unwilling to do so will remain with there eyes closed. For the purpose of which I do understand.
matthew809
Registered Senior Member
Because the average person is brainwashed and narrow-minded, and in denial about it.
Whether or not certain conspiracies are true, it's obvious to anyone paying attention that a person of authority getting away with a conspiracy would be easy enough, since people are pre-conditioned to believe that conspiracies are beyond human capability. Unless of course it's written in a history book... then the average fool has no problem believing that such a conspiracy took place- in the less-civilized past. But believing in present-day conspiracy activates some sort of mental block for most people.
Really?
How did you escape this "brainwashing"?
Please provide some support for your contentions.
This is, of course, arrant nonsense.
Evidence please.
Bull !!! You must live in some sparsely-settled little corner of the world where everyone is particularly uneducated and thick-headed to think that. And they probably look upon you as the local brainiac, right???:bugeye:
That's certainly not the case across the population as a whole.
Sure, there have been some real conspiracies and still are - but NOT of the idiotic, brainless type that have been talked about in this (and other) threads).
Given your profound ignorance about what constitutes a scientific theory, the scientific method and even basic logical reasoning I find that comment of yours amazingly stupid.
You clearly think you've somehow seen through 'the lies', that you've got some grasp others haven't. It's been shown in studies that those most likely to over estimate their abilities are generally the most ignorant. You've shown you couldn't even grasp how to string together a reasoned argument, yet you believe yourself somehow more insightful or clear headed than the majority of 'sheeple'?
As for things beyond human comprehension, there's plenty of things beyond your comprehension in regards to reason and logic, a significant chunk of which is expected of high school students.
matthew809
Registered Senior Member
Read-Only and AlphaNumeric,
Your defensive stance against my post hints at some significant anger in you, directed towards me. Anger clouds judgment, and is also indicative of an irrational mind- the same irrational, emotional mind that might be easily brainwashed.
Why should there be any emotion involved in exploring the subject at hand? There's zero hatred on my side. How about yours?
Your defensive stance against my post hints at some significant anger in you, directed towards me. Anger clouds judgment, and is also indicative of an irrational mind- the same irrational, emotional mind that might be easily brainwashed.
Why should there be any emotion involved in exploring the subject at hand? There's zero hatred on my side. How about yours?