New study: ‘Conspiracy theorists’ sane; government dupes crazy

reply to post by burntheships

So...lets see your claiming the article is biased, and therefore it is invalid because
it cites Press T.V. as a source and the 9/11 "twisted facts"?

No. I am claiming that the article in the OP grossly misrepresents the study it refers to.

Yet on the other hand you cite Daniel Ellsberg as a valid investigator
who is calling the United States a Nation of Death in its campaign of Droning

What he said has nothing to do with investigating conspiracies nor did he distort any facts. He gave his opinion about the NDAA and what it represents to the United States.
crooksandliars.com...

Do you not see that your contradicting yourself?

No.

reply to post by St0rD

What's funny is the fact you're wasting energy trying to convince people that conspiracy theories are dangerous.

I said they can be. Most are harmless.

What would you want people to do, really? They realize there are lies everywhere in this world and they want to do something about it.

It would be nice if people could rationally discuss things and accept that because someone does not agree with them, it doesn't make them the enemy...or less sane. It would be nice if they could do so without distorting facts and inventing them. It would be nice if they could do so with misrepresenting the other's position.

reply to post by Phage


You're a regular poster on a conspiracy forum, you have the numbers in your profile to prove it, whether you realize it or not, like it or not. You are a member of the lunatic fringe. Guilt by association....

Phage
reply to post by St0rD

 

What's funny is the fact you're wasting energy trying to convince people that conspiracy theories are dangerous.

I said they can be. Most are harmless.

What would you want people to do, really? They realize there are lies everywhere in this world and they want to do something about it.

It would be nice if people could rationally discuss things and accept that because someone does not agree with them, it doesn't make them the enemy...or less sane. It would be nice if they could do so without distorting facts and inventing them. It would be nice if they could do so with misrepresenting the other's position.

edit on 2/8/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)

PHAGE??? What venue would you like to see these topics discussed rationally? Tell me where we have had W.Bush, R.Chenney, D. Rumsfeld, P.Wolfowitz, R. Giuliani and C.Rice in a room with reporters and an open mic?

Where do you get these discussions reported where the talking head at the news desk doesn't lead into the story with a smirk on his or her face and a tone of humor? Such venues do not exist in the mainstream. Anything other than what they want to report on is dismissed as lunacy if not just by the contents of the report but the demeanor that the story is reported with.

Western news agencies are entertainment. They have NO legal mandate to tell the factual truth nor are they punished when they report something wrong.

There is no where to take a conspiracy these days except to some shady internet forum.

I know I said that we should agree to disagree but I just can't keep my mouth shut. That is a problem I have that wont deny.

reply to post by Phage

I said they can be. Most are harmless.

Well if so, you've got me wondering why is that you're talking about this since the start of this thread. What are you trying to say? The negative impact of talking about conspiracy theories outweigh the positive one?

It would be nice if people could rationally discuss things [...] It would be nice if they could do so without distorting facts and inventing them. It would be nice if they could do so with misrepresenting the other's position.

Indeed, it would be. But when it comes to conspiracies, like I said in the OP, people are emotionnaly attached to their beliefs and will rarely discuss logically.

[...] and accept that because someone does not agree with them, it doesn't make them the enemy...or less sane.

Quite frankly, having people believe in a lie (if such lie there is) all of their life, living blindly and not questionning themselves at any moment on the state of this world, not doing anything about it, just consuming more and more entertainment everyday, that doesn't sound sane in my mind.

Phage
reply to post by burntheships

 

What he said has nothing to do with investigating conspiracies

It has everything to do with what was once thought a conspiracy,
but now is actual fact....and here is more of what he has recently said.

Daniel Ellsberg on surveillance; secret police; and more

But what is not legitimate is to use a secrecy system to hide programs that
are blatantly unconstitutional in their breadth and potential abuse.

The NSA, FBI and CIA have, with the new digital technology, surveillance powers over our own citizens
that the Stasi – the secret police in the former "democratic republic" of East Germany – could scarcely have dreamed of.
So we have fallen into Senator Church's abyss.

Senator Frank Church spoke of the National Security Agency in these terms:

"I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return."
www.theguardian.com...

Well Phage,
its been interesting,
as you said - have fun "entertaining yourself"

reply to post by St0rD

Well if so, you've got me wondering why is that you're talking about this since the start of this thread. What are you trying to say?

What I started talking about was the fact that the article in the OP grossly distorts the study it talks about.

While bringing the possible existence of conspiracies to light can be beneficial, I don't think continually talking about conspiracies and providing no new evidence to support them them serves any practical purpose. I think though, that it can get individuals who are less than stable worked up to the point of becoming a danger to others by taking matters into their own hands.

reply to post by Phage

While bringing the possible existence of conspiracies to light can be beneficial, I don't think continually talking about conspiracies and providing no new evidence to support them them serves any practical purpose. I think though, that it can get individuals who are less than stable worked up to the point of becoming a danger to others by taking matters into their own hands.

Ok let's say I agree with you on this, which I might, what should be done about it?

If you are bringing this to light, it means you consider it to be a problem that could cause trouble in the near future and that should be solved.
So, what do you propose?

Phage

So how much are you being paid to post here?

I don't know. Going on 6 years now and still no check. But maybe you should read my sig.

Hahaha no check, I feel you. It's what they call other duties assigned. Another common response from superiors, "it all works out in the wash". I say dig in your heels and demand compensation, you know you're worth it.

St0rD


If you are bringing this to light, it means you consider it's a problem that could cause problems and should be solved.
So, what do you propose?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Phage

While bringing the possible existence of conspiracies to light can be beneficial, I don't think continually talking about conspiracies and providing no new evidence to support them them serves any practical purpose.

In other words when someone you can trust, like yourself has proven a theory to be invalid, everyone needs to shut up and move along to something else? Who gets the final words and closing arguments Phage?

You?

I think though, that it can get individuals who are less than stable worked up to the point of becoming a danger to others by taking matters into their own hands.

If people are unstable enough to become dangerous it would happen with or without being involved in conspiracy theories.

I tend to believe that people who hide behind internet personas, in anonymity and portray themselves as having superior knowledge on speculative/alternative subjects, generally hold a godlike opinion of themselves over others as being inherently dangerous people. Ego is dangerous Phage.

The problem you are encountering, Phage, is that you seem to exactly replicate the rhetoric of the types of politicos that are bought and paid for. Didn't say you were bought and paid for. It's quite possible that you are the perfect product of social engineering.

C'mon, just one:

JFK?
Fast & Furious?
Benghazi?
IRS aimed at opponents?
WMD excuse for predetermined foreign policy?
NSA lying?
"They hate us because of our freedom?"

Anything?

reply to post by ausername

In other words when someone you can trust, like yourself has proven a theory to be invalid, everyone needs to shut up and move along to something else? Who gets the final words and closing arguments Phage?

That isn't what I said. I said that without new evidence which can be discussed the conversation becomes rather pointless.

If people are unstable enough to become dangerous it would happen with or without being involved in conspiracy theories.

Perhaps. Or perhaps without conspiracy theorists constantly telling them "You're right. Don't believe them. Believe us.", those people might actually seek help.

I tend to believe that people who hide behind internet personas, in anonymity and portray themselves as having superior knowledge on speculative/alternative subjects, generally hold a godlike opinion of themselves over others as being inherently dangerous people.

I tend to think that people who think they know much of anything about anyone based on internet postings are rather presumptuous. I tend to concentrate on how people make their arguments. Generally, when the ad hominem attacks start, it says quite a bit about the quality of those arguments.

When reading the posted article by Dr. Barrett, surely someone wondered that there were no direct quotes from the article being discussed. That was my first question.

Here's a link to the article from the scholars at the university of Kent. "What about building 7 ..." You might be amazed to discover that it doesn't say what Dr. Barrett alleges that it does.

Dr. Barrett was lying. That doesn't appear to slow some folks down though here in this discussion.

Also, as a matter of course in a supposedly objective scientific article, one very rarely (i.e. never) sees one of the test groups subsequently referred to as "dupes."

Even a little bit of basic research into Dr. Barrett's background reveals 1) he was not rehired at the last university he taught at and he only taught for one semester. 2) The books he has written are steeped in conspiracy theory and controversy (the Anti-Defamation League considers him an anti-semite) 3) He's been in trouble with the law for domestic abuse. 4) Barrett received only 3 percent of the vote in his district when he ran for US Congress ... he opponent won 97 percent.

Not a really reputable source, even if his article were spotless ... which it's not. It's chock full of logical fallacies.

Going to have to call BS on this one, for my part. Your mileage may vary.

Very interesting thread and it was fun to read the "back and forth" throughout. Regardless of anyone's personal position on the topic, I think Phage said something very profound that we should all pay attention to:

I tend to think that people who think they know much of anything about anyone based on internet postings are rather presumptuous. I tend to concentrate on how people make their arguments. Generally, when the ad hominem attacks start, it says quite a bit about the quality of those arguments.

Not trying to get too involved....just sayin'.

Well let's think about it for a minute...There are different levels of conspiracy theorists. You have the minority, those people who seem to believe anything and everything in the conspiracy world, no matter how absurd. I think the majority of conspiracy theorists are quite sane, and they believe in a certain conspiracy because there is a legitimate reason, usually a plethora of discrepancies in the official description of events.

Therefore I can definitely see how those who buy in to the official story would be less sane than those level-headed conspiracy theorists, because it takes blind belief to not question the obvious discrepancies that I mentioned. In fact, I would go so far as to say that those who never question these types of things, even when they don't make sense, are just as bad as those who believe in all conspiracies. It is the same mindset, more or less. So I can definitely understand why the results of these studies came out the way they did.

Phage
reply to post by ausername

 

I tend to believe that people who hide behind internet personas, in anonymity and portray themselves as having superior knowledge on speculative/alternative subjects, generally hold a godlike opinion of themselves over others as being inherently dangerous people.

it turned out that the anti-conspiracy people were
not only hostile, but fanatically attached to their own
conspiracy theories as well.According to them, their own
theory of 9/11 - a conspiracy theory holding that 19 Arabs, none
of whom could fly planes with any proficiency, pulled off
the crime of the century under the direction of a guy on dialysis
in a cave in Afghanistan - was indisputably true.

www.presstv.ir...

reply to post by burntheships

I guess you missed the part about how the study does not say that.
It doesn't matter how many time you quote what the article says about the study, the study doesn't say that.
www.readcube.com...

reply to post by burntheships


I'm waking up

reply to post by Phage


It's all just pixels on a screen Phage, don't take it so seriously. You'll miss the entertainment factor.

Seriously.