Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

Conspiracy theories

Status
Not open for further replies.
deipnosophist said:
...more empirical and scientific , yes...but trustworthy?...debatable.

Sugar, and tobacco industries long funded 'research' demonstrating their product to be safe...even good for you. Big pharma and chemical Industries?...don't get me started.

The reality is that scientists and researchers are just like anyone else. They have emotions and biases and are not above ethical 'compromise'. They’re interested in getting ahead in their careers and in their financial 'accumulation'. And more than sometimes, some of them are willing to do and say things that are morally wrong because they believe in their own agenda and their ambitions around that.
Click to expand...
Was it the 70's and 80's, Sugar companies spent millions and millions getting scientists to tell us how bad fat was for everyone, so that they could pack everything with sugar instead...

And i love the smoking adverts from the 20's-50's telling us how good smoking was for us!! lol
 
deipnosophist said:
...more empirical and scientific , yes...but trustworthy?...debatable.

Sugar, and tobacco industries long funded 'research' demonstrating their product to be safe...even good for you. Big pharma and chemical Industries?...don't get me started.

The reality is that scientists and researchers are just like anyone else. They have emotions and biases and are not above ethical 'compromise'. They’re interested in getting ahead in their careers and in their financial 'accumulation'. And more than sometimes, some of them are willing to do and say things that are morally wrong because they believe in their own agenda and their ambitions around that.
Click to expand...

For out of Zion shall go forth instruction, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. He shall judge between the nations, and shall arbitrate for many peoples; they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. –

— Isaiah 2:3–4
Ironic that.

If science and scientists were dedicated to applying their findings for the good of man...but where's the profit in that?
 
deipnosophist said:
...more empirical and scientific , yes...but trustworthy?...debatable.

Sugar, and tobacco industries long funded 'research' demonstrating their product to be safe...even good for you. Big pharma and chemical Industries?...don't get me started.

The reality is that scientists and researchers are just like anyone else. They have emotions and biases and are not above ethical 'compromise'. They’re interested in getting ahead in their careers and in their financial 'accumulation'. And more than sometimes, some of them are willing to do and say things that are morally wrong because they believe in their own agenda and their ambitions around that.
Click to expand...
You really seem to believe that Bob who has watched a few youtube videos is every bit as trustworthy to give scientific opinion as the entire scientific community.

I really don't know what to say to that
 
Saw this.. Staggering if true. :eek:

What the BBC won’t tell you about the Manchester Arena Bombing is that bomber Salman Abedi, his brother and father were all MI5 assets from a group of UK based Jihadists recruited by then Home secretary Theresa May to fight in Libya and Syria.
Salman Abedi, the 'Manchester Bomber' was a British Intelligence asset, part of a group of UK based Jihadists recruited to fight in Libya and Syria.
In her tenure as Home secretary, Theresa May oversaw the recruitment of British Jihadis by MI5 to fight in Libya and Syria. Those recruits were given funding and freedom of movement to come in and out of the UK as they pleased. As Prime Minister she has sold Billions of pounds of weaponry to Saudi Arabia, the biggest supplier of weapons to ISIS.
"Abedi's father was a member of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, a Salafi jihadist organisation proscribed by the United Nations, and father and son fought for the group in Libya in 2011 as part of the movement to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi. Abedi's parents, both born in Tripoli, remained in Libya in 2011, while 17-year-old Abedi returned to live in the United Kingdom. He took a gap year in 2014, where he returned with his brother Hashem to Libya to live with his parents. Abedi was injured in Ajdabiya that year while fighting for an Islamist group. The brothers were rescued from Tripoli by the Royal Navy survey ship HMS Enterprise in August 2014 as part of a group of 110 British citizens as the Libyan civil war erupted, taken to Malta and flown back to the UK."
(From Wikipedia)
"A London attacker and UK covert operations in Syria and Libya. The Telegraph reports that London attacker Rachid Redouane fought in the 2011 British/NATO war against Qadafi – as did Salman Abedi, the Manchester bomber – and joined a militia which went on to send jihadist fighters to Syria. In Libya, he is believed to have fought with the Liwa al Ummah unit.
http://markcurtis.info/.../a-london-attacker-and-uk.../...
"'Sorted' by MI5: How UK government sent British-Libyans to fight Gaddafi"
http://www.middleeasteye.net/.../sorted-mi5-how-uk...
"TERROR IN BRITAIN: WHAT DID THE PRIME MINISTER KNOW?"
http://johnpilger.com/.../terror-in-britain-what-did-the...
"British Libyans and Libyan exiles in Britain, who saw their “control orders” lifted and their passports returned by MI5 six years ago so they could go and fight Gaddafi were never going to turn into sober citizens the day after his fall. Just as the link is undeniable between the perpetrators of 9/11 and the US and Saudi backing for Jihadis fighting the Communists in Afghanistan in the 1980s, so too is the connection between the Manchester bombing and the British Government using Salafi-jihadis from the UK to get rid of Gaddafi."
https://www.counterpunch.org/.../we-cant-britainbecome-a.../
Left to right: Rachid Redouane, Ramadan, Hashem and Salman Abedi
Click to expand...
 

WA Toffee said:
You really seem to believe that Bob who has watched a few youtube videos is every bit as trustworthy to give scientific opinion as the entire scientific community.

I really don't know what to say to that
Click to expand...
... that is because you are choosing to not hear (and engage) alternative possibility to the paradigms framing your shelter. You dimiss any such discomfits by labelling them 'Bob on youtube'. I feel that is a somewhat haughty inclination... but I am also confident you have the smarts to redress that.
 
deipnosophist said:
... that is because you are choosing to not hear (and engage) alternative possibility to the paradigms framing your shelter. You dimiss any such discomfits by labelling them 'Bob on youtube'. I feel that is a somewhat haughty inclination... but I am also confident you have the smarts to redress that.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but I not going to fall into the trap of giving Bob on youtube the same standing as a peer reviewed scientist just because he shouts a lot.
I am equally sure you have the smarts to discern the difference between their approach and concluded outcomes.

That of course doesn't mean that Bob is always wrong and scientists are always right, far from it. Sometimes Bob will be right, and when he is, I will happily change my stance. I ridiculed the notion that Covid came from a lab, it now appears that the scientific community are seriously considering that possibility. This could be one of the occassions where Bob was right. But that doesn't mean I will automatically believe everything Bob has said, I will still treat his theories with scepticism until they can be proven plausible.
 
The theory is they had Bats which they denied having, look like they were doing experiments to weaponize a Covid virus, seems something catastrophic went wrong.


Sky Australia news channel did an expose last week with leaked pics showing Bats there.

Definitely came from that Lab, totalatarian Communist country went into overdrive to cover it all up and now they are blaming America which is laughable, why would America create a virus to ruin the World's economy.
 

EverTheOptimist said:
The theory is they had Bats which they denied having, look like they were doing experiments to weaponize a Covid virus, seems something catastrophic went wrong.


Sky Australia news channel did an expose last week with leaked pics showing Bats there.

Definitely came from that Lab, totalatarian Communist country went into overdrive to cover it all up and now they are blaming America which is laughable, why would America create a virus to ruin the World's economy.
Click to expand...
I'd take anything said on that channel with a massive pinch of salt mate.

Haven't seen anything on any other news channels or media here regarding that story either.
 
WA Toffee said:
Sorry, but I not going to fall into the trap of giving Bob on youtube the same standing as a peer reviewed scientist just because he shouts a lot.
I am equally sure you have the smarts to discern the difference between their approach and concluded outcomes.

That of course doesn't mean that Bob is always wrong and scientists are always right, far from it. Sometimes Bob will be right, and when he is, I will happily change my stance. I ridiculed the notion that Covid came from a lab, it now appears that the scientific community are seriously considering that possibility. This could be one of the occassions where Bob was right. But that doesn't mean I will automatically believe everything Bob has said, I will still treat his theories with scepticism until they can be proven plausible.
Click to expand...
As I said in a previous post, I have every confidence in your intelligence guiding you through possibly cognitively dissonant turbulence.
 
deipnosophist said:
...more empirical and scientific , yes...but trustworthy?...debatable.

Sugar, and tobacco industries long funded 'research' demonstrating their product to be safe...even good for you. Big pharma and chemical Industries?...don't get me started.

The reality is that scientists and researchers are just like anyone else. They have emotions and biases and are not above ethical 'compromise'. They’re interested in getting ahead in their careers and in their financial 'accumulation'. And more than sometimes, some of them are willing to do and say things that are morally wrong because they believe in their own agenda and their ambitions around that.
Click to expand...

There is a lot of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" here. You are, perhaps intentionally, glossing over the difference between private industry and publically funded science. It is common knowledge that when profit or political motive is involved, scientific studies can be manipulated for a special interest, just like every other public institution such as banking, sports, politics, medical insurance, healthcare, etc. This was/is the case in the sugar industry, the tobacco industry, big pharma, and many other places, such as nutrition science and, of course, Lysenkoism.

I think we both would agree that it is important to keep "special interests" in mind with respect to scientific findings, especially yet-to-be corroborated hypotheses. At present, I'm fairly agnostic on the lab-leak hypothesis as I haven't had time to look at all the evidence. One thing I know for sure though, is that in the USA, one special interest pushing the "lab leak" hypothesis is the Republican strategists/politicians because they think this would seemingly absolve them of Trump having lost the election.

I find it a bit strange that you would condescenginly suggest to @WA Toffee, that you "have every confidence in ...[their]... intelligence guiding you through possibly cognitively dissonant turbulence," when you are simultaneously saying that the trustworthyness of science versus (quoting WA Toffee) "Bob doing his own research on youtube" is (quoting you) "debateable". This is a laughable statement even by GOT standards. And while I can't psychoanalyze you, it seems that some special interests have entered your own mind that would lead you to dismiss the collective epistemological institution (i.e., science) that produced, for example, vaccines, antibiotics, anesthesia, electricity, air travel, etc., etc. Science is a powerful yet imperfect institution, but the vast majority of science, especially publically-funded science is trustworthy. If you got chlamydia, would you go to a doctor for an antibiotic or try to find Bob's cure on youtube?
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Register
Back
Top