Dubstepforum.com

Electric_Head wrote:Just the fact that societies like the Skull and Bones exist make me believe there is more to it.

You worry about Societies and Associations? Does the student union alarm you?

I am just discussing this.
It does not mean I wear a tin foil hat and proclaim Yahweh as my savior and father of all lizards.

This is the big problem with these discussions, some of you always sink to condescension.

Genevieve wrote:

wub wrote:

Genevieve wrote:Countering wub's point, I could say that people that outright deny conspiracy theorists are scared of the idea that their noble and selfless protectors, aka the government, could turn on them on any moment and would rather keep the hdead in the ground to avoid the fear.

The idea of no conspiracy is far more terrifying than many conspiracies in my mind.

Dunno, depends on the person. I find the ideas of 'systems' that work according to 'plan' terrifying. Show me a perfectly working machine and I'd prefer knowing that once in a while, a bolt goes loose and gets stuck in the gears. I doubt I'm the only one.

That's a precedent realisation of Chaos Theory in motion though, standard. Again, not something I have issue with. Things don't go according to plan, that's to be expected.

Electric_Head wrote:Just the fact that societies like the Skull and Bones exist make me believe there is more to it.

Skull & Bones doesn't seem that much different from anytime someone puts together a 'secret club' though...only difference is that these ones are a bit more exclusive/powerful. Unless we're getting Masonic (no, not him) about things?

Electric_Head wrote:The underhanded antics of the Koch brothers, the 9/11 truths that were once touted as conspiracy, etc.

There's ample reason to be semi objective and look at some of the information as truth rather than pie in the sky nonsense.

Which information in particular should we look at as 'truth'?

Electric_Head wrote:I am just discussing this.
It does not mean I wear a tin foil hat and proclaim Yahweh as my savior and father of all lizards.

This is the big problem with these discussions, some of you always sink to condescension.

The fact that you know of such things, makes me believe you do.

wub wrote:

Genevieve wrote:

wub wrote:

Genevieve wrote:Countering wub's point, I could say that people that outright deny conspiracy theorists are scared of the idea that their noble and selfless protectors, aka the government, could turn on them on any moment and would rather keep the hdead in the ground to avoid the fear.

The idea of no conspiracy is far more terrifying than many conspiracies in my mind.

Dunno, depends on the person. I find the ideas of 'systems' that work according to 'plan' terrifying. Show me a perfectly working machine and I'd prefer knowing that once in a while, a bolt goes loose and gets stuck in the gears. I doubt I'm the only one.

That's a precedent realisation of Chaos Theory in motion though, standard. Again, not something I have issue with. Things don't go according to plan, that's to be expected.That's a precedent realisation of Chaos Theory in motion though, standard. Again, not something I have issue with. Things don't go according to plan, that's to be expected.

And people like this being out there contradicts your view that anyone who is a conspiracy theorists is desperately looking for a guy with strings where there isn't one.

Pedro Sánchez wrote:

Electric_Head wrote:I am just discussing this.
It does not mean I wear a tin foil hat and proclaim Yahweh as my savior and father of all lizards.

This is the big problem with these discussions, some of you always sink to condescension.

The fact that you know of such things, makes me believe you do.

Genevieve wrote:And people like this being out there contradicts your view that anyone who is a conspiracy theorists is desperately looking for a guy with strings where there isn't one.

What makes you think that?

This thread is going in the same direction as all the other threads of this nature...

Why? because you guys want to condescend rather than trying to discuss the topic.
I'm not saying either of us are right or wrong.
But that does not mean we can't discuss it in a civil manner.

If you go read a few books on the topic then you'll also have the info.
So then I'm going to call you a tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorist because you have said info.

Electric_Head wrote: some of you always sink to condescension.

wub wrote:

Genevieve wrote:And people like this being out there contradicts your view that anyone who is a conspiracy theorists is desperately looking for a guy with strings where there isn't one.

What makes you think that?

Because there are people that are more scared of "systems" than they are of "chaos"

Electric_Head wrote:Why? because you guys want to condescend rather than trying to discuss the topic.

C'mon now that's being condescending mate, your statements were questioned with a bit of light humour.

Electric_Head wrote:Why? because you guys want to condescend rather than trying to discuss the topic.

Haven't condescended since my Jack Reacher comment, thought we had it back on track TBH.

Genevieve wrote:

wub wrote:

Genevieve wrote:And people like this being out there contradicts your view that anyone who is a conspiracy theorists is desperately looking for a guy with strings where there isn't one.

What makes you think that?

Because there are people that are more scared of "systems" than they are of "chaos"

You're not putting it across especially well here, mate. I'm not seeing the relationship between a fear of systems as an accentuation of conspiracy theory, however debased certain views may appear to some, vs. chaos as a conclusive argument.

Pedro Sánchez wrote:

Electric_Head wrote:Why? because you guys want to condescend rather than trying to discuss the topic.

C'mon now that's being condescending mate, your statements were questioned with a bit of light humour.

Ok, so on what basis do you discredit things?
Is it all based on a lack of understanding or are you making the effort to understand both sides and form a logical argument?

wub wrote:

Electric_Head wrote:Why? because you guys want to condescend rather than trying to discuss the topic.

Haven't condescended since my Jack Reacher comment, thought we had it back on track TBH.

It was a general blanket statement not intended to single out anyone.

wub wrote:

Electric_Head wrote:Why? because you guys want to condescend rather than trying to discuss the topic.

Haven't condescended since my Jack Reacher comment, thought we had it back on track TBH.

Genevieve wrote:

wub wrote:

Genevieve wrote:And people like this being out there contradicts your view that anyone who is a conspiracy theorists is desperately looking for a guy with strings where there isn't one.

What makes you think that?

Because there are people that are more scared of "systems" than they are of "chaos"

You're not putting it across especially well here, mate. I'm not seeing the relationship between a fear of systems as an accentuation of conspiracy theory, however debased certain views may appear to some, vs. chaos as a conclusive argument.

You made the sweeping generalisation that, because you find the idea that 'nothing is going on' much scarrier, that everyone does, and that people who are attracted to any conspiracy theory do so because they share that fear. I've pointed out that not everyone shares that fear. I think you're overcomplicating to avoid the point that is that.. this fear isn't universal and because your argument is based on its 'universal quality', you're brushing it off.

Would it help if I added IMO after everything I write, to help you differentiate from a sweep and an opinion?


Fear isn't universal, of course not...no-one is saying that it is. To try and adjundicate between differing levels of fear would be ludicrous.

wub wrote:Would it help if I added IMO after everything I write, to help you differentiate from a sweep and an opinion?


Fear isn't universal, of course not...no-one is saying that it is. To try and adjundicate between differing levels of fear would be ludicrous.

You're trying to turn the debate around where it's less about the points either of us are making and more about how I'm supposedly just "whining because you don't explicitly state that it's just your opinion", but I'm fully aware that it's just an opinion. My issue WITH that opinion is that it's BASED on an assumption AND a sweeping generalization and in no way supported by evidence.

Genevieve wrote:

wub wrote:Would it help if I added IMO after everything I write, to help you differentiate from a sweep and an opinion?


Fear isn't universal, of course not...no-one is saying that it is. To try and adjundicate between differing levels of fear would be ludicrous.

You're trying to turn the debate around where it's less about the points either of us are making and more about how I'm supposedly just "whining because you don't explicitly state that it's just your opinion", but I'm fully aware that it's just an opinion. My issue WITH that opinion is that it's BASED on an assumption AND a sweeping generalization and in no way supported by evidence.

Not at all, my apologies if that's how you've chosen to interpret things...not my intention


To confirm your last point...you're asking me to provide evidence that there is no conspiracy?

7 11 was blatently george bush cus he wanted oil innit