Negative social impact of conspiracy theories?

[sanfish]

removed.

[Passion4Truth]

I am now starting to see the negative impacts of these CTs in a different light.
To me, they look and sound more like Al Qaeda, Jihadists, and Boko Haram EVERY day. The CTs are either too old, too dumb, too physically frail by either mind or body or unable to obtain appropriate passports/documentation to receive the blessings of Mohammad.
They are left back here to cause as much discordance and confusion as possible. (with or without facts to substantiate their postings).
There have been many links provided (from reliable and professional sources) provided to, substantiate my reasons for these conclusions.

The North American and in particular, the Western world, has been a part and parcel to the lies and demons of the mid-East, Radicalized,"Whack-a-Doodle ", nut cases that are terrorizing us today.

CTs deserve to be treated with care and consideration because, you just don't know when one of them might go off, and you might become "collateral" damage. Personally, I wouldn't trust any of them if they were outside my crosshairs.

Anyone that wants to lump all these theories and anyone doing any research on them all together under one umbrella as a CT or CTer, is a fool. All the subjects and anyone studying them must be looked at individually. Follow the truth where it leads. To not look at any evidence and be convinced against it is ludicrous. Maybe CT might be a good way to describe these people, only it would stand for Conspiracy Tard.

[Thinktank]

Were the moon landings a hoax? Are governments hiding evidence that aliens have visited earth?

Conspiracy theories are often seen as laughable, .....

<---This is Karen Douglas.- a professor of social psychology at the University of Kent in England.

So according to Jo's Genius (Karen Douglas)

#1 - people who read anti-government theories - DON'T VOTE.
#2 - people who read about climate change theories - AREN'T REALLY THRILLED TO REDUCE THEIR CARBON FOOTPRINT.
#3 - people who read anti-vaccination theories - LESS LIKELY TO GET VACCINATED.

Hahaha - How stupid can she be. Because first, EVERYONE ISN'T REALLY THRILLED TO REDUCE THEIR CARBON FOOTPRINT.
And second - OF COURSE PEOPLE WHO DON'T GET VACCINATED WILL "READ UP ABOUT IT."

It makes me wonder just how stupid some of these university professors really are.




..

[Thinktank]

<--- Jo's Karen Douglas

But Wait!!! I might have been wrong. She's not as stupid as I thought.

She starts by saying "Were the moon landings a hoax? Are governments hiding evidence that aliens have visited earth? Conspiracy theories are often seen as laughable..."

And she finishes by talking about vaccinations. She studies social psychology at the University of Kent in England, and she just tricked the simpletons who read her article on New York Times into thinking anti-vaccine info is in the same category as moon landing hoaxes and aliens.

Karen Douglas just pulled a fast one on us.

Lesson: NEVER TRUST A UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR WHO STUDIES SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY.


..

[Thinktank]

We assume that experts can be trusted.

We assume doctors can be trusted - and they can be trusted. But when a huge corporation like Glaxo Smith Kline is fined $3 billion for crooked dishonest tricky weasel-like business practices, and that's only a small fraction of what they should have been fined (because they spend $hundreds of $millions on lawyers) and our trustworthy doctor (expert) gets his info directly from glaxo Smith Kline - then we have a problem.



Glaxo Smith Kline is one of the biggest manufacturers of vaccines. That's not a moon landing. That's not an alien. That's not a 'laughable' conspiracy theory. That's a FACT.

THAT'S A COLD HARD FACT.

and Karen Douglas is a moron.

[Fancy]

We assume that experts can be trusted.

We assume doctors can be trusted - and they can be trusted.

Funny - lots of people get second opinions. And where's the conspiracy theory you are specifically referring to?

[Thinktank]

Funny - lots of people get second opinions. And where's the conspiracy theory you are specifically referring to?

< -- right inside her head.

Read her stupid article again in the New York Times. She's tricky.

[Fancy]

Did you post a link?

[Thinktank]

And where's the conspiracy theory you are specifically referring to?

Right Here.

http://www.gsk.com/

They've been conspiring to fool people for decades. Even in China.

[LordEd]

Why is it that showing a company was fined for doing something wrong is given as proof that there is something wrong. Its an indication that there are checks in place to watch for bad behaviour.

When's the last time that a conspiracy website has been fined for straight-out lies and deception on their articles?

[sanfish]

Why is it that showing a company was fined for doing something wrong is given as proof that there is something wrong. Its an indication that there are checks in place to watch for bad behaviour.

When's the last time that a conspiracy website has been fined for straight-out lies and deception on their articles?

I agree with you that some peoples theories are more than "out there " ( exactly what I would wish for were I involved in any intricate conspiracy ), but to lump all together as its own sub species of human is beyond absurd. Many so called "conspiracies" happen every day. Is it your contention that

A) more than one person never conspired to engage in an act or behaviour ( generally for nefarious purpose)?

B) that we should hold our govt and/or business leaders that have been given ( yes given as we are supposed to live in a free society) a position of trust by us to the same accountability as we do "some guy sitting in his moms basement wearing tim foil"?

Can't have it both ways ( you're not our govt/"leaders"). If all those who dare have a theory/hypothesis that counters any official story are just crazy "losers" etc then either

1. They can't be compared to the people who are supposedly there to "lead us"
2. You're stating that our "leaders" are also all crazy "losers" and should not be taken any more seriously than the "CT'er" ( and would then hope your screams for replacement are the loudest)

By all means, call out any actually crazy theories and/or have honest open debate to get to a truth on any other given subject , but to dismis any "theory" wholesale is reduculous. To be perfectly honest, while we generally don't agree on many things, I always assumed you were better than that.

[Fancy]

They've been conspiring to fool people for decades. Even in China.

By giving people a chance to live?

[LordEd]

By all means, call out any actually crazy theories and/or have honest open debate to get to a truth on any other given subject , but to dismis any "theory" wholesale is reduculous. To be perfectly honest, while we generally don't agree on many things, I always assumed you were better than that.

Asking for units of measure and information about what an actual meter showing supposed 'radiation' from smart meters is not whole dismissal. Pointing out that a supposed 'chemtrail chemical report absolute proof they are spraying us !!!!' indicating less than 0.1% aluminum content and below the minimum measurable barium content (easily explained as what is naturally found in the normal 5-8% soil aluminum content) is not dismissal.

Watching the freeman-style nanaimo crew and even attempting to persuade them that their theory that they can call themselves peace officers in court rooms with fake badges, to the final conclusion of jail time is not dismissal. Watching Menard get pulled over, claim to have left unscathed, but finding out he was ACTUALLY arrested for personation in that stop is not dismissal (but expected).

Pointing out examples of how 'created' loaned money is extinguished upon its repayment to the bank, along with full examples of deposits/loans and commentary is not dismissal. Pointing to court cases where certain "theories" resulted in home loss or jail time is not dismissal.

Pointing out that vaccines 'mercury' content is like warning people they will explode because sodium chloride contains both sodium and chlorine is not dismissal.

But yes, when somebody posts a video of a person being shot in the head that has been faked to appear to be a real BBC report, and I have already contested most of their other points with a few google searches, AND I can find others who have investigated the mechanics of human death (that I do NOT want to personally investigate), then I am going to dismiss that person summarily.



There is a point where there is no reason to bother with what somebody is claiming when it is clear the content is un-researched, easily debunked, or outright lies.

Of note, you are not normally one of those, and I'm not after your comments often unless they fall into my theories of interest or make statements that I think have significant factual error.

[sanfish]

^^^^^^ if nothing else, I thank you for the admission that not all those that question an "official" story should be lumped into one category of person. I also agree that some people can be quite insensitive with what they show and/or talk about ( not just "CT'ers" but comedians etc). The problem, however, is that the greater the claim, the greater the scrutiny should be ( is this not also what "conspiracy debunkers" say about people posting theories?). While people could be more sensitive, if we all just close our eyes and "believe" that pretty much any claim can be made

[LordEd]

If you read this forum, you will find that there are MANY claims made by the CTers that are accepted as truth despite significant flaws in any supporting evidence, or more likely no evidence at all.