"Conspiracy theories,"

Post Reply New Topic

Ad Hominem?
I don`t want other answer ok?
I want your contextuallized and direct answer, please, you can make it?



Yes, salad because is better to health.

I wasn't referring to you when I said that you were mocking me, I was referring to the other person when they made a joke about fluoride coming from aluminium taken from the inside of chimneys, which was not an argument or an attempt to indulge in a rational debate but rather just mocking on the basis of a generalized assumption regarding all conspiracy theorists. Although saying that, you said my point was stupid without giving any reason why in a sarcastic tone, which doesn't really help anyone and has made me feel like s**t. Now, looking at a wide range of evidence I can see your point and it seems there is more evidence showing that the negative effects associated with it could be pure speculation. I just don't understand how it could ever be proven to you that water should not be fluoridated even when there are websites and empirical tests done by Harvard showing the negative effects of it? I am now swaying to your side after looking at the evidence however (and I hate responding to a question with a question) but what would it take for you to accept that water fluoridation is a negative thing when you dismiss all anti fluoride websites as superstition? I admire you though, I really do, I think we need more sceptical people in society. It is just highly difficult, I find, to be sceptical I find when there are so many contradictory sources on the internet. Moreover, whether the fluoride claim is scientifically valid or not, I still pertain to the view that people should have a choice in the matter as to whether they wish to have their water mass-medicated. It is a common held belief that certain anti-depressants can make people feel happier, yet I do not think that mass-medicating people in the same way would be a positive activity.

As for conspiracy theories in general, I just find it equally frustrating that many sceptics will ask for evidence showing which conspiracy theories are true and then when one provides them with cases like MKULTRA, Agent Orange and the financial collapse, they say those are no conspiracy theories considering they are factual even though they were primarily asking for conspiracy theories that have now been deemed as fact. I also find it a slight distraction from the fact that such conspiracy theories as I have listed are fact and in my opinion people ought to be more shocked by the fact that our government can get away with such atrocities than being set on proving that those are not conspiracy theories. One member just posted how a woman was stupid because she watched a film about Monsanto. Dismissing her as stupid limits ones ability to try and comprehend the reasons as to why she might have thought such a thing were true and , furthermore, regardless of its scientific validity as a claim, Monsanto have behaved outrageously in the past. Personally I find someone who is exposing the corruption of such corporate, multi-national companies far more interesting than someone who is trying to debunk false claims about them. That is my personal preference. As I said, that women may have been referring about a documentary about Monsanto's involvement in the herbicide warefare they were involved in in the nineteen sixties in which they aided the American government in poisoning the Vietnamese crops with toxic herbicides killing around 400,000 people, which I would say is abhorrent. Sorry if you think I am stupid. I am not as clever as the rest of the people on this forum it seems

Last edited by fibonaccispiral777 on 10 Oct 2013, 9:06 am, edited 1 time in total.

I agree with you and if I am not wrong I believe there is evidence to show that the CIA hijacked the word conspiracy in the domain of the nineteen sixties in order to demonize those who were questioning the actions of their governments to make them seem mentally ill, paranoiac and delusional, when their are many actions committed by governments that are highly immoral and are suppressed from public view. With regards to western governments being incompetent when it comes to keeping big secrets, I have to disagree with you their. Yes, of course Bill Clinton was unable to stop his blow-job antics away from the media spotlight but recently in England, where I live, there was a whole scandal surrounding a man named Jimmy Saville. I don't know if you've heard of it. You may be from America and as far as I can tell the story was not given a prominent amount of media attention there but Saville was a celebrity and a man who worked in the BBC where he did a lot of work with children and also charity. We are finding out now, thirty years later he abused hundreds of girls and raped many young girls and that many, many people who were working within the bureaucracy of the bbc knew about Jimmy Saville, however kept quiet for fear of losing their jobs. The fact that in the nineteen seventies and eighties, he was looked up to as a charitable and highly altruistic man who held much authority and position within the system of the BBC meant that many people doubted that he could be capable of such atrocities and feared that they would be ridiculed if they spoke out against him. The beurecratic mechanisms and hierarchical system that sustains the institution meant that such information was repressed for over thirty years without being brought to light. So, in certain cases because of the nature of large scale corporations that wield huge amounts of power and influence, information about corruption can be suppressed for a huge amount of time. They are very successful in doing that.

Ok, sorry for lashing out like that. You didn't deserve it from me.

That's alright mate. Just out of interest, in what way would you say our governments have acted in a hugely immoral way(England and America)?

Probably the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

And the Vietnam massacre.

Also, Tuskegee syphilis study was unethical. Can't remember if this was government or independent body though.

I concur. Financially, would you say certain corporations have acted immorally? Sorry, I don't mean this to sound like a form of interrogation. Just curious

What was the Tuskegee syphilis study? I would quite like to check that out?

It's rare to find corporations that don't do immoral things, but I'm not really deep in these matters and only research them when it's something significant enough for me to look up and research.

A longitudinal experiment conducted on both white and black Americans with syphilis in the early-mid twentieth century. The unethical part was them withholding treatment from the blacks (while granting the whites the treatment) when it was finally made available just so they could continue to observe the eventual effects of syphilis on black people.

That is utterly appalling.

Indeed. This is why there are now ethical guidelines to abide by when conducting experiments and other studies.

America can do some appalling s**t, no debate on that. The question is more about what the evidence tells us in each case.

Fib, you might want to check this link out (addresses some of the fluoridation myths):

http://columbiadailyherald.com/sections ... ation.html

If I have time, I'll post links to relevant real science journal articles as well.

Here's one for now:
http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/pu ... eh41_1.pdf

Let me know if you require more links.

Dont let then get to you, when you have been here for a while you will see the same handful of posters whose only purpose to be on Wrong Planet is to insult anybody who doesn't believe what we are told to believe by those who run the world and want to continue to run it.
You can tell by the number of posts that its like an obsessive religion to them and such as you and I are heretics.

And even if you post something indisputable, you will find they will just ignore it and continue with the only weapon they have, which is to mock people.
Dont let them succeed by harming your self esteem, you probably realise from your interactions with real people in the real world, that most folk are concerned with the amount of chemicals we are forced to ingest and the industrialisation of foodstuffs were the primary motive is profit.

I am not claiming that all CT's are similar. As I stated earlier in this thread a rational, sceptical approach to the way governments, corporations and the like behave is quite reasonable and indeed necessary. For this I give thanks to the likes of Daniel Ellsberg, Chelsea Manning, Julian Asssange, Edward Snowden and the many thousands who have put there lives on the line to expose aberrant behaviour around the world. The difference between these people and other CT's is they have actual, verifiable evidence, their evidence does not fly in the face of rational deductions or investigations that strongly suggest otherwise. Their evidence is not a conflation of untested, unverified thought bubbles garnered and expanded upon on internet forums.

If rational sceptics like me dismiss some CT's then they have only themselves to blame.

Oh and by the way I did not mean to "imply" anything she is rich.

Last edited by DentArthurDent on 10 Oct 2013, 5:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.