Conspiracy theories

[magicjuan]

The Rothschilds don’t control ANY Central Banks, another example of baseless conspiracy

Who does?

 

[Tramps_mate]

The Rothschilds don’t control ANY Central Banks, another example of baseless conspiracy

They still do...

 

[magicjuan]

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?

Not to be contrary to your point, but the balance between trustworthy public science (sic) and private/corporate R&D, is now out of sync completely.
At the coal face, scientists on the whole are doing beneficial works, however, when capitalism steps in, any findings are always treated to the 'how can we profit from this?' approach.
We would then only have two questions on probability, could they make this virus?, and why would they?
It doesn't need buckets of cynicism to answer these in a particular way.

 

[PhilM]

They still do...

Without wanting to come across as facetious, where is the proof of this?

 

[magicjuan]

Without wanting to come across as facetious, where is the proof of this?

http://www.rothschild.com/

 

[PhilM]

http://www.rothschild.com/

Okay, we’ll I’ve read through that and perhaps I’ve missed the part where they’re staying that they are in control of central banks. Perhaps you could narrow it down?

For me, in the mainstay this is getting appropriated because it’s a code-word for rich Jews - anti-Semitism.

 

[magicjuan]

Okay, we’ll I’ve read through that and perhaps I’ve missed the part where they’re staying that they are in control of central banks. Perhaps you could narrow it down?

For me, in the mainstay this is getting appropriated because it’s a code-word for rich Jews - anti-Semitism.

Are you insinuating I am being anti semitic? If you are I'd appreciate you having the nads to say so instead of allusion. That way I could tear your allegation to shreds. If not then conduct your argument in a more non accusatory way.
Remember the title of the thread and your post I responded to.
I was tempted a page or so to bring up the Protocols in full so they could be held up as the ultimate conspiracy, but I'm glad I didn't, just I'd be accused of marching on Sudetenland.
You're on very thin ice here.

 

[PhilM]

Are you insinuating I am being anti semitic? If you are I'd appreciate you having the nads to say so instead of allusion. That way I could tear your allegation to shreds. If not then conduct your argument in a more non accusatory way.
Remember the title of the thread and your post I responded to.
I was tempted a page or so to bring up the Protocols in full so they could be held up as the ultimate conspiracy, but I'm glad I didn't, just I'd be accused of marching on Sudetenland.
You're on very thin ice here.

No I'm not, so to that extent I'll apologise.

But otherwise, no I won't. I can't help have an issue with a view that in the mainstay (often) stems from far left or right and is completely unsubstantiated.

It's based on poorly researched history and untruths, with origins appearing to be anti-Semitic; that undercurrent still exists and echoes so many other views.

Otherwise, I simply can't fathom why the narrative continues when there's from what I can tell there's little to no evidence, with history often twisted.

Same with the website - I don't see where it suggests they (Rothschilds) run a central back as if they're some harmonious dynasty, when they're far from it.

I don't think you're anti-Semitic, but I believe the wider narrative was dripped in anti-Semitism from the outset and is a prime example of horse-shoe politics.

And whether it's in the context of the original thread is irrelevant because it should be called out, like I did with our fans who'd call Lukaku names for a reason.

And wind your neck in with the thin ice malarkey: I've always thought you were a decent poster, so there's no animosity from me but don't try the intimidation.

 

[magicjuan]

No I'm not, so to that extent I'll apologise.

But otherwise, no I won't. I can't help have an issue with a view that in the mainstay (often) stems from far left or right and is completely unsubstantiated.

It's based on poorly researched history and untruths, with origins appearing to be anti-Semitic; that undercurrent still exists and echoes so many other views.

Otherwise, I simply can't fathom why the narrative continues when there's from what I can tell there's little to no evidence, with history often twisted.

Same with the website - I don't see where it suggests they (Rothschilds) run a central back as if they're some harmonious dynasty, when they're far from it.

I don't think you're anti-Semitic, but I believe the wider narrative was dripped in anti-Semitism from the outset and is a prime example of horse-shoe politics.

And whether it's in the context of the original thread is irrelevant because it should be called out, like I did with our fans who'd call Lukaku names for a reason.

And wind your neck in with the thin ice malarkey: I've always thought you were a decent poster, so there's no animosity from me but don't try the intimidation.

There isn't any intimidation ffs, your entire thinking behind your post was on thin ice.
I get AS, I've called it out, all my life, I didn't direct you to any AS, yet you mixed it in, gave it a life.
There is anti semitism everywhere, everywhere, but raising it at every opportunity turns it into a dead cat. Everyone looks at AS as a greater issue than any other racism. and genuine cases, by any definition, become crying wolf, let alone the rank hypocrisy that spews from the media.
I won't be attached to any bigotry, but by your wording and raised hackle interpretation and itching to jump in you did.
Apology accepted but for the rest, not even arsed.
Maybe I considered you a good poster, maybe you've had a bad who knows? But not me.

 

[PhilM]

There isn't any intimidation ffs, your entire thinking behind your post was on thin ice.
I get AS, I've called it out, all my life, I didn't direct you to any AS, yet you mixed it in, gave it a life.
There is anti semitism everywhere, everywhere, but raising it at every opportunity turns it into a dead cat. Everyone looks at AS as a greater issue than any other racism. and genuine cases, by any definition, become crying wolf, let alone the rank hypocrisy that spews from the media.
I won't be attached to any bigotry, but by your wording and raised hackle interpretation and itching to jump in you did.
Apology accepted but for the rest, not even arsed.
Maybe I considered you a good poster, maybe you've had a bad who knows? But not me.

It's not about giving it a life. You may disagree, fine, but I don't believe in allowing a dangerous and unsubstantiated belief to continue especially with its origins.

To do so, it legitimises what it was, a racist view, and for many still is underpinned by it. Whether it's anti-Semitism, colour of skin or nationality it's abhorrent.

As I said before, I'm yet to see any truth in it at all. So as I said, why is still promoted? Everyone loves to blame someone, and I wonder why they get it.

 

[deipnosophist]

In other words - "wake up sheeple"

Good on ya Bob

...now you are getting into the spirit of a football forum's 'conspiracy' thread...good on you!

 

[deipnosophist]

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?

...therein, you have done some earnest conflating of a lot of preceding conversation. Good stuff!

PS: as a matter of interest, what specific antibiotic did your doctor prescribe you?

 

[PKwalnuts]

I don't know which are worse, the mad conspiracy posters, or the over-wordy look how intelligent I am arguers.

 

[verreauxi]

...therein, you have done some earnest conflating of a lot of preceding conversation. Good stuff!

PS: as a matter of interest, what specific antibiotic did your doctor prescribe you?

That's a weak response and we both know it. I was careful to point out with quotes exactly what you said. And how silly it was.

 

[Goooallazio]

I don't know which are worse, the mad conspiracy posters, or the over-wordy look how intelligent I am arguers.

Exactly mate,,,I don't know who are worse...the mad vaxxers or the asking questions don;t want a vaxx look how intelligent i am arguers....

Tricky one one that.