Conspiracy theorists... are they all just a bit thick?
Discussion
V6 Pushfit said:
eldar said:
Hoofy said:
Covid put a stop to chem trails for a while. Presumably one half of the illuminati buggering up the other half by accident.
Wibble.
Any explanation for why they've had to start it again?CarCrazyDad said:
Blown2CV said:
how could you possibly get triggered by that? Firstly, it's an opinion. Secondly it didn't mention you specifically. Thirdly maybe it just implies some CarCrazyDad centric world where you assume people are out to get you... best hide!
Its ok, when you realise you were maybe wrong when certain things happen.Eg Great reset
DanL said:
Blown2CV said:
IQ was discredited as an intelligence measure decades ago. Unfortunately I did a degree in psychology before I realised that was pointless (apart from pub and forum superfluous chat) and went back and did something different.
That’s interesting - what replaced IQ as a measure? I assume something…CarCrazyDad said:
andy_s said:
Haha - I remember that 'pyramid of conspiracy' before 'covid came from a lab' was edited out...
2CV is obviously a very smart person and knows that Covid didn't come from a lab.I swear it's just discrediting these things on purpose.
t logic there. The burden of proof is on the claimant. I am not sitting here saying the opposite of your views are correct. I am sitting here saying the conclusions you have arrived at are wk, and the result of wk logic and wk critical evaluation skills. I am not saying you're thick, but if you were clever you'd at least consider taking some of this on board. Just because I disagree with you does not make me inherently a supported of the opposite. Is any of this thread going in, or...? Blown2CV said:
IQ implies that intelligence is linear and only really academic-orientated, which it isn't. It's generally accepted now that you can be intelligent in many ways which a written test doesn't tap into, and in fact those exact tests excludes some people from getting anywhere near good results.
They only tell that to the thickies. 
Blown2CV said:
IQ implies that intelligence is linear and only really academic-orientated, which it isn't. It's generally accepted now that you can be intelligent in many ways which a written test doesn't tap into, and in fact those exact tests excludes some people from getting anywhere near good results. The point is that having a test for it means you only are able to test for intelligence which is of the type that you can sit a written test for. If someone can't write very well but is a gifted basketballer, does that mean they are thick or clever? How does being good at basketball sit as compared to being good at public speaking, or general knowledge? No one can say which one is better than the other. So, intelligence is multi-dimensional and you can't really design a single unequivocal and objective comparative test for it.
Is that (playing basketball) intelligence, or talent? I get the point, but… If you want a problem solving, a high IQ is likely useful? Not to devalue the athletes, craftsmen, etc. but there is clearly a measurable threshold below which (for example) a person can’t, realistically, form a cogent argument…
DanL said:
Blown2CV said:
IQ implies that intelligence is linear and only really academic-orientated, which it isn't. It's generally accepted now that you can be intelligent in many ways which a written test doesn't tap into, and in fact those exact tests excludes some people from getting anywhere near good results. The point is that having a test for it means you only are able to test for intelligence which is of the type that you can sit a written test for. If someone can't write very well but is a gifted basketballer, does that mean they are thick or clever? How does being good at basketball sit as compared to being good at public speaking, or general knowledge? No one can say which one is better than the other. So, intelligence is multi-dimensional and you can't really design a single unequivocal and objective comparative test for it.
Is that (playing basketball) intelligence, or talent? I get the point, but… If you want a problem solving, a high IQ is likely useful? Not to devalue the athletes, craftsmen, etc. but there is clearly a measurable threshold below which (for example) a person can’t, realistically, form a cogent argument…
scorcher said:
CarCrazyDad said:
You want to know what really is a conspiracy?
Pigeons - you've never seen a baby one.
Pigeons - you've never seen a baby one.
Outside the conservatory door one morning. Luckily I noticed it before I let the dog out otherwise it would have been an ex baby pigeon.
And no, it's not a baby Dodo, they're extinct so you won't have seen one of those!
Blown2CV said:
CarCrazyDad said:
andy_s said:
Haha - I remember that 'pyramid of conspiracy' before 'covid came from a lab' was edited out...
2CV is obviously a very smart person and knows that Covid didn't come from a lab.I swear it's just discrediting these things on purpose.
t logic there. The burden of proof is on the claimant. I am not sitting here saying the opposite of your views are correct. I am sitting here saying the conclusions you have arrived at are wk, and the result of wk logic and wk critical evaluation skills. I am not saying you're thick, but if you were clever you'd at least consider taking some of this on board. Just because I disagree with you does not make me inherently a supported of the opposite. Is any of this thread going in, or...? You believe it's not, I guess from a bat? Where's YOUR burdon of proof?
The problem is it's easy to put that into a triangle and call everyone who believes in any of those things conspiracy theorists, of course, you only believe what's on the BBC I guess?
Anything outside of that is NONSENSE and WIBBLE and all those other phrases
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10313053/...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9957329/U...
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/10/nih-admits...
USA - We most certainly weren't funding any viral research in China! At all ! Nuh-uh!!!
<links come out showing funding to the Wuhan Institute directly from Lord and Saviour Fauci & NIH>
USA - Um.......ok yes we were, but it wasn't Covid! Pinky promise !!!
But of course since it's been removed (?) from the all knowing triangle of conspiracy, it's no longer a conspiracy I guess!
Another example -
The fact that the "all knowing Triangle of excellence" lists "Anti maskers" as a "conspiracy theory"
yet there is no actual scientific evidence by means of RCTs or real-world evidence by means of comparing infection rates with / without masks which show there is any measurable benefit (please see the mask thread and https://twitter.com/ianmSC among numerous other freely available sources)
There are however numerous RCT which show no measurable benefit from masks, and lots of real-world datasets (see above) which show that masks actually don't do very much at all (compare Scotland or Wales with England, despite England having a generally higher population density - England without masks has done better than Wales and Scotland with masks, look at Germany with their mandated FFP2 masks and all the good it did !)
But rather than actually have an honest discussion about it - we label anyone who goes against any "mainstream narrative" as a conspiracy theorist, we shut down scientists who we disagree with, we give airtime to only those who are on board with the messaging (ironically many of whom aren't even scientists , or you have someone who has a PhD in food science claiming to have knowledge on how virology works !
This is very interesting from a psychological view point because most people are sheep , and I mean that with no offence, people will often follow the lead from other people without actually questioning why - a practical example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8BkzvP19v4
You will have a hardcore 10% who are very PRO mask (for example) and 10% who are very ANTI
Then you have 80% in the middle who don't really care and will generally go along with what the majority do
Because you give virtually 100% of all media airtime and publishing to the 10% PRO mask lot the other 80% will fall in line simply to avoid any sort of difficult conversation and to "go with the flow"
Now the 10% is "actually" 90% and now that they have power of numbers they will berate the other 10% and of course it's a case of thy who shouts the loudest is correct in this day and age
I'm a science led person - I believe in Gravity for example, because it can be proven and measured repeatedly
I believe in the benefits of healthy eating, because this can be proven and measured repeatedly in double-blind peer reviewed studies and RCTs
I believe we landed on the moon, I don't believe that 5G is designed to kill you, when I'm ill I reach for some Asprin not some Ylang Ylang and Patchouli oil - but I do believe there is a marked shift in "left wing" extremists (you only need to spend 10 minutes on Twitter) and what can be construed as a move towards a more Marxist society if left unchecked, and I do believe that there are a few very wealthy and powerful people who are not elected who have more world-power than any of our elected officials - this can have very dangerous impacts
I believe there is a plan to reset the worlds economy in the name of the "green agenda" , the Great Reset is not a conspiracy theory - it is a well published document as well as plenty of links on our own Government website, co-ordinated use of phrases like "build back better" and "Fourth industrial revolution" - you cannot ignore a duck if it waddles and quacks.
To call someone a "conspiracy theorist" is a wide reaching comment which is generally given as an insult, a dig towards ones mental capacity - of course, this is typical of human beings and a general lack of empathy and inability to understand other views and articulate their views without resorting to cheap insults
I also do not trust "the science" when it comes to Covid-19 especially when the science is not actually clear - I believe the vaccines helped , how much is up for debate, I think a combination of a weaker strain (Omicron) and the vaccines were important, I don't think the vaccines on their own were a magic bullet - I am double vaccinated , But I refused the booster (I draw a line at something so ineffective I need to take a top up every 3 months)
I am 61 years of age, so a more "at risk" age but I've not been overtly ill or noticed any other problems - I'll take my chances I guess
Anyway back to masks - generally if there is a benefit in terms of someone's health and a medical intervention, this is obvious and repeatable , however efficacy of masks for example is not clear and despite several RCTs and hundreds of countries and millions of people worth of testing and introducing mask mandates and removing them etc there is not a clear link between introduction or removal of masks and an increase or decrease in infection rates
There are no RCTs which show any statistically significant benefit of masks, even the Bangladeshi one (which Pro-Maskers love to wheel out clearly having not read it) once you get past the incorrect headline , shows no statistical benefit of masks at all ! I can't remember the exact numbers but it was something like 20 less infections over 2500 people (within the error range so no benefit statistically) not to mention the masked group being given additional interventions like additional handwashing and "social distancing"
As for my faith in science overall, when we have Vallance and Whitty who are wheeled out as some sort of national heroes, the smartest scientific brains in the country , come onto live television in front of our nation to tell us that they "reasonably expect 4000 people PER DAY to die of Covid-19 despite the roll outs of Vaccine and natural immunity combined with a less deadly virus evolution, with some horrifically infantile graph which looks like my Son made it on Excel in Primary School - was not even nearly correct in reality - you cannot tell me that everything is above board - obviously nefarious tactics were at play
Sometimes it's more comfortable to deny you've been fooled
For me I will live out the next 20 years or so of my life comfortable with my mortgage paid not giving a crap either way until I die, whether the truth comes out between now and then is anyone's guess - I just hope my Son and my future grand children can enjoy the relatively prosperous life we've had - in my cyniscysm I would not want to be a <30 year old now as life just seems a lot less joyless and of course an up coming financial crisis coming, I guess that's another conspiracy that the UK alone can print an additional £400bn of currency and not have any far reaching problems
Edited by CarCrazyDad on Saturday 14th May 01:30
as if i'm going to read all of that ste. It's been said a million times. If you're making claims, then you need to substantiate it in a way that is believable, trustworthy, considered, logical... otherwise no one - not just me - is going to take you seriously, other than other loons who get a kick out of it. I refuse to argue with you about it so i am stopping there. You're not winning.
te. It's been said a million times. If you're making claims, then you need to substantiate it in a way that is believable, trustworthy, considered, logical... otherwise no one - not just me - is going to take you seriously, other than other loons who get a kick out of it. I refuse to argue with you about it so i am stopping there. You're not winning.It's good example of a conspiracy theory that wasn't that is.
The possibility of it being connected to the lab was always there yet covered up/smeared, no question. I'll leave out the intricacies that would indicate to any reasonable person without priors that the preponderance of circumstance lies in that explanation.
BUT now at least it's back on the table as a possibility, officially; the truth is we don't know yet where it came from definitively and wasted a year listening to scientists and journalists that were only interested in politics and personal reputations despite 6.4M dead.
What I do know is that conducting GoF research in BSL2/3 labs is completely crazy either way.
The possibility of it being connected to the lab was always there yet covered up/smeared, no question. I'll leave out the intricacies that would indicate to any reasonable person without priors that the preponderance of circumstance lies in that explanation.
BUT now at least it's back on the table as a possibility, officially; the truth is we don't know yet where it came from definitively and wasted a year listening to scientists and journalists that were only interested in politics and personal reputations despite 6.4M dead.
What I do know is that conducting GoF research in BSL2/3 labs is completely crazy either way.
Blown2CV said:
as if i'm going to read all of that ste. It's been said a million times. If you're making claims, then you need to substantiate it in a way that is believable, trustworthy, considered, logical... otherwise no one - not just me - is going to take you seriously, other than other loons who get a kick out of it. I refuse to argue with you about it so i am stopping there. You're not winning.
That's one of their main tactics. Post so much bte. It's been said a million times. If you're making claims, then you need to substantiate it in a way that is believable, trustworthy, considered, logical... otherwise no one - not just me - is going to take you seriously, other than other loons who get a kick out of it. I refuse to argue with you about it so i am stopping there. You're not winning.ks that they hope that no one reads it. That way they can go back and say "read the post" when their blatantly false claim is called out. captain_cynic said:
Blown2CV said:
as if i'm going to read all of that ste. It's been said a million times. If you're making claims, then you need to substantiate it in a way that is believable, trustworthy, considered, logical... otherwise no one - not just me - is going to take you seriously, other than other loons who get a kick out of it. I refuse to argue with you about it so i am stopping there. You're not winning.
That's one of their main tactics. Post so much bte. It's been said a million times. If you're making claims, then you need to substantiate it in a way that is believable, trustworthy, considered, logical... otherwise no one - not just me - is going to take you seriously, other than other loons who get a kick out of it. I refuse to argue with you about it so i am stopping there. You're not winning.ks that they hope that no one reads it. That way they can go back and say "read the post" when their blatantly false claim is called out. Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff