A sickness on this board.

[La La Lou Lou]

Freethinker.

What were Romans doing in Egypt at the time of Moses?

I agree with much of what you say, but not Roman soldiers chasing the enslaved but escaping Israelites. A few years difference there.

I'm sure if you were to take all the wars over the last say two hundred years, look at what the populations were told at the time and look at the dox that have come to light we'd find very few wars were fought over what the people were actually told.

What was the real reason for World War 1 and 2, what was Korea all about, Why did Russia invade Afghanistan?

There are conspiracies there are companies that want to expand or get hold of raw materials, like the Congo, where a key ingredient for mobile phones is found. People in governments own shares. Rumsfeldt was a weapons dealer, as is at least one British Prince.

American owned soft drinks companies do buy up wells in India, lowering the water table, but increasing their profits. They conspire to do this. They bribe petty and big officials for the rights, and they don't care if the poor die of thirst. People are kept in poverty across the globe by the action of conspiracies.

Millions have died in the twentieth century because of people conspiring to support weird agendas. Pol Pot, Mau, Stalin, Hitler, Spanish Civil War etc etc.

The trouble is that some conspiracy theorists believe only in Lizard people and other weird and totally undocumentable stuff. Show them documented proof and they run.

 

[Dulloldfart]

The trouble is that some conspiracy theorists believe only in Lizard people and other weird and totally undocumentable stuff. Show them documented proof and they run.

David Icke does Lizards but he does the regular conspiracy stuff too.

As for people running from documented stuff, look at the reactions on ESMB to the various articles and videos on Obama's recent "birth certificate" showing the various layers, mismatched characters, different resolutions, full-colour and grey-scale, impossible serial number, on and on and on. It doesn't get more documented than that, but look at all the hissy fits decrying the conspiracy theory nuts over it.

Paul

 

[RogerB]

... and Roger B said ..

"Well, Petey C, having been around this world more than a few times myself, I have to agree with your observation and comments.

And your comments particularly apply to those American University Grads who think what they get as the goods of education the best by doing it here.

It is a comparative joke to see what passes for college graduation here.

Let me cite a fact to make the point.

The 2003 US Department of Education, Adult Literacy Survey found that only, repeat that word, only, 31% of College Graduates could pass its standards of literacy competence.

In essence, the standard is that the person can read the London or New York Times newspapers and understand them due to their frequent use of punctuation and sentences containing numbers of concepts and such.

A lower level of literacy competence wherein the person could grasp a simple one clause declarative statement (no commas etc.,) was achieved by another 30+% . . . and the degrees of decline in literacy went on down all the way to functional illiteracy . . . . . and this among graduates!

To get a sense of how it can be, one benefits from going and experiencing other cultures and countries who are literacy accomplished.

To be honest, the most academically or scholastically arrogant I've met anywhere are here in America. Examples abound: Stephen Gould shouting down Rupert Sheldrake on the PBS TV program "A Glorious Accident" or Robert Gallo shouting down other scientists (and stealing the discovery of HIV from Luc Montagnier) (this shit I was privy to when I was connected to the AIDS scene as board member of one of its organizations in the late 1980's).

And by shouting down, I mean arrogantly shouting down, not discussing or expressing alternative points of view of input . . . but stunningly, rudely loudly, ridullingly shouting others down! Quite astounding.

R"

There is a book by Susan Jacoby called The Age of American Unreason (go to susanjacoby.com for reviews) that was published in 2008 when I was living in the US, that goes some way to explaining the education deficits of many Americans. It's worth a read, but it ain't a fun book. Some of what is in the book has some relevance to other Anglophone countries too.

Roger, Regarding your stats about college graduates, I think that those poor literacy (and numeracy) indicators unfortunately apply across the board in Australia too. And we too have our Rush Limbaugh equivalents. So it ain't just the USA, it's just highly visible there.

Roger, I worked for a few years in the early 90s on a project to get an injecting room established in Sydney. This was a public health issue based on a large and incontrovertible evidence base gathered primarily in Manchester that safe injecting rooms and prescribing clinical grade heroin to registered users had massive effects on lowering rates of crime, therefore insurance premiums, on the social impacts of heroin (ie fewer addicts begging or nodding out on the streets) and on the health of the addicts themselves. The outcry was enormous, and the behaviour you describe regarding your AIDS work is similar to what we witnessed here. Very few people want to see evidence-based action overturn a long- and strongly held view based on emotion or religious beliefs.

You can only shake your head.

P

Petey,

Yes, mate . . .

I'm out of date on Oz, of course. When I last lived there, 1965, it was quite literate and the educational system still functioned and people had a sense of worth and regard for themselves and each other.

I noticed big differences when there last month.

Being as ancient as I am, I've seen huge changes in various societies I've lived in.

It is indeed one of the "funny" things about human civilizations that's observable throughout history, societies decline while others rise.

Indeed, one of the things I've observed as regards past-life records (self and others), is how a certain coterie of individuals seems to have moved from civilization to civilization as these changes have happened. They tended to move in and raise the place, and as the place gets ground down by those who typically drag things down, they move on to raise the game of civilization elsewhere . . . and so it goes with civilization on planet Earth overall being forwarded.

Rog

 

[SchwimmelPuckel]

David Icke does Lizards but he does the regular conspiracy stuff too.

As for people running from documented stuff, look at the reactions on ESMB to the various articles and videos on Obama's recent "birth certificate" showing the various layers, mismatched characters, different resolutions, full-colour and grey-scale, impossible serial number, on and on and on. It doesn't get more documented than that, but look at all the hissy fits decrying the conspiracy theory nuts over it.

Paul

Exept that no 'layers' was in that file whem i tried to load it... Oh.. The conspirators had hastened to correct their mistakes.. Ah.. But somebody claimed to have saved the original file with the layers intact.. Erh.. But that link didn't work anymore, cuz' the cursed conspirators had gotten it handled.

And besides, the original exposure talked about Photoshop layers and OCR in ways that were quite obviously written by someone who didn't know shit about what he was talking about.. Sorry...

Anyways.. If that birth certificate is documented and thus proven to be 'false'.. Why, then Hubbard was probably right about all his bevildered shit too?

Exept I saw a picture of that dude.. He looked like an asshole.. Thus must be an asshole, and assholes lie! Stinking lies too!

Case closed.. Hubbard was a lying stinking asshole!

 

[Royal Prince Xenu]

Most conditioning of thought is done by social groups unconnected with scientology. It usually starts with one's family and expands from there.

Very true, and most parents don't even realize that they're doing it. Even simple social greasing, such as "Please" and "Thank you" is conditioned behavior.

 

[Lurker5]

You obviously don't understand the forum rules as you piss all over them. In that earlier thread you constantly dish out personal insults, ad hom's,and belittle all who disagree with you. This thread here is really just a continuation of that.

Agree

 

[Royal Prince Xenu]

Exept that no 'layers' was in that file whem i tried to load it... Oh.. The conspirators had hastened to correct their mistakes.. Ah.. But somebody claimed to have saved the original file with the layers intact.. Erh.. But that link didn't work anymore, cuz' the cursed conspirators had gotten it handled.

And besides, the original exposure talked about Photoshop layers and OCR in ways that were quite obviously written by someone who didn't know shit about what he was talking about.. Sorry...

Anyways.. If that birth certificate is documented and thus proven to be 'false'.. Why, then Hubbard was probably right about all his bevildered shit too?

Exept I saw a picture of that dude.. He looked like an asshole.. Thus must be an asshole, and assholes lie! Stinking lies too!

Case closed.. Hubbard was a lying stinking asshole!

Schwimmy here is the "layered" file and my simplistic analysis of it.

RPX

 

[Mick Wenlock]

I find it fascinating that you take the viewpoint that those who believe in any of those things or many are sick, mad , deluded and don't have their sensible faculties about them.

This also implies that you think that your thinking is totally correct and sane for not believing any of it.

Assigning your own take on what is implied is a logical fallacy known as a strawman. TAJ didn't claim to be the sane one. He merely pointed out that there are a plethora of conspiracy theory believers on these boards and he is correct in that assertion.

His premise is that people who believe in such things as 9/11 "truth", or Chemtrails or Lizard Overlords are deranged - and by most standards they are. They cluster around the strangest things usually about subjects they know nothing about at all and, when they have one prop knocked out they construct another one. It is psychotic behavior.

If you don't like conspiricy theories then don't read what's posted on them.

Personally I try to stay away from them because they bore me - but there again you seem to forget the premise of the area you are posting in - it is a public discussion forum. Was there something about that you missed? So if a poster here sees stuff posted that he or she wishes to dispute, argue against etc - then thats why this forum exists.

If you think the government has got your back 24/7, has your best interest at heart and wouldn't dream of feeding you false information then maybe you ought to take a good look at that.

If you think posting an endless stream of strawman/ad homs is serious argumentation you may want to get an education.

I've never tried to force feed my beliefs down anyones throat. If I post something that is highly controversial, you or anyone else doesn't have to read it, but I feel I have the right to post it.

Yes, indeed you do have the "right". What you do not have is the right to post unchallenged. If you post in a public forum then you are inviting people to opine on what you post. If you do not wish that to happen - do not post here - start your own blog and disable comments.

Before you go calling people sick and demented for believing things that you don't because it's just too far fetched for you, maybe you should consider this if you havn't already.

There are billions of people that believe that it rained for forty days and forty nights and the entire earth was covered with water. One man and his family survived because god told him to build a boat of certain dimensions and then gather two of every living creature, and I imagine enough food for all for many months till the water receded.

They have no proof but in general are not considered crazy.

Well that is a correct statement, though those believers who also believe that if they kill themselves they will get 72 virgins etc generally ARE considered defective.

As an atheist of course I consider most religious belief akin to thinking that fairy tales are history. But thats my opinion.

However when the belief in fairy tales becomes a desire and a need to enforce that belief on me - well then it's a different kettle of fish altogether.

Or that a man parted the Red Sea by raising his staff and then collapsed it on the Romans. They also made epic movies about these same events, yet there is no proof that they happened.

Egyptians, not Romans. They made epic movies about Star Wars and Lord of The Rings too. Not sure what the reference to movies is supposed to do for your argument. The appeal to numbers is another logical fallacy.

Or that Adam and Eve managed to populate the planet by having two sons and no daughters.

To assume that you are sane and of sound mind because you don't believe connspiracies is quite bold and unfounded.

That people believe in insane things is indicative of a level of insanity and the more of them a person believes the greater the mental illness.

Saying that does not make me SANE.

And whether I am sane or not does not make the statement I made any less truthful.

 

[SchwimmelPuckel]

Schwimmy here is the "layered" file and my simplistic analysis of it.

RPX

Arrgh - Gordon! - I've given up on that PDF file. Too much confounded confusion about it..

Still.. I tried importing into Photo Shop again just for the heck of it. Only the one layer that is generated in the import is there..

Ok the green pattern that doesnt bend round in the shade to the left. That pattern is obviously added later. It also fills the whole page, when the birth certificate is much smaller.. This is done by having the certificate in a layer above the pattern, and the certificate would have to be selected with 'preserve transparency' before inserted.. Can't know why 'they' did that.. Possibly to make a nice looking PDF?

 

[JohnnyRUClear]

And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:

Bitches ITT need to lrn2Genesis. :wink2:

Interesting thread anyway; FTR I am a "conspiracy theorist" as opposed to a "coincidence theorist", precisely because I do look at those "1,000 facts" and see that incompetence alone does not account for them in some cases. In those cases, it's the coincidence theorist whose head is buried in the sand. However, the desire for certainty described in the OP may be a legitimate issue apart from the truth or falsehood of any particular conspiracy theory.

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

Bitches ITT need to lrn2Genesis. :wink2:

Interesting thread anyway; FTR I am a "conspiracy theorist" as opposed to a "coincidence theorist", precisely because I do look at those "1,000 facts" and see that incompetence alone does not account for them in some cases. In those cases, it's the coincidence theorist whose head is buried in the sand. However, the desire for certainty described in the OP may be a legitimate issue apart from the truth or falsehood of any particular conspiracy theory.

It is a mistake to think that there is such a thing among professional historians as "coincidence theory." I have only ever heard that term used by conspiracy theorist to somehow discredit those who disagree with them.

What is more amazing is how many conspriracy theorists say that if you don't agree with their particular "truth," then you must not believe that there are any conspiracies.

Of course there are conspiracies--but seeing evidence of a conspiracy just means that there is evidence of a conspiracy. It doesn't mean that everything is a conspiracy or that there is a conspriracy at it.

It is all interpretations. I don't object to different interpretations.

My original post is about those who claim they know the truth.

There is no way they can know the truth.

A sane person will reserve judgment rather than insist that what they think must be the truth.

It is a matter of mature thinking.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[JohnnyRUClear]

It is a mistake to think that there is such a thing among professional historians as "coincidence theory." I have only ever heard that term used by conspiracy theorist to somehow discredit those who disagree with them.

Fair enough, but the opposite applies as well. By labeling only one side, the impression is created that that side are weirdos while those on the other side are normal. That you don't often hear the term "coincidence theorist" does not mean that the term has no value or legitimacy, only that that is the dominant view in your experience.

What is more amazing is how many conspriracy theorists say that if you don't agree with their particular "truth," then you must not believe that there are any conspiracies.

Fair enough as well, and this goes along with your original underlying point about mindsets.

Of course there are conspiracies--but seeing evidence of a conspiracy just means that there is evidence of a conspiracy. It doesn't mean that everything is a conspiracy or that there is a conspriracy at it.

Well, that's true, but when the evidence does point that way, then it's not the conspiracy theorist who is being insane, is it?

My original post is about those who claim they know the truth.

There is no way they can know the truth.

A sane person will reserve judgment rather than insist that what they think must be the truth.

It is a matter of mature thinking.

Well... judgment exists because we do need to exercise it at some point. I would say that the real hallmark of mature thinking is the reservation of the right and option to revisit judgments upon receipt of new (to you) information. Avoiding judgment forever is just as wrongheaded as leaping to it irrationally.

The sentence "There is no way they can know the truth." seems like a self-evident absurdity; perhaps you could clarify. If they can't, then how can you? The only thing knowable is that whatever is known is uncertain? Are you sure?

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Fair enough, but the opposite applies as well. By labeling only one side, the impression is created that that side are weirdos while those on the other side are normal. ...

Well, how's this then ...

1. Reason is the product of a rational mind.

2. No group possesses a rational mind.

3. Thus all groups must perforce be irrational.

4. It is empirically observable that few individual's have rational minds.

5. Therefore, it follows that reason is more to be noted in its scarcity than in its presence, at least by those few who are capable of recognizing it's presence.

Note prior reference to "Dr. Sheldon Cooper" in post #78 on this thread.

Glad that is settled.


Mark A. Baker :angel:

 

[uniquemand]

Bad phrasing. No group possesses a rational mind is conditionally false. If there is a member of that group who possesses a rational mind, the statement is false.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Bad phrasing. No group possesses a rational mind is conditionally false. If there is a member of that group who possesses a rational mind, the statement is false.

No, U. The the rational mind is in the possession of the individual, not the group.

The presence of the individual as a member of the group does not make the group rational. Were that so, then groups would be as rational in their decision making processes as their most rational group member. That is observably not the case. The contrary proposition is far more likely to be observed, the fact of membership in a group is apt to make an individual less rational in his choices.


Mark A. Baker

 

[uniquemand]

No, U. The the rational mind is in the possession of the individual, not the group.

The presence of the individual as a member of the group does not make the group rational. Were that so, then groups would be as rational in their decision making processes as their most rational group member. That is observably not the case. The contrary proposition is far more likely to be observed, the fact of membership in a group is apt to make an individual less rational in his choices.


Mark A. Baker

It certainly can make the group more rational. Particularly if all of the members of the group are rational. It's true that the weakest link makes the chain vulnerable, but a group with one rational member is more likely to be rational than a group with none. Do the math.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

It certainly can make the group more rational. Particularly if all of the members of the group are rational. It's true that the weakest link makes the chain vulnerable, but a group with one rational member is more likely to be rational than a group with none. Do the math.

Not really. Groups work together based on their ability to intercommunicate. The lowest common denominator tends to be the limiting factor. Rational individuals are more likely to become frustrated by group irrationality and depart, or accordingly seek to manipulate the group to achieve their own ends. Either results in diminishing the potential for rational behavior within the group.

Not all forms of 'addition' result in monotonically increasing sums.

FWIW, even in the decayed state in which I find myself today, I'm much better at 'doing the math' than you. Although, I can no longer make such a claim with regard to your son.


Mark A. Baker

 

[JohnnyRUClear]

Groups work together based on their ability to intercommunicate. The lowest common denominator tends to be the limiting factor. Rational individuals are more likely to become frustrated by group irrationality and depart, or accordingly seek to manipulate the group to achieve their own ends. Either results in diminishing the potential for rational behavior within the group.

This seems to match my experiences.

 

[guanoloco]

TAJ,

Here's what I wrote in another thread (emphasis mine):

I noticed early on how people will play with their own perceptions and beliefs to maintain some charade of belief. She was doing so in this case. She couldn't just LOOK at what was in front of her, because it upset her BELIEFS. THAT is common for Scientologists. Thinking (acceptance of beliefs) prevents and disables looking (honest observations). It sure does in Scientology where the accepted ideas (Scientology dogma) greatly diminish and disable honest perception of a great many things.

Aaaaah, yes! I have come to call this "expedience over truth". That being said it has to be germane to everyone, sciono or non, because it's rampant everywhere and here on ESMB as well.

I try to discern this in my own thoughts/beliefs and cut it out like the cancer it is. Hopefully I'm successful more times than not.

I'd like to repeat that here...mainly, "expediency over truth" or something to that affect. Whether it is "pet theories" or "conspiracy theories" it seems to me that it is of a similar fashion.

In that regards I think it may actually be larger than just Sciono and part and parcel to the populace abroad...certainly when compared to pet theories this seems to be the case.

In this regard I would agree with many things here excepting what is in red:

There is a sickness on this board. It is a mental weakness that affects some of the posters here.

...

The major symptom of this mental weakness is when a person believes that they know the answers to what is really going on in the world and that they are one of the few that really see it and understand it.

They know it all. They are experts on any subject they think about.

...

They know all these things and they know things that the rest of us poor mere human sheep don’t know.

Many times I’ve battled with these people on threads, mostly for fun.

At first, I thought it was just poor and silly reasoning on their parts.

But it isn’t fun anymore, because it seems apparent now that it is a mental weakness that is afflicting these people.

Skepticism is healthy. But these people are not just skeptical.

They are obsessed and fanatical that the world exists as they see it in their minds.

The kindest thing I can is that their paranoid obsession is a remnant of their time in Scientology.

That is not the general idea at the start of this thread.

It was never a matter of who's information or data or viewpoint on particular matters is correct.

It is about the obsessive and fanatical belief in the rightness and superiority of what one believes.

And that fanaticism is a result of their person paradigm that they know better; that only they can correctly interpret facts.

They ignone a 1,000 facts and focus on opinions and interpretations about a few isolated facts.

It is not about getting at the truth. It is about proving they are superior to the average person. Only they know and see the truth.

It comes down to what a person thinks what his place is in the world.

They are self-appointed Ubermensch.

It keeps them from looking at the real state of their own their lives; that they are not only not smarter than everyone else, but sadly, inferior to most.

And the proof is they were cultists. They are only moderately literate. They are not smart. They were easily fooled.

Not a pleasant thing to see when one looks in the mirror.

The Anabaptist Jacques

Maybe some people haven't done this:

No. No goldenrods.

This is just my opinion based on my observations.

And based on the fact of what I had to face about myself.

I was once just like them.

When I finally admitted to myself that I did not have all the answers, I realized that I had no answers.

I didn't even have an idea of what were the right questions.

I realized that I was a zero.

I had to start from scratch. Not to find the answers, but to find the right questions.

I'm still looking.

The Anabaptist Jacques

I think it may have little to do with Scientology and a lot to do with living the "unexamined life", if you will.

 

[uniquemand]

Not really. Groups work together based on their ability to intercommunicate. The lowest common denominator tends to be the limiting factor. Rational individuals are more likely to become frustrated by group irrationality and depart, or accordingly seek to manipulate the group to achieve their own ends. Either results in diminishing the potential for rational behavior within the group.

Not all forms of 'addition' result in monotonically increasing sums.

FWIW, even in the decayed state in which I find myself today, I'm much better at 'doing the math' than you. Although, I can no longer make such a claim with regard to your son.


Mark A. Baker

Apparently not. You certainly make that claim, though. It's true that communication plays an important role.

That's why confidentiality and compartmentalization make organizations and people crazy.