Mike Adams, the creator of the website Natural News, and one of the biggest promoters of alternative medicine there is, also known as non-science and non-evidence based medicine.
Now many things have been said about him and the way he acts, and I myself have noticed a few things about him as well.
So here are five things I've noticed about Mike Adams:
5. He's a conspiracy theorist.
Mike Adams, despite the fact that his website, Natural News, constantly writes about stuff related to medicine (by that I mean bad mouthing science and evidence based medicine and promoting alternative medicine, no matter how ridiculous or dangerous it is) is neither a doctor, nor a scientist. He is a conspiracy theorist who promotes just about every conspiracy theory there is, although he mainly promotes "big pharma" conspiracy theories.
Even if he was an actual doctor or scientist with a legitimate degree in either science or medicine it still wouldn't matter, because what he's promoting is non-science based medicine, as well as other types of conspiracy theories besides just the big pharma ones, and he's using fear mongering and paranoia inorder to promote these things, as well as bash science and evidence based medicine.
Pretty much his only "connection" with the health industry is his self appointed title of "The Health Ranger", and that his website is used as an example by those in the health care industry and those who promote science based medicine as what a bad science website looks like.
4. He's against all forms of science based medicine.
Mike Adams isn't just someone whom believes that there are a few types of science based medicines and medical techniques that are bad for you. Nope, he's against them all, no matter how much scientific evidence there is showing that something works, like chemotherapy, or vaccines, or drugs that help fight HIV (which he thinks doesn't exist in the first place).
It almost seems like anything that's accepted and promoted by a valid and respected medical organization is automatically viewed by Adams as dangerous and part of a conspiracy. I bet he would even tell people who come to his website not to use homeopathy, acupuncture, or chiropractic "medicine" if several legitimate medical associations were to come out and say that this stuff works and works well. Infact I bet he would claim that people in homeopathy, acupuncture, or chiropractic "medicine" were hiding the fact that their stuff doesn't work, and that they were sending out shills, or just using brain washed idiots to spread disinformation and make threats to try to scare off people who questions them, and even go so far as to sue people who criticize them...
Hopefully you see the irony in the that last sentence there.
3. He's created a website that's a perfect example of Scopie's Law.
Scopie' Law read's as this:
"In any discussion involving science or medicine, citing Whale.to as a credible source loses you the argument immediately... and gets you laughed out of the room."
While the original internet law is referring to another pseudoscience and conspiracy theory promoting website, Whale.to, it can easily be applied to Natural News. Infact some people even mistake Natural News as being the website originally talked about in Scopie's Law, and not Whale.to simply due to it's notoriousness for being wrong about everything.
Citing Natural News for anything other than an example of what a really bad science website looks like will make even the most open minded of skeptics disregard either an article or someone's argument, and pretty much view it as being bogus and full of lies.
2. He hates skeptics.
All conspiracy theorists and promoters of pseudoscience hates skeptics. Mike Adams is no exception. What is exceptional however is his venomousness towards skeptics [read here for an example].
He thinks that skeptics are willing to accept anything that "big pharma" says is good without question, and that we're all mindless zombies, simply because we don't believe what he believes, when in reality we accept science and evidence instead of unproven or disproven claims.
That's is just how he feels about your average skeptic like myself. Now with professional and famous skeptics, he thinks they are outright evil and has accused many of them of committing just about every sort of crime there is.
Maybe he doesn't actually not like skeptics? Maybe he just doesn't like people telling him he's wrong, and then using science and evidence to show him why he's wrong.
1. He's the perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
What the Dunning-Kruger effect basically states is that people who are not very intelligent will often overestimate their own intelligence and don't question themselves over whether or not they are right or wrong.
Mike Adams is a prefect example of this.
His articles on his website are written in such a way that while it's obvious to most people that he doesn't know what he's talking about, it's also quite obvious that he thinks he knows what he is talking about.
This is probably the reason why he created a website like Natural News in the first place. He believes that alternative medicine is good for you, and that everything else is bad, and because he is so confident in his own intelligence he doesn't second guess himself, and doesn't believe that you should either.
Showing posts with label dis-information. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dis-information. Show all posts
Friday, May 2, 2014
Sunday, January 12, 2014
I am Anti-Organic Foods
Anyone whom has read this blog is probably aware that I don't like the Anti-GMO movement. I find the movement to be highly deceptive and uses propaganda and fear mongering in order to get people to buy "organic" food, and to reject all GMO foods no matter what.
Normally in spite their BS I would still have bought and eaten organic foods, not because I believed it was healthier for you (although I admit I at one time I did believe that) but because it tasted a little better, but now knowing more facts about the Anti-GMO movement and the extremes that they have gone to, and about organic food and it's sustainability, as well as the organic food industry itself, I can no longer consciously buy and/or eat organic foods. To put it bluntly I am now Anti-Organic Foods, and I have several reasons (besides what I just what said here) why.
My first and foremost reasons for why I am now Anti-Organic Foods is because of the Anti-GMO movement itself and what it's highly deceptive propaganda and fear mongering has done, which is to cause governments around the world to pass completely moronic Anti-GMO laws that is based off of fear rather than legitimate science, and has at times because of these laws hampered research into GMO foods, and to cause normally intelligent to reject GMO foods without any reason other than what lies the Anti-GMO movement has told them.
Another reason why I am now Anti-Organic Foods is because of the deaths that have been caused by the Anti-GMO movement and their propaganda, particularly in developing in certain developing countries where the leaders of those countries actually rejected food donations because they were lead to believe (most notably by Greenpeace) that the food may have contain GMO foods and was (according to these Anti-GMO groups) poisonous. This type of deception has resulted in thousands of deaths, and possibly more.
My third reason why I have rejected organic foods is because of the physical destruction caused by the Anti-GMO movement, particularly of experimental GMO food crops due to the perception that these crops were dangerous. This destruction has caused millions of dollars worth of damage, not to mention the lose of valuable research data. The fact that many Anti-GMO groups (including Greenpeace) often praise this destruction, and have been accused of directly or indirectly responsible of being the cause of such destruction only makes the whole Anti-GMO movement look so much worse to me.
Now my fourth reason for rejecting organic foods isn't because of the Anti-GMO movement, but because of organic foods itself.
Organic foods are luxury foods. That's all they are. They are not any healthier or better for you, they just taste better. They won't solve the world's food supply problems, and infact will make them worse due to organic foods having lower crop yields than GMO crops, and also not being able to be grown in as many places as GMO crops can.
Organic crops are also not as environmentally friendly as they're made out to be and require far more land to grow on than GMO crops do, and require far more pesticides inorder to keep insects away than GMO crops (and despite what you have been told a lot of farmers that grow organic foods actually do use pesticides, and lots of it).
My fifth reason for rejecting organic foods is because of the organic food industry itself, particularly with the self created perception that the organic food industry is a small and humble force. It is not.
Some of the farmers in the organic food industry might be small and humble, but the industry as a whole is a huge, multi-billion dollar industry (Whole Foods Market, one of the largest organic foods supermarkets, made over nine billion in 2010) so in my opinion it's very deceptive how the whole organic food industry has made itself out to be.
My final reason why I have rejected organic foods is because of the self imposed perception that organic foods are ethical.
In my opinion organic foods are not ethical. It's perceived ethicalness is based off of lies created by a group do-gooder no-nothings who believe that because something that is created by a multi-billion dollar corporation then it must be evil and dangerous. This type of belief has lead to both the creation of the most outrageous lies and have been the cause of many deaths, all inorder to force people to eat luxury foods.
Because of all this I have decided to avoid eating organic foods when and where I can. I just don't feel right eating something that is based off of lies.
Normally in spite their BS I would still have bought and eaten organic foods, not because I believed it was healthier for you (although I admit I at one time I did believe that) but because it tasted a little better, but now knowing more facts about the Anti-GMO movement and the extremes that they have gone to, and about organic food and it's sustainability, as well as the organic food industry itself, I can no longer consciously buy and/or eat organic foods. To put it bluntly I am now Anti-Organic Foods, and I have several reasons (besides what I just what said here) why.
My first and foremost reasons for why I am now Anti-Organic Foods is because of the Anti-GMO movement itself and what it's highly deceptive propaganda and fear mongering has done, which is to cause governments around the world to pass completely moronic Anti-GMO laws that is based off of fear rather than legitimate science, and has at times because of these laws hampered research into GMO foods, and to cause normally intelligent to reject GMO foods without any reason other than what lies the Anti-GMO movement has told them.
Another reason why I am now Anti-Organic Foods is because of the deaths that have been caused by the Anti-GMO movement and their propaganda, particularly in developing in certain developing countries where the leaders of those countries actually rejected food donations because they were lead to believe (most notably by Greenpeace) that the food may have contain GMO foods and was (according to these Anti-GMO groups) poisonous. This type of deception has resulted in thousands of deaths, and possibly more.
My third reason why I have rejected organic foods is because of the physical destruction caused by the Anti-GMO movement, particularly of experimental GMO food crops due to the perception that these crops were dangerous. This destruction has caused millions of dollars worth of damage, not to mention the lose of valuable research data. The fact that many Anti-GMO groups (including Greenpeace) often praise this destruction, and have been accused of directly or indirectly responsible of being the cause of such destruction only makes the whole Anti-GMO movement look so much worse to me.
Now my fourth reason for rejecting organic foods isn't because of the Anti-GMO movement, but because of organic foods itself.
Organic foods are luxury foods. That's all they are. They are not any healthier or better for you, they just taste better. They won't solve the world's food supply problems, and infact will make them worse due to organic foods having lower crop yields than GMO crops, and also not being able to be grown in as many places as GMO crops can.
Organic crops are also not as environmentally friendly as they're made out to be and require far more land to grow on than GMO crops do, and require far more pesticides inorder to keep insects away than GMO crops (and despite what you have been told a lot of farmers that grow organic foods actually do use pesticides, and lots of it).
My fifth reason for rejecting organic foods is because of the organic food industry itself, particularly with the self created perception that the organic food industry is a small and humble force. It is not.
Some of the farmers in the organic food industry might be small and humble, but the industry as a whole is a huge, multi-billion dollar industry (Whole Foods Market, one of the largest organic foods supermarkets, made over nine billion in 2010) so in my opinion it's very deceptive how the whole organic food industry has made itself out to be.
My final reason why I have rejected organic foods is because of the self imposed perception that organic foods are ethical.
In my opinion organic foods are not ethical. It's perceived ethicalness is based off of lies created by a group do-gooder no-nothings who believe that because something that is created by a multi-billion dollar corporation then it must be evil and dangerous. This type of belief has lead to both the creation of the most outrageous lies and have been the cause of many deaths, all inorder to force people to eat luxury foods.
Because of all this I have decided to avoid eating organic foods when and where I can. I just don't feel right eating something that is based off of lies.
Monday, December 16, 2013
Anti-Vaccination pics should come with a disclaimer...
This morning while I was going through my Facebook page and looking around at some of the skeptics groups that I belong to I came across this anti-vaccination photo in one of these skeptics groups that was posted there for the sheer means of mocking and criticizing the anti-vaccination movement for their blatant hypocrisy:
Now ofcourse anyone who is either a skeptic or a medical professional can clearly see why this picture is being mocked and criticized, but for those who don't I'll explain why:
It's mocked because of the irony that people in the anti-vaccination movement actually believe that getting "information" off of a website that promotes pseudoscience and alternative medicine rather than a legitimate science and/or medical website or journal apparently makes you well educated, and that those who are in the anti-vaccination movement actually believe that they are well educated about vaccines.
Also, it's criticized because it gives the impression that people who advise against vaccination are themselves well educated, which is often not the truth and that in reality they are actually to dumb to realize that they don't know anything about vaccines other than what they've been told (or scared into) by the anti-vaccination movement. Even those that really are well educated have either just been fooled by the claims of the anti-vaccination movement into believing that vaccines are dangerous, or are just lying about their beliefs for reasons that are their own (usually because they don't want to admit that they are wrong).
If pictures like this were truly honest they would contain a disclaimer at the bottom that says either "all the information about vaccines that we get comes from websites that promote subjects that are considered to be pseudoscience and/or conspiracy theories" or "all information we get about vaccines are from sources that are not considered to be legitimate medical and/or scientific sources" or "it is against professional medical and scientific opinions that a person should not vaccinate their children, as well as may be in violation of the law in some areas" or perhaps even "many scientists consider this picture to be an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect and should be ignored and disregarded".
Regardless of what disclaimer should be placed on an anti-vaccination picture such as this one (or any anti-vaccination picture for that matter) it does show the arrogance within the anti-vaccination movement in that they regard themselves as being intelligent and well educated when it comes to vaccines, when in reality it is often the exact opposite, and that they actually don't know anything about vaccines and simply blindly follow some quack that poses as a doctor or as a medical expert that goes around claiming that vaccines are dangerous and can create all of these health issues in children rather than actually prevent health issues.
Perhaps one more type of disclaimer that should also be included with such a picture should say "all information we have regarding the dangers of vaccines have been discredited by legitimate scientific and medical institutions, or have been shown to be fraudulent."
Now ofcourse anyone who is either a skeptic or a medical professional can clearly see why this picture is being mocked and criticized, but for those who don't I'll explain why:
It's mocked because of the irony that people in the anti-vaccination movement actually believe that getting "information" off of a website that promotes pseudoscience and alternative medicine rather than a legitimate science and/or medical website or journal apparently makes you well educated, and that those who are in the anti-vaccination movement actually believe that they are well educated about vaccines.
Also, it's criticized because it gives the impression that people who advise against vaccination are themselves well educated, which is often not the truth and that in reality they are actually to dumb to realize that they don't know anything about vaccines other than what they've been told (or scared into) by the anti-vaccination movement. Even those that really are well educated have either just been fooled by the claims of the anti-vaccination movement into believing that vaccines are dangerous, or are just lying about their beliefs for reasons that are their own (usually because they don't want to admit that they are wrong).
If pictures like this were truly honest they would contain a disclaimer at the bottom that says either "all the information about vaccines that we get comes from websites that promote subjects that are considered to be pseudoscience and/or conspiracy theories" or "all information we get about vaccines are from sources that are not considered to be legitimate medical and/or scientific sources" or "it is against professional medical and scientific opinions that a person should not vaccinate their children, as well as may be in violation of the law in some areas" or perhaps even "many scientists consider this picture to be an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect and should be ignored and disregarded".
Regardless of what disclaimer should be placed on an anti-vaccination picture such as this one (or any anti-vaccination picture for that matter) it does show the arrogance within the anti-vaccination movement in that they regard themselves as being intelligent and well educated when it comes to vaccines, when in reality it is often the exact opposite, and that they actually don't know anything about vaccines and simply blindly follow some quack that poses as a doctor or as a medical expert that goes around claiming that vaccines are dangerous and can create all of these health issues in children rather than actually prevent health issues.
Perhaps one more type of disclaimer that should also be included with such a picture should say "all information we have regarding the dangers of vaccines have been discredited by legitimate scientific and medical institutions, or have been shown to be fraudulent."
Sunday, December 8, 2013
Is that a FEMA... truck?
Reposted from my other blog site Is that a FEMA Camp?
Recently on a Facebook skeptics group that I belong to someone posted a very "curious" looking photo, along with the commentary by the person whom posted photo the somewhere else on Facebook:
Now the first thing that came to my mind when I saw that photo was, "Wow... that trailer needs a good wash."
Now clearly the second picture is photoshopped, and to be all honest it's not even that good of a photoshop job either.
Also, there is one more thing about the photo that has lead me to believe that it is fake, and that being the comment of the person themselves.
All the evidence put together has lead me to concluded that the photo is fake, and that either it was created for the purpose of fooling conspiracy theorists and having a good laugh at their gullibility, or by a conspiracy theorist whom wished to make his or her claims about police state conspiracy theories seem more legit.
Recently on a Facebook skeptics group that I belong to someone posted a very "curious" looking photo, along with the commentary by the person whom posted photo the somewhere else on Facebook:
Now the first thing that came to my mind when I saw that photo was, "Wow... that trailer needs a good wash."
All joking aside ofcourse what really came to my mind was that the words on the truck looked like it was put on there via digital photo manipulation (i.e. photoshopped) and even if it wasn't, then so what?
Now my first argument for why it is photoshopped is because of another photo that looks almost exactly like the first one provided to me via Illuminutti.com:
Now clearly the second picture is photoshopped, and to be all honest it's not even that good of a photoshop job either.
Ofcourse just because the second photo has clearly been digitally manipulated, I have to admit that it does not mean that the first photo has been digitally manipulated as well. If you look closely at the bottom words "FEMA DISASTER RELIEF" that while the font style used for the letters are similar to the ones on the top, they are infact different.
If the first photo was photoshopped, the second photoshopped photo was probably done by someone else whom used the closest font style that they could find to the original words... unless the person whom created the original photo forgot the original font style that they used.
Now another reason why I think the photo has been digitally manipulated is because of the trailer itself.
Besides just being in need of a good wash, it is clearly a used trailer due to the fact that there is a company logo right next to "FEMA DISASTER RELIEF", as well as a logo on the truck that is pulling the trailer.
So if this photo was real, what it would tell me isn't that FEMA is planning on "something" evil, it's that they're moving a trailer from one location to another to another, probably for some bureaucratic reasons, or it's being driven around just to make sure that everything is okay with it and the truck that's pulling it (and before you point out that the person claims that it's coming from a FBI building in Virginia I should like to point out that I don't take such claims seriously unless I have more proof that it really did come from a FBI building in Virginia).
Also, if the photo is real then it tells me is that FEMA is pretty underfunded if the only big rigs they can afford to buy are used and can't be washed every so often due to funding...
Now this brings me to another reason why I'm pretty sure the photo was photoshopped, that being that the government does not buy used stuff (with the exception of law enforcement buying used vehicles for undercover purposes). Even if the government did infact buy used vehicles, they would have atleast have given it a new paint job, and have put FEMA's actual logo on it rather than in big red words "FEMA DISASTER RELIEF".
Also, there is one more thing about the photo that has lead me to believe that it is fake, and that being the comment of the person themselves.
The comment made on the photo says that it's heading north after "leaving" the FBI building in Virginia. My question which one?
The obvious answer would ofcourse be Quantico, which is the location of both the FBI Academy and the FBI Laboratory. But thing about all of this (besides the fact that the person making the comment might have been mislead about where the truck is coming from and going to, or is just outright lying) is why would the FBI employ FEMA to do something that it itself could do? More importantly if the FBI was trying to do something secretive then why wouldn't it use either a blank vehicle, or a vehicle that has a name on it other than the name of another government agency on it in such clear, bold letters?
All the evidence put together has lead me to concluded that the photo is fake, and that either it was created for the purpose of fooling conspiracy theorists and having a good laugh at their gullibility, or by a conspiracy theorist whom wished to make his or her claims about police state conspiracy theories seem more legit.
Monday, November 18, 2013
Frankenbull: GMOs run amuck, or a deception of the Anti-GMO movement
Recently I saw an article on a conspiracy theorist website concerning what they claimed was a genetically modified bull called the Belgian Blue (read the article here).
As you can clearly see that is one right big bull (although most bovine species do tend to be big creatures) and looks like a result direct genetic manipulation. Also, the way the article is worded (and the fact that the title of the article is "FRANKENBULL: GIGANTIC GMO BULLS Are Now A REALITY") makes it sound like the species was only recently developed, and that is was the result of direct genetic manipulation. This is not true for either one.
While the species is the result of a kind of genetic manipulation, it is not however the result direct genetic manipulation (which involves directly manipulating a life form's DNA) but instead indirect genetic manipulation through the use of selective breeding.
Infact the breed itself was first identified in the early 19th century, and the modern beef breed was developed in the 1950's through the use of artificial insemination. So it is not a new breed, and was not developed by messing with it's DNA (which is technology that scientists did not have back then). The article ofcourse doesn't mention any of this.
Heck, one of the photos in the article is also clearly not a modern photo either, and appears to be from atleast from either the 50's or the 60's:
Now by the standards of the Anti-GMO movement this freakish looking bovine is not a GMO animal because it's genetic manipulation is not the result of manipulating it's DNA, but the result of genetic manipulation through selective breeding (which almost all other species of domesticated plants and animals that are used for food are the result of in one form or another) and by their standards is okay to eat (which apparently it is).
The article is clearly being deceptive, and was only posted inorder to scare people away from GMO foods by making it appear that if scientists are willing to create something like that through direct genetic manipulation, then who knows what they are willing and able to do with the rest of our food. Infact you'd pretty much have live off the land and eat nothing but wild plants and animals inorder to have a diet that consisted of no foods that are the result of genetic manipulation of one form or another.
If the anti-GMO movement is so blatantly willing to lie about something like this that was so easy to find the truth about and debunk, then who knows what else they're willing to lie about inorder to make GMO foods look dangerous?
As you can clearly see that is one right big bull (although most bovine species do tend to be big creatures) and looks like a result direct genetic manipulation. Also, the way the article is worded (and the fact that the title of the article is "FRANKENBULL: GIGANTIC GMO BULLS Are Now A REALITY") makes it sound like the species was only recently developed, and that is was the result of direct genetic manipulation. This is not true for either one.
While the species is the result of a kind of genetic manipulation, it is not however the result direct genetic manipulation (which involves directly manipulating a life form's DNA) but instead indirect genetic manipulation through the use of selective breeding.
Infact the breed itself was first identified in the early 19th century, and the modern beef breed was developed in the 1950's through the use of artificial insemination. So it is not a new breed, and was not developed by messing with it's DNA (which is technology that scientists did not have back then). The article ofcourse doesn't mention any of this.
Heck, one of the photos in the article is also clearly not a modern photo either, and appears to be from atleast from either the 50's or the 60's:
Now by the standards of the Anti-GMO movement this freakish looking bovine is not a GMO animal because it's genetic manipulation is not the result of manipulating it's DNA, but the result of genetic manipulation through selective breeding (which almost all other species of domesticated plants and animals that are used for food are the result of in one form or another) and by their standards is okay to eat (which apparently it is).
The article is clearly being deceptive, and was only posted inorder to scare people away from GMO foods by making it appear that if scientists are willing to create something like that through direct genetic manipulation, then who knows what they are willing and able to do with the rest of our food. Infact you'd pretty much have live off the land and eat nothing but wild plants and animals inorder to have a diet that consisted of no foods that are the result of genetic manipulation of one form or another.
If the anti-GMO movement is so blatantly willing to lie about something like this that was so easy to find the truth about and debunk, then who knows what else they're willing to lie about inorder to make GMO foods look dangerous?
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
5 Things I've noticed about... Conspiracy Theorists on Youtube
If you're someone that makes a hobby of investigating conspiracy theories, you will eventually be lead to one place: Youtube.
Youtube seems to the gathering center conspiracy theorists on the internet due to the huge amount a conspiracy theory videos on that website (and I mean huge).
Now there are a lot of things that I have noticed about conspiracy theorists on Youtube that I could talk about, but I have narrowed it down to five different things.
So here are five things that I've noticed about conspiracy theorists on Youtube:
5. They can come up with some pretty bizarre conspiracy theories.
If you want to find a really bizarre conspiracy theory, then there is no better place to look than Youtube, because the conspiracy theorists on that website can come up with some very bizarre conspiracy theories. In fact some of the weirdest conspiracy theories that I have ever heard of are from videos on Youtube.
These conspiracy theories on Youtube can get so strange, and combined with a person's own behavior either in a video, or in the comments section, that it makes one wonder if that person is either a poe, or a fraud that is looking for attention (or to scam people), or severely mentally ill. In fact some conspiracy theorist on Youtube have been proven to be either mentally ill or frauds.
Some of these videos are so bizarre that I've had to stop watching them at times because I felt that it was driving me crazy (mostly rage) and making me want to destroy my computer in frustration over not only how some one could come up with some thing that crazy and stupid, but also in frustration over why Youtube would allow such a video to stay on the website.
If such videos make me nearly go crazy then I can't imagine what they do to people who take these videos seriously.
4. Their videos can be extremely long.
Sometimes a conspiracy theorist's video on Youtube can be short, sometimes they can be half an hour long, and sometimes they can go on for hours and hours.
Some of the longest videos that I have ever seen on Youtube have been from conspiracy theorists, and I'm not talking about an hour or two long. Some of these videos can be three to four to six hours long. In fact I think the longest one I have ever seen (I didn't actually watch it, I just noted the time) was forty hours long!
The only way someone could watch such videos is if they were unemployed and/or had no life what so ever. They would have to spend all of their time infront of a computer watching these poorly made and researched Youtube videos which would become essentially their only source of information about the world...
Besides just making abnormally long videos, conspiracy theorists on Youtube also tend to do this:
3. They create videos of an event quickly after an event happens.
Thanks mostly due to cheap (many times free), widely available, and easy to use video capturing and editing software, conspiracy theorist can now create videos at astonishingly amazing speeds after some event happens, sometimes even within hours of an event happening.
Usually these videos are pretty short, as well as poorly made and edited, but give them a few days and they will create a far longer conspiracy theory video about that event... that will still be poorly made and edited.
In fact this seems to be a pattern with many conspiracy theorists videos on Youtube, because...
2. They're videos tend to be poorly made and edited.
Some of conspiracy theorist's videos on Youtube are just unwatchable, and it's not just because of the length, or subject matter, or lack of any evidence presented within them when a conspiracy theorist tries to make their case about a conspiracy theory that they claim is real, but because they are just horrible videos to begin with.
Many of the videos are made are just very poorly done, and the editing and placement of segments and commentary within them is just horrible at times and appears to be just thrown together. The commentary alone in these videos are often not well thought out, and many times is just incoherent and often times makes many contradictions, and for the most part makes no sense what so ever.
Kind of sounds like a conspiracy theorist is general rather than just the ones on Youtube.
1. They don't like "non-believers".
Most conspiracy theorists in general do not like people who don't believe them and doubt the conspiracy theories that they are promoting are real, but on Youtube they take it to a different level entirely.
Many of them are just rude and very hostile towards anyone questions them. They down vote comments they don't like and mark them as spam in hopes of hiding the comments that have offended them. They false flag videos they don't like (mostly debunking videos) and outright threaten people who post debunking videos or comments expressing doubt in a conspiracy theory.
That's just the ones who mainly post comments.
The ones who post videos on the other hand might do all of that as well, plus they might just delete your comments from their own pages, and block you.
Kind of shows how open minded they are, doesn't it.
Youtube seems to the gathering center conspiracy theorists on the internet due to the huge amount a conspiracy theory videos on that website (and I mean huge).
Now there are a lot of things that I have noticed about conspiracy theorists on Youtube that I could talk about, but I have narrowed it down to five different things.
So here are five things that I've noticed about conspiracy theorists on Youtube:
5. They can come up with some pretty bizarre conspiracy theories.
If you want to find a really bizarre conspiracy theory, then there is no better place to look than Youtube, because the conspiracy theorists on that website can come up with some very bizarre conspiracy theories. In fact some of the weirdest conspiracy theories that I have ever heard of are from videos on Youtube.
These conspiracy theories on Youtube can get so strange, and combined with a person's own behavior either in a video, or in the comments section, that it makes one wonder if that person is either a poe, or a fraud that is looking for attention (or to scam people), or severely mentally ill. In fact some conspiracy theorist on Youtube have been proven to be either mentally ill or frauds.
Some of these videos are so bizarre that I've had to stop watching them at times because I felt that it was driving me crazy (mostly rage) and making me want to destroy my computer in frustration over not only how some one could come up with some thing that crazy and stupid, but also in frustration over why Youtube would allow such a video to stay on the website.
If such videos make me nearly go crazy then I can't imagine what they do to people who take these videos seriously.
4. Their videos can be extremely long.
Sometimes a conspiracy theorist's video on Youtube can be short, sometimes they can be half an hour long, and sometimes they can go on for hours and hours.
Some of the longest videos that I have ever seen on Youtube have been from conspiracy theorists, and I'm not talking about an hour or two long. Some of these videos can be three to four to six hours long. In fact I think the longest one I have ever seen (I didn't actually watch it, I just noted the time) was forty hours long!
The only way someone could watch such videos is if they were unemployed and/or had no life what so ever. They would have to spend all of their time infront of a computer watching these poorly made and researched Youtube videos which would become essentially their only source of information about the world...
Besides just making abnormally long videos, conspiracy theorists on Youtube also tend to do this:
3. They create videos of an event quickly after an event happens.
Thanks mostly due to cheap (many times free), widely available, and easy to use video capturing and editing software, conspiracy theorist can now create videos at astonishingly amazing speeds after some event happens, sometimes even within hours of an event happening.
Usually these videos are pretty short, as well as poorly made and edited, but give them a few days and they will create a far longer conspiracy theory video about that event... that will still be poorly made and edited.
In fact this seems to be a pattern with many conspiracy theorists videos on Youtube, because...
2. They're videos tend to be poorly made and edited.
Some of conspiracy theorist's videos on Youtube are just unwatchable, and it's not just because of the length, or subject matter, or lack of any evidence presented within them when a conspiracy theorist tries to make their case about a conspiracy theory that they claim is real, but because they are just horrible videos to begin with.
Many of the videos are made are just very poorly done, and the editing and placement of segments and commentary within them is just horrible at times and appears to be just thrown together. The commentary alone in these videos are often not well thought out, and many times is just incoherent and often times makes many contradictions, and for the most part makes no sense what so ever.
Kind of sounds like a conspiracy theorist is general rather than just the ones on Youtube.
1. They don't like "non-believers".
Most conspiracy theorists in general do not like people who don't believe them and doubt the conspiracy theories that they are promoting are real, but on Youtube they take it to a different level entirely.
Many of them are just rude and very hostile towards anyone questions them. They down vote comments they don't like and mark them as spam in hopes of hiding the comments that have offended them. They false flag videos they don't like (mostly debunking videos) and outright threaten people who post debunking videos or comments expressing doubt in a conspiracy theory.
That's just the ones who mainly post comments.
The ones who post videos on the other hand might do all of that as well, plus they might just delete your comments from their own pages, and block you.
Kind of shows how open minded they are, doesn't it.
Tuesday, October 8, 2013
If the Government is shut down, then who is paying the shills?
It's been a week now since the part of the federal government shut down due to lack of funding because Congress can not agree on a budget.
Since much of the government has been shut down due to funding there is a question I have for conspiracy theorists: Who is paying the shills?
Now according to many conspiracy theorists shills are apparently anyone who goes around the internet spreads what they consider to be "dis-information" to discredit their conspiracy theories (which for some reason is often times backed up with facts and logic).
Basically, skeptics and debunkers (those people claim to be volunteering their time to debunk conspiracy theories on the internet, but according to many conspiracy theorists, are being paid by the government to spread dis-information, and who's only "evidence" they have to prove that they are shills is simply that they disagree with the conspiracy theorist).
So if the government is shut down, then why do shills like myself (according to conspiracy theorists) still have their sites up, and are still posting blog articles debunking conspiracy theories?
Sure there are some Federal agencies still up and running, and their are still some government employees who are considered essential for running the government who are still working (granted many of them aren't actually going to be paid until after Congress comes up with a budget that gets approved by the president).
Now certainly spreading "dis-information" over the internet couldn't possibly be an essential part of government, could it? I can't see any logical reason why it would be.
Maybe the shills are being paid by the [insert some dark and shadowy group here] and that's the reason why they are continuing to spread their facts and logic based "dis-information".
Or, perhaps skeptics and debunkers really aren't shills, and they're not being paid by the government to spread what conspiracy theorists consider to be dis-information.
Perhaps what they are really spreading is research based facts and logic, and that they are doing it on their own and are not being paid by anyone.
Perhaps the real reason why conspiracy theorists believe that skeptics and debunkers are shills aren't because they are, but because they can't accept the fact someone has looked at the facts of some conspiracy theory and have concluded something different, and thus in their minds the only "logical" conclusion that they can come up with is that those people who are saying that a conspiracy theory is bogus is that the person whom is claiming that the conspiracy theory is bogus is being paid to say so.
Since much of the government has been shut down due to funding there is a question I have for conspiracy theorists: Who is paying the shills?
Now according to many conspiracy theorists shills are apparently anyone who goes around the internet spreads what they consider to be "dis-information" to discredit their conspiracy theories (which for some reason is often times backed up with facts and logic).
Basically, skeptics and debunkers (those people claim to be volunteering their time to debunk conspiracy theories on the internet, but according to many conspiracy theorists, are being paid by the government to spread dis-information, and who's only "evidence" they have to prove that they are shills is simply that they disagree with the conspiracy theorist).
So if the government is shut down, then why do shills like myself (according to conspiracy theorists) still have their sites up, and are still posting blog articles debunking conspiracy theories?
Sure there are some Federal agencies still up and running, and their are still some government employees who are considered essential for running the government who are still working (granted many of them aren't actually going to be paid until after Congress comes up with a budget that gets approved by the president).
Now certainly spreading "dis-information" over the internet couldn't possibly be an essential part of government, could it? I can't see any logical reason why it would be.
Maybe the shills are being paid by the [insert some dark and shadowy group here] and that's the reason why they are continuing to spread their facts and logic based "dis-information".
Or, perhaps skeptics and debunkers really aren't shills, and they're not being paid by the government to spread what conspiracy theorists consider to be dis-information.
Perhaps what they are really spreading is research based facts and logic, and that they are doing it on their own and are not being paid by anyone.
Perhaps the real reason why conspiracy theorists believe that skeptics and debunkers are shills aren't because they are, but because they can't accept the fact someone has looked at the facts of some conspiracy theory and have concluded something different, and thus in their minds the only "logical" conclusion that they can come up with is that those people who are saying that a conspiracy theory is bogus is that the person whom is claiming that the conspiracy theory is bogus is being paid to say so.
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
5 Things I've noticed about... Bizarre Conspiracy Theories
When you dive into the world of conspiracy theories (either as a skeptic, or a conspiracy theorist, or just a curious onlooker) you will ultimately come across some conspiracy theories that sound really, really bizarre...
In fact ever since I started doing serious skepticism and debunking and investigating conspiracy theories I have found conspiracy theories so strange that I could never have possibly have thought of them (which is probably a good thing).
Now while there are a lot of things I have noticed about bizarre conspiracy theories, I have narrowed it down to five different things.
So here are five things I've noticed about bizarre conspiracy theories:
5. They're indicators of mental illness.
First I want to say that anyone who believes that the world is controlled by shape-shifting aliens, or that the World Trade Center towers were brought down by lasers, or that the government is using radio signals to attack peoples minds, or believes in crisis actors, or believes that chemtrails are real is not necessarily mentally ill... I'm just saying it's a pretty strong indicator of mental illness, especially when you consider the fact that others who also believe in such conspiracy theories have engaged in behavior that strongly indicates that they are mentally ill (such as making long and incoherent rants, or harassing people, or making threats), or actually has been found out or proven to be mentally ill.
It's not just the people who believe in them either. Many of the people whom have created the most bizarre conspiracy theories out there are they themselves believed to be mentally ill. Even the ones who are very intelligent and hold college degrees, but come up with these weird conspiracy theories, are automatically assumed to be mentally ill because it's really the most logical explanation for many skeptics concerning a person whom is very smart but believes in really weird stuff.
4. There is no deep end to them.
Have you ever heard or read about a conspiracy theory that made you think, "there is no way that there can be something stranger than this..." Well, I don't mean to burst your bubble, but trust me when I say this, there is a conspiracy theory out there that is more bizarre than what you have just heard or read about. And if there isn't one, one will be invented soon enough.
Now I don't blame anyone for believing that whenever they hear about a crazy conspiracy theory that they believe that it is the craziest conspiracy theory out there, I use to believe that myself when I came across a really bizarre conspiracy, but then I would be proven wrong again and again whenever I kept coming across one even more bizarre than the next one, it kind of destroyed my ability to believe that there is a bottom to conspiracy theory craziness.
In fact some are so bizarre that...
3. They are confused for satire.
It really should not surprise anyone that there are some conspiracy theories out there that are either so weird, or so bizarre, that some people don't believe that it is a real conspiracy theory (well, as real as one can be) and that it was made up as a parody of other conspiracy theories, or some type of satire, or, as some conspiracy theorists may claim, dis-information.
This is something that even I have assumed at times whenever I see a bizarre conspiracy theory, either in the hope that no one can seriously be so crazy that they could come up with such a thing, or that it just looks like satire.
In fact some have actually turned out to be satire (or a hoax) but because some conspiracy theorists can't tell the difference between what is real and what is fake, some of them assume that it is real.
2. Other conspiracy theorists will debunk them in an attempt to look credible.
Sometimes a conspiracy theorist will debunk an even more bizarre conspiracy theory (usually about the same event) in order to either look like they are capable of not accepting every conspiracy theory that is put out there, or to make their own conspiracy theory look more credible by making people believe that they have done their research and have discarded any theories that do not prove true (except their own).
Now the real probable reason why conspiracy theorists reject and even debunk the more bizarre sounding conspiracy theories is because if they don't then it makes it appear as if they also accept those conspiracy theories, and it might also help to make the conspiracy theory that they promote appear less bizarre as well. The only problem with that is...
1. Most conspiracy theories are bizarre.
Just because a conspiracy theory at least sounds "plausible" (and I use that term very loosely) or because a lot of conspiracy theorists accept it, it doesn't mean that particular conspiracy theory isn't any less bizarre then the one that doesn't sound plausible at all. An example of this would be the various 9/11 conspiracy theories, which in my opinion all of them sound just as bizarre as the one that is considered to be the most bizarre, the space laser theory.
The fact is that almost every conspiracy theory there is is actually pretty bizarre, and that the only reason why it might sound less bizarre than other conspiracy theories is that it at least (usually) involves something that might exist, rather than other really bizarre conspiracy theories that involves something that does not exist.
And of course just like with the bizarre conspiracy theories, all conspiracy theories have one thing in common: They all end up getting debunked.
In fact ever since I started doing serious skepticism and debunking and investigating conspiracy theories I have found conspiracy theories so strange that I could never have possibly have thought of them (which is probably a good thing).
Now while there are a lot of things I have noticed about bizarre conspiracy theories, I have narrowed it down to five different things.
So here are five things I've noticed about bizarre conspiracy theories:
5. They're indicators of mental illness.
First I want to say that anyone who believes that the world is controlled by shape-shifting aliens, or that the World Trade Center towers were brought down by lasers, or that the government is using radio signals to attack peoples minds, or believes in crisis actors, or believes that chemtrails are real is not necessarily mentally ill... I'm just saying it's a pretty strong indicator of mental illness, especially when you consider the fact that others who also believe in such conspiracy theories have engaged in behavior that strongly indicates that they are mentally ill (such as making long and incoherent rants, or harassing people, or making threats), or actually has been found out or proven to be mentally ill.
It's not just the people who believe in them either. Many of the people whom have created the most bizarre conspiracy theories out there are they themselves believed to be mentally ill. Even the ones who are very intelligent and hold college degrees, but come up with these weird conspiracy theories, are automatically assumed to be mentally ill because it's really the most logical explanation for many skeptics concerning a person whom is very smart but believes in really weird stuff.
4. There is no deep end to them.
Have you ever heard or read about a conspiracy theory that made you think, "there is no way that there can be something stranger than this..." Well, I don't mean to burst your bubble, but trust me when I say this, there is a conspiracy theory out there that is more bizarre than what you have just heard or read about. And if there isn't one, one will be invented soon enough.
Now I don't blame anyone for believing that whenever they hear about a crazy conspiracy theory that they believe that it is the craziest conspiracy theory out there, I use to believe that myself when I came across a really bizarre conspiracy, but then I would be proven wrong again and again whenever I kept coming across one even more bizarre than the next one, it kind of destroyed my ability to believe that there is a bottom to conspiracy theory craziness.
In fact some are so bizarre that...
3. They are confused for satire.
It really should not surprise anyone that there are some conspiracy theories out there that are either so weird, or so bizarre, that some people don't believe that it is a real conspiracy theory (well, as real as one can be) and that it was made up as a parody of other conspiracy theories, or some type of satire, or, as some conspiracy theorists may claim, dis-information.
This is something that even I have assumed at times whenever I see a bizarre conspiracy theory, either in the hope that no one can seriously be so crazy that they could come up with such a thing, or that it just looks like satire.
In fact some have actually turned out to be satire (or a hoax) but because some conspiracy theorists can't tell the difference between what is real and what is fake, some of them assume that it is real.
2. Other conspiracy theorists will debunk them in an attempt to look credible.
Sometimes a conspiracy theorist will debunk an even more bizarre conspiracy theory (usually about the same event) in order to either look like they are capable of not accepting every conspiracy theory that is put out there, or to make their own conspiracy theory look more credible by making people believe that they have done their research and have discarded any theories that do not prove true (except their own).
Now the real probable reason why conspiracy theorists reject and even debunk the more bizarre sounding conspiracy theories is because if they don't then it makes it appear as if they also accept those conspiracy theories, and it might also help to make the conspiracy theory that they promote appear less bizarre as well. The only problem with that is...
1. Most conspiracy theories are bizarre.
Just because a conspiracy theory at least sounds "plausible" (and I use that term very loosely) or because a lot of conspiracy theorists accept it, it doesn't mean that particular conspiracy theory isn't any less bizarre then the one that doesn't sound plausible at all. An example of this would be the various 9/11 conspiracy theories, which in my opinion all of them sound just as bizarre as the one that is considered to be the most bizarre, the space laser theory.
The fact is that almost every conspiracy theory there is is actually pretty bizarre, and that the only reason why it might sound less bizarre than other conspiracy theories is that it at least (usually) involves something that might exist, rather than other really bizarre conspiracy theories that involves something that does not exist.
And of course just like with the bizarre conspiracy theories, all conspiracy theories have one thing in common: They all end up getting debunked.
Friday, September 27, 2013
How "The Matrix" inspired Conspiracy Theorists (and Vice-Verse)
In 1999 one of the best (and perhaps strangest) science fiction films premiered in theaters. That film of course is The Matrix.
The film itself was visually stunning, it's fight screens were so awesome that other films have duplicated the same style in their fight scenes, and it had that was really unique story line... and made anyone who watched the film not sleep for a few days.
The film itself also had multiple concepts in it that many conspiracy theorists tend to use in their beliefs.
In fact many concepts from the film have either inspired conspiracy theorists in their and terminology and their beliefs, or were inspired by conspiracy theories and conspiracy theorists, such as:
The world as we know it is a lie.
The first concept in "The Matrix" that many conspiracy theorists hold near and dear to them is that the world as we know it is just one giant lie, and that everything we know is fake and intentionally constructed in order to fool the masses.
In the movie Neo is told that the world is a lie, and is eventually shown that the whole world that he knew is a computer generated simulation. While most conspiracy theorist don't go as far to say that our world is a computer generated simulation (although some do) many do think that everything we know is just one well constructed lie, and that all of our history has been guided and constructed by some force that we don't know about.
Only people who "wake up" can know the "truth".
In the movie Neo is told that in order to know the truth about the world that he would basically have to "wake up", which is something that conspiracy theorists tell people all the time that they need to do (especially when they express doubt in the conspiracy theorist's claims).
Whether the concept of "waking up" came from the movie or not, anytime one argues with a conspiracy theorist (especially on the internet) often the conspiracy theorist will tell the person to WAKE UP to the "truth" (whatever that may be for the conspiracy theorist).
People must choose if they are to "wake up" or not.
Half way through the movie Neo is given a choice about whether he wants to find out what the Matrix is in the infamous "blue pill, red pill" screen. In the screen Neo is given the choice of taking a blue pill and continuing life as he knows it, or taking the red pill and finding out the truth about the world.
This screen is so infamous that many conspiracy theorists now commonly reference to the blue pill and red pill when trying to convince someone that the conspiracy theory that they are promoting is real, and that the only way that the average person can learn about what is really going on in the world (at least from the conspiracy theorist perspective) is that they must "choose" to "take the red pill", or that they must choose to "wake up".
The world is controlled by a shadowy group.
One of the biggest beliefs that conspiracy theorists have is that the world is controlled by a shadowy group, and that only those that have "woken up" will realize exists.
Now in the movie of course this is the machines (although this is just a name that the humans give them, as there is no actual name for the machines) but in reality the closet thing to the machines would be the "Illuminati", another shadowy group that controls the world (according to conspiracy theorists), and that only those that have "woken-up" even realize that it exists, while for the rest of us we don't believe that it exists because there is no evidence that it exists(or at least none that us "un-wakened" people can see).
The shadowy group is exploiting humanity for it's own purposes, and the people don't even it.
In the movie Neo is soon told not only what the Matrix is, he is told just what it is for (that is of course to keep humans ignorant of reality while the machines harvest their bio-electrical energy).
While most conspiracy theorists won't go as far as to say that, most will say that an alleged shadowy group (again, usually the Illuminati) is manipulating humanity, and exploiting it for it's own purposes (whatever that may be) and that all events that happen in the world are being created and/or manipulated by this shadowy group for whatever it's reasons are, and that we are all just pawns for this group to be used in whatever way they feel like.
The shadowy group sends out agents to destroy those that oppose it.
The primary villains in the movie (besides the machines) were the Agents, a group of computer AI simulations that were sent out to kill anyone in the Matrix that had been awakened and were now opposing the machines. Ironically (or not) these agents look like members of the Men in Black.
Many conspiracy theorists also believe this as well in a way, in that the shadowy group which they are opposed to is sending out agents in order to destroy them, usually by way of discrediting them, although many conspiracy theorists do seriously believe that these so called agents will kill them if they can, and that they have killed people before in order to silence them.
Anyone who has not "woken up" can be turned into an agent.
In the movie Morpheus explains that anyone who has not been "woken up" or removed from the Matrix can unwillingly become an agent, and thus anyone whom has not woken up is a potential enemy.
This belief is also common with many conspiracy theorists as well, in that they believe that anyone whom has not woken up (I.E. those who do not believe in the conspiracy theories that they believe in) could either be an agent (commonly called a shill) or a potential agent (commonly called a sheeple) and might even become one without their knowledge (commonly called a sleeper agent).
Only those that have "woken up" can fight this shadowy group.
In the movie it is made quite clear that the only people who can oppose the machines and their AI programs within the Matrix, and fight them and save humanity, are those who have "woken up".
Many conspiracy theorists basically believe the same thing (minus the machines and the computer generated reality) and that they are the only ones that can fight these so called "shadowy groups", and they believe this because they have "woken up", and thus, according to them, are aware of these so called groups. This is also why they try to "wake up" so many others, so that they can also help in their "fight" as well.
The film itself was visually stunning, it's fight screens were so awesome that other films have duplicated the same style in their fight scenes, and it had that was really unique story line... and made anyone who watched the film not sleep for a few days.
The film itself also had multiple concepts in it that many conspiracy theorists tend to use in their beliefs.
In fact many concepts from the film have either inspired conspiracy theorists in their and terminology and their beliefs, or were inspired by conspiracy theories and conspiracy theorists, such as:
The world as we know it is a lie.
The first concept in "The Matrix" that many conspiracy theorists hold near and dear to them is that the world as we know it is just one giant lie, and that everything we know is fake and intentionally constructed in order to fool the masses.
In the movie Neo is told that the world is a lie, and is eventually shown that the whole world that he knew is a computer generated simulation. While most conspiracy theorist don't go as far to say that our world is a computer generated simulation (although some do) many do think that everything we know is just one well constructed lie, and that all of our history has been guided and constructed by some force that we don't know about.
Only people who "wake up" can know the "truth".
In the movie Neo is told that in order to know the truth about the world that he would basically have to "wake up", which is something that conspiracy theorists tell people all the time that they need to do (especially when they express doubt in the conspiracy theorist's claims).
Whether the concept of "waking up" came from the movie or not, anytime one argues with a conspiracy theorist (especially on the internet) often the conspiracy theorist will tell the person to WAKE UP to the "truth" (whatever that may be for the conspiracy theorist).
People must choose if they are to "wake up" or not.
Half way through the movie Neo is given a choice about whether he wants to find out what the Matrix is in the infamous "blue pill, red pill" screen. In the screen Neo is given the choice of taking a blue pill and continuing life as he knows it, or taking the red pill and finding out the truth about the world.
This screen is so infamous that many conspiracy theorists now commonly reference to the blue pill and red pill when trying to convince someone that the conspiracy theory that they are promoting is real, and that the only way that the average person can learn about what is really going on in the world (at least from the conspiracy theorist perspective) is that they must "choose" to "take the red pill", or that they must choose to "wake up".
The world is controlled by a shadowy group.
One of the biggest beliefs that conspiracy theorists have is that the world is controlled by a shadowy group, and that only those that have "woken up" will realize exists.
Now in the movie of course this is the machines (although this is just a name that the humans give them, as there is no actual name for the machines) but in reality the closet thing to the machines would be the "Illuminati", another shadowy group that controls the world (according to conspiracy theorists), and that only those that have "woken-up" even realize that it exists, while for the rest of us we don't believe that it exists because there is no evidence that it exists(or at least none that us "un-wakened" people can see).
The shadowy group is exploiting humanity for it's own purposes, and the people don't even it.
In the movie Neo is soon told not only what the Matrix is, he is told just what it is for (that is of course to keep humans ignorant of reality while the machines harvest their bio-electrical energy).
While most conspiracy theorists won't go as far as to say that, most will say that an alleged shadowy group (again, usually the Illuminati) is manipulating humanity, and exploiting it for it's own purposes (whatever that may be) and that all events that happen in the world are being created and/or manipulated by this shadowy group for whatever it's reasons are, and that we are all just pawns for this group to be used in whatever way they feel like.
The shadowy group sends out agents to destroy those that oppose it.
The primary villains in the movie (besides the machines) were the Agents, a group of computer AI simulations that were sent out to kill anyone in the Matrix that had been awakened and were now opposing the machines. Ironically (or not) these agents look like members of the Men in Black.
Many conspiracy theorists also believe this as well in a way, in that the shadowy group which they are opposed to is sending out agents in order to destroy them, usually by way of discrediting them, although many conspiracy theorists do seriously believe that these so called agents will kill them if they can, and that they have killed people before in order to silence them.
Anyone who has not "woken up" can be turned into an agent.
In the movie Morpheus explains that anyone who has not been "woken up" or removed from the Matrix can unwillingly become an agent, and thus anyone whom has not woken up is a potential enemy.
This belief is also common with many conspiracy theorists as well, in that they believe that anyone whom has not woken up (I.E. those who do not believe in the conspiracy theories that they believe in) could either be an agent (commonly called a shill) or a potential agent (commonly called a sheeple) and might even become one without their knowledge (commonly called a sleeper agent).
Only those that have "woken up" can fight this shadowy group.
In the movie it is made quite clear that the only people who can oppose the machines and their AI programs within the Matrix, and fight them and save humanity, are those who have "woken up".
Many conspiracy theorists basically believe the same thing (minus the machines and the computer generated reality) and that they are the only ones that can fight these so called "shadowy groups", and they believe this because they have "woken up", and thus, according to them, are aware of these so called groups. This is also why they try to "wake up" so many others, so that they can also help in their "fight" as well.
Tuesday, September 24, 2013
6 Conspiracy theories that make people paranoid
There are a lot of conspiracy theories out there, and while most of them tend to be, well... stupid, for the most part they're pretty harmless (although some of the people who believe in them are not so harmless).
On the other hand, there are some conspiracy theories that can drive a person to become paranoid, and possibly even act out in very disturbing ways, perhaps even in a violent manner towards those who they feel are apart of that conspiracy.
Here are a few of those conspiracy theories:
Chemtrails
Chemtrails is a conspiracy theory in which some conspiracy theorists believe that the government is spraying chemicals on the population from air planes, and that the contrails coming out of many air planes are actually laced with chemicals, and thus called "chemtrails".
Now despite the fact that the chemtrail conspiracy theories have been debunked, some people take it very seriously. So seriously in fact that many conspiracy theorists will spray vinegar into the air whenever they see a contrail (because they believe that doing so will destroy a chemtrail), or even go to a hospital whenever they see a bunch of contrails in the air, because they are seriously afraid it might cause them health problems.
Some people have even taken their paranoia a step further and have threatened shoot down air planes because they think they are spraying chemtrails.
Mind control
If there is one conspiracy theory that believing in can cause a person to become very paranoid (although it may also be a strong indicator of a serious mental illness) it would be the mind control conspiracy theories, particularly the ones that involve some sort of telepathy.
The fact is that if a person believes that their mind can be attacked at any point in time it tends to leave that person extremely paranoid, and causes them to do some pretty bizarre stuff, such as wearing hats made out of aluminum foil, or even covering their entire house in aluminum foil (because they believe it will block out what ever rays are being used to control their minds).
This may also cause some people to be wary of other people as well, even people who might try to help them overcome their fear, because they fear that person might come under some kind of mind control as well and harm them.
Shape-shifting aliens
Often times attributed to David Icke, there are some people out there who seriously believe that there are shape-shifting reptilian aliens that not only walk among us, but are in control of the world, and that many world leaders are actually aliens from either another world or dimension.
I really wish I was making this up, but sadly I am not. There are people out there that are so paranoid, and so delusional, that they seriously believe that the leaders of the world are actually shape-shifting lizards from another planet or universe.
The belief that another person is a shape-shifting alien doesn't just include world leaders, it can actually include anyone, be it a celebrity, a rich person, some random person, myself, and even David Icke (who has been accused of being a shape-shifting alien).
Some people who believe in this conspiracy theory are even so paranoid and delusional in their beliefs that they believe that they themselves are a shape-shift alien...
Dis-info agents
Just about every skeptic and debunker has at one time or another been called a dis-info agent. This is just a general reaction by conspiracy theorists when a skeptic either refuses to believe them, or presents evidence showing that the conspiracy theorist's claims are false.
While some conspiracy theorists may cry out "dis-info agent" whenever they encounter a skeptic, many conspiracy theorists really do believe that there are dis-info agents out there, and that they are out there to "trick" people into no longer believing a conspiracy theory that they promote.
This belief in dis-info agents often times causes many conspiracy theorist to disregard any fact that would disprove their conspiracy theory, and basically regard it as being nothing more than disinformation, no matter how sound it is. This paranoia can even go so far that some conspiracy theorists will believe that other conspiracy theorists are also dis-info agents as well if that conspiracy theorist's conspiracy theory is to much un-alike their own.
FEMA camps
FEMA camps is another one of those conspiracy theories that has been around for a long time, yet has no evidence to back it up, but many people still believe in it and that these FEMA camps exists.
People who believe in this conspiracy theory claim that the government is constructing prison camps to be run by FEMA all across the country inorder to imprison anyone who they feel will oppose the government in some up and coming police state (which according to them is just around the corner... and has been for the last couple of decades).
This constant fear that the government is going to create a police state and ship people off to these imaginary prison camps can cause some people to act out in very irrational ways, including building huge bunkers in which to hide out in and perhaps fight from, buy up huge amounts of guns and ammunition and other type of supplies, and cut off contact with people. It can also make a person become violent towards anyone who works for the government (especially law enforcement), or just drive a person to the point of suicide due to the fear that they will be imprisoned or killed.
The Illuminati
There are many people out there that believe that, despite the evidence to the contrary, that the Illuminati exists, and that it controls the media, and the banks, and the government, and corporations, and just about everything... except apparently for the internet where anyone can create a website that opposes the Illuminate, as well as whomever is broadcasting Alex Jones's radio program.
The belief that the Illuminati exists can be very strong in some people, and can cause some people obsessively look for "Illuminati" symbols wherever they believe them to be. It can also cause them to accuse people (mostly people who are rich or famous, or are a politician) of being a member of the Illuminati. Sometimes it's not even someone whom is one of the rich and powerful, sometimes it can be just a regular person whom is apart of a group that is accused of being a front group for the Illuminati (example: Free Masons), or even a certain religion.
Because this belief in the Illuminati can be so strong in some people it can actually cause some people to distance themselves from anyone whom they believe to be a member of the Illuminati, or get into huge arguments with people who don't believe in the Illuminati.
On the other hand, there are some conspiracy theories that can drive a person to become paranoid, and possibly even act out in very disturbing ways, perhaps even in a violent manner towards those who they feel are apart of that conspiracy.
Here are a few of those conspiracy theories:
Chemtrails
Chemtrails is a conspiracy theory in which some conspiracy theorists believe that the government is spraying chemicals on the population from air planes, and that the contrails coming out of many air planes are actually laced with chemicals, and thus called "chemtrails".
Now despite the fact that the chemtrail conspiracy theories have been debunked, some people take it very seriously. So seriously in fact that many conspiracy theorists will spray vinegar into the air whenever they see a contrail (because they believe that doing so will destroy a chemtrail), or even go to a hospital whenever they see a bunch of contrails in the air, because they are seriously afraid it might cause them health problems.
Some people have even taken their paranoia a step further and have threatened shoot down air planes because they think they are spraying chemtrails.
Mind control
If there is one conspiracy theory that believing in can cause a person to become very paranoid (although it may also be a strong indicator of a serious mental illness) it would be the mind control conspiracy theories, particularly the ones that involve some sort of telepathy.
The fact is that if a person believes that their mind can be attacked at any point in time it tends to leave that person extremely paranoid, and causes them to do some pretty bizarre stuff, such as wearing hats made out of aluminum foil, or even covering their entire house in aluminum foil (because they believe it will block out what ever rays are being used to control their minds).
This may also cause some people to be wary of other people as well, even people who might try to help them overcome their fear, because they fear that person might come under some kind of mind control as well and harm them.
Shape-shifting aliens
Often times attributed to David Icke, there are some people out there who seriously believe that there are shape-shifting reptilian aliens that not only walk among us, but are in control of the world, and that many world leaders are actually aliens from either another world or dimension.
I really wish I was making this up, but sadly I am not. There are people out there that are so paranoid, and so delusional, that they seriously believe that the leaders of the world are actually shape-shifting lizards from another planet or universe.
The belief that another person is a shape-shifting alien doesn't just include world leaders, it can actually include anyone, be it a celebrity, a rich person, some random person, myself, and even David Icke (who has been accused of being a shape-shifting alien).
Some people who believe in this conspiracy theory are even so paranoid and delusional in their beliefs that they believe that they themselves are a shape-shift alien...
Dis-info agents
Just about every skeptic and debunker has at one time or another been called a dis-info agent. This is just a general reaction by conspiracy theorists when a skeptic either refuses to believe them, or presents evidence showing that the conspiracy theorist's claims are false.
While some conspiracy theorists may cry out "dis-info agent" whenever they encounter a skeptic, many conspiracy theorists really do believe that there are dis-info agents out there, and that they are out there to "trick" people into no longer believing a conspiracy theory that they promote.
This belief in dis-info agents often times causes many conspiracy theorist to disregard any fact that would disprove their conspiracy theory, and basically regard it as being nothing more than disinformation, no matter how sound it is. This paranoia can even go so far that some conspiracy theorists will believe that other conspiracy theorists are also dis-info agents as well if that conspiracy theorist's conspiracy theory is to much un-alike their own.
FEMA camps
FEMA camps is another one of those conspiracy theories that has been around for a long time, yet has no evidence to back it up, but many people still believe in it and that these FEMA camps exists.
People who believe in this conspiracy theory claim that the government is constructing prison camps to be run by FEMA all across the country inorder to imprison anyone who they feel will oppose the government in some up and coming police state (which according to them is just around the corner... and has been for the last couple of decades).
This constant fear that the government is going to create a police state and ship people off to these imaginary prison camps can cause some people to act out in very irrational ways, including building huge bunkers in which to hide out in and perhaps fight from, buy up huge amounts of guns and ammunition and other type of supplies, and cut off contact with people. It can also make a person become violent towards anyone who works for the government (especially law enforcement), or just drive a person to the point of suicide due to the fear that they will be imprisoned or killed.
The Illuminati
There are many people out there that believe that, despite the evidence to the contrary, that the Illuminati exists, and that it controls the media, and the banks, and the government, and corporations, and just about everything... except apparently for the internet where anyone can create a website that opposes the Illuminate, as well as whomever is broadcasting Alex Jones's radio program.
The belief that the Illuminati exists can be very strong in some people, and can cause some people obsessively look for "Illuminati" symbols wherever they believe them to be. It can also cause them to accuse people (mostly people who are rich or famous, or are a politician) of being a member of the Illuminati. Sometimes it's not even someone whom is one of the rich and powerful, sometimes it can be just a regular person whom is apart of a group that is accused of being a front group for the Illuminati (example: Free Masons), or even a certain religion.
Because this belief in the Illuminati can be so strong in some people it can actually cause some people to distance themselves from anyone whom they believe to be a member of the Illuminati, or get into huge arguments with people who don't believe in the Illuminati.
Tuesday, August 20, 2013
Why do people lie about their belief in a Conspiracy Theory? Part 1: Fear
Why do some people continue to express belief in a conspiracy theory when they actually no longer believe in that conspiracy theory?
Yes, as hard as it might sound to some people, their are people out there that do in fact lie about their beliefs in a conspiracy theory, and there are actually several different reason why someone does this, but one of the main reasons why someone does this is fear.
In fact not only is fear a major reason why someone would claim to believe in a conspiracy theory that they no longer believe in, there are actually several different reasons (or excuses) for that fear.
What if?
Probably one of the most common reasons why a person says they believe in a conspiracy theory, even when they do not actually believe in it is the question of "what if?" as in "what if I'm wrong?"
The fear of being wrong about something is often times one of the biggest reasons why someone claims to believe in something when in their minds they actually don't (or at least question themselves) because they think it might save them in some ways if they turn out to be wrong and it actually is true...
They don't want to look stupid.
For some people whom believe in a conspiracy theory, but have since stopped believing but continue to claim to believe in a conspiracy theory, they may be continuing to claim they believe in a conspiracy theory due to the fact that they, in a way, would be admitting that they were being stupid, and maybe in their egotistical minds, would look stupid in the process.
Because of this fear, combined with their own ego, it can cause a person to continue saying that they believe in a long after they actually stopped believing in a conspiracy theory, and can cause them to continue to try to prove a conspiracy theory that they no longer believe in is real to other people.
They can also be very sensitive as well and blow up when someone questions their claims, or intelligence, or sanity.
They're afraid losing relationships.
Some people might claim to believe in a conspiracy theory not because genuinely believe in it, but because someone they are close to, or a group of people they are close to, believes in that conspiracy theory.
This relationship could be with a family member they are close to, or their entire family, and they're afraid that if they speak out and say that they do not believe in the conspiracy theory that the family member (or members) believes in, or do not even express any of the same beliefs in said conspiracy theory, they may lose what relationship they have with that family member, or their family.
The relationship lose might not come from a family member either. It could be a fear of a lose of friends.
Lets say a person has a friend, or a group of friends, who believe in a conspiracy theory. Or, maybe they even joined an organization that promotes a certain conspiracy theory, and they made friends with some of the people in that organization. Some people might continue to claim they believe in that conspiracy theory long after they stopped believing in it simply because they don't want to lose their friends.
They're afraid of being harassed and retaliated against.
While some people's fear based reasons for continuing to believe in a conspiracy theory they no longer believe in (or never really did) might be a selfishly based fear, some people's fear might be a legitimate fear, such as the fear of being harassed and/or retaliated against.
This fear is a very legitimate in fact, not only because conspiracy theorists have been known to harass skeptics and debunkers who express doubt in a conspiracy theory, or actually prove a conspiracy theory to be false, but also because it has happened before to other former conspiracy theorists too.
This fear of harassment might not even come from people in a conspiracy theorist organization. It may come from the whole community, especially if the whole, or at least many in the community actually believes in a certain conspiracy theory and you do not. Expressing disbelief in a conspiracy theory in such a community could result in some people trying to run that person out of town.
Because of this fear of harassment and other, perhaps more violent forms of retaliation, this may keep a person claiming to believe in a conspiracy theory long after they no longer do.
They're afraid of being abused.
While most people believe in a conspiracy theory because they want to, some people only say they believe in a conspiracy theory out of the very real and legitimate fear of being assaulted by someone close to them that does.
This fear can be very real and could be the result of a spouse, or a boyfriend, or a girlfriend, or even a parent whom is either intimidating, authoritarian, and/or abusive. Combine this with a belief in conspiracy theories that person might have, and it might make a person whom is on the receiving end of the abuse feel like they have no choice but to say that they believe in a conspiracy theory simply to stay safe.
Sometimes they claim to believe in a conspiracy theory not out of the fear of possibly being abused, but because they have been told by the abusive party that they will be beaten if they defy them, or actually have been beaten for defying them.
Fear of financial lose.
The final fear based reason why some people claim to believe in a conspiracy theory even when they no longer do (or never did) is because they have a real financial incentive to claim to believe in a conspiracy.
First, the person could own a business that has clientele that not only believe in conspiracy theories, but believe in it them so much so that they might not do business with someone whom doesn't agree with them (this could be based off of their own fear that a person could be a shill if they don't agree with them).
Because the owner might not want to lose that person's business, they might claim they also believe in that conspiracy theory, why in reality they really don't.
Now the other type of fear of financial lose might not come from the fear of the lose of clientele, but the fear of losing your job, either by getting fired by a manager or owner who believes in a conspiracy theory and doesn't want anyone working for them that doesn't, or a co-worker whom believes in a conspiracy theory, and retaliates and does anything they can to get a person fired because they don't believe in the conspiracy theory that they believe in.
Yes, as hard as it might sound to some people, their are people out there that do in fact lie about their beliefs in a conspiracy theory, and there are actually several different reason why someone does this, but one of the main reasons why someone does this is fear.
In fact not only is fear a major reason why someone would claim to believe in a conspiracy theory that they no longer believe in, there are actually several different reasons (or excuses) for that fear.
What if?
Probably one of the most common reasons why a person says they believe in a conspiracy theory, even when they do not actually believe in it is the question of "what if?" as in "what if I'm wrong?"
The fear of being wrong about something is often times one of the biggest reasons why someone claims to believe in something when in their minds they actually don't (or at least question themselves) because they think it might save them in some ways if they turn out to be wrong and it actually is true...
They don't want to look stupid.
For some people whom believe in a conspiracy theory, but have since stopped believing but continue to claim to believe in a conspiracy theory, they may be continuing to claim they believe in a conspiracy theory due to the fact that they, in a way, would be admitting that they were being stupid, and maybe in their egotistical minds, would look stupid in the process.
Because of this fear, combined with their own ego, it can cause a person to continue saying that they believe in a long after they actually stopped believing in a conspiracy theory, and can cause them to continue to try to prove a conspiracy theory that they no longer believe in is real to other people.
They can also be very sensitive as well and blow up when someone questions their claims, or intelligence, or sanity.
They're afraid losing relationships.
Some people might claim to believe in a conspiracy theory not because genuinely believe in it, but because someone they are close to, or a group of people they are close to, believes in that conspiracy theory.
This relationship could be with a family member they are close to, or their entire family, and they're afraid that if they speak out and say that they do not believe in the conspiracy theory that the family member (or members) believes in, or do not even express any of the same beliefs in said conspiracy theory, they may lose what relationship they have with that family member, or their family.
The relationship lose might not come from a family member either. It could be a fear of a lose of friends.
Lets say a person has a friend, or a group of friends, who believe in a conspiracy theory. Or, maybe they even joined an organization that promotes a certain conspiracy theory, and they made friends with some of the people in that organization. Some people might continue to claim they believe in that conspiracy theory long after they stopped believing in it simply because they don't want to lose their friends.
They're afraid of being harassed and retaliated against.
While some people's fear based reasons for continuing to believe in a conspiracy theory they no longer believe in (or never really did) might be a selfishly based fear, some people's fear might be a legitimate fear, such as the fear of being harassed and/or retaliated against.
This fear is a very legitimate in fact, not only because conspiracy theorists have been known to harass skeptics and debunkers who express doubt in a conspiracy theory, or actually prove a conspiracy theory to be false, but also because it has happened before to other former conspiracy theorists too.
This fear of harassment might not even come from people in a conspiracy theorist organization. It may come from the whole community, especially if the whole, or at least many in the community actually believes in a certain conspiracy theory and you do not. Expressing disbelief in a conspiracy theory in such a community could result in some people trying to run that person out of town.
Because of this fear of harassment and other, perhaps more violent forms of retaliation, this may keep a person claiming to believe in a conspiracy theory long after they no longer do.
They're afraid of being abused.
While most people believe in a conspiracy theory because they want to, some people only say they believe in a conspiracy theory out of the very real and legitimate fear of being assaulted by someone close to them that does.
This fear can be very real and could be the result of a spouse, or a boyfriend, or a girlfriend, or even a parent whom is either intimidating, authoritarian, and/or abusive. Combine this with a belief in conspiracy theories that person might have, and it might make a person whom is on the receiving end of the abuse feel like they have no choice but to say that they believe in a conspiracy theory simply to stay safe.
Sometimes they claim to believe in a conspiracy theory not out of the fear of possibly being abused, but because they have been told by the abusive party that they will be beaten if they defy them, or actually have been beaten for defying them.
Fear of financial lose.
The final fear based reason why some people claim to believe in a conspiracy theory even when they no longer do (or never did) is because they have a real financial incentive to claim to believe in a conspiracy.
First, the person could own a business that has clientele that not only believe in conspiracy theories, but believe in it them so much so that they might not do business with someone whom doesn't agree with them (this could be based off of their own fear that a person could be a shill if they don't agree with them).
Because the owner might not want to lose that person's business, they might claim they also believe in that conspiracy theory, why in reality they really don't.
Now the other type of fear of financial lose might not come from the fear of the lose of clientele, but the fear of losing your job, either by getting fired by a manager or owner who believes in a conspiracy theory and doesn't want anyone working for them that doesn't, or a co-worker whom believes in a conspiracy theory, and retaliates and does anything they can to get a person fired because they don't believe in the conspiracy theory that they believe in.
Tuesday, August 6, 2013
What is a Sheeple? The Conspiracy Theorist definition, and the reality based definition.
Recently on Facebook came across a picture on my feed that, considering the group it was posted in (it was a comedy page) I thought was very... unusual, to say the least.
This is the picture that was posted in said group:
I found this picture a tad bit disturbing, not only because it was posted in a group meant for comedy, but because it clearly showed what at least some conspiracy theorists thinks about people who disagree with them or out right do not believe (and most of the time, for good reason).
In fact this description would be far more accurate if the word "Sheeple" was replaced with "Conspiracy Theorist", as many skeptics would agree that this would more accurately describe many conspiracy theorists (or at least the far more psychotic ones).
Now, a far more accurate definition for the word "Sheeple" would probably be this:
Sheeple - A derogatory word that combines the words "sheep" and "people", and is typically used by conspiracy theorists to try to describe a person whom does not believe in their conspiracy theories (see Skeptic).
Typically the word "Sheeple" is used in arguments over the internet as a blatant insult directed at a skeptic, and is also used as an attempt to intimidate a skeptic into backing down or backing away from an argument concerning a conspiracy theory, and/or even bully them into agreeing with the conspiracy theorist.
This is not to be confused with the word "Shill" which is typically directed towards people who not only do not believe in a conspiracy theory that a conspiracy theorist is presenting, but also presents evidence and/or logical reasoning to show why they don't believe in a conspiracy theory.
Both "Shill" and "Sheeple" are also used by conspiracy theorists as an attempt to end an argument over the internet while trying to save face when it becomes obvious to them that they can not win and are just making themselves appear as someone of either low intelligence and/or questionable sanity.
That would be a far more accurate description for the word "Sheeple". Basically speaking, it is just a typical insult that conspiracy theorists use to try to scare away a skeptic.
The best thing to do if someone calls you a sheeple is to ask them why they think you are a sheeple, and then explain to them why you are not one (this also works if they call you a shill). If this does not work either ignore the accusations, ignore the person completely, or (if you feel like just making them mad) tell them that they are actually conceding defeat in that they actually have nothing left to counter argue, and that they are actually trying to end the argument while at the same time attempting to make it appear as if they have actually won the argument.
Regardless of how you decide to actually handle someone who calls you a a sheeple or a shill, you just have to remember that this is typical conspiracy theorist speak, and that they're only saying it because they're mad that you don't believe them.
This is the picture that was posted in said group:
I found this picture a tad bit disturbing, not only because it was posted in a group meant for comedy, but because it clearly showed what at least some conspiracy theorists thinks about people who disagree with them or out right do not believe (and most of the time, for good reason).
In fact this description would be far more accurate if the word "Sheeple" was replaced with "Conspiracy Theorist", as many skeptics would agree that this would more accurately describe many conspiracy theorists (or at least the far more psychotic ones).
Now, a far more accurate definition for the word "Sheeple" would probably be this:
Sheeple - A derogatory word that combines the words "sheep" and "people", and is typically used by conspiracy theorists to try to describe a person whom does not believe in their conspiracy theories (see Skeptic).
Typically the word "Sheeple" is used in arguments over the internet as a blatant insult directed at a skeptic, and is also used as an attempt to intimidate a skeptic into backing down or backing away from an argument concerning a conspiracy theory, and/or even bully them into agreeing with the conspiracy theorist.
This is not to be confused with the word "Shill" which is typically directed towards people who not only do not believe in a conspiracy theory that a conspiracy theorist is presenting, but also presents evidence and/or logical reasoning to show why they don't believe in a conspiracy theory.
Both "Shill" and "Sheeple" are also used by conspiracy theorists as an attempt to end an argument over the internet while trying to save face when it becomes obvious to them that they can not win and are just making themselves appear as someone of either low intelligence and/or questionable sanity.
That would be a far more accurate description for the word "Sheeple". Basically speaking, it is just a typical insult that conspiracy theorists use to try to scare away a skeptic.
The best thing to do if someone calls you a sheeple is to ask them why they think you are a sheeple, and then explain to them why you are not one (this also works if they call you a shill). If this does not work either ignore the accusations, ignore the person completely, or (if you feel like just making them mad) tell them that they are actually conceding defeat in that they actually have nothing left to counter argue, and that they are actually trying to end the argument while at the same time attempting to make it appear as if they have actually won the argument.
Regardless of how you decide to actually handle someone who calls you a a sheeple or a shill, you just have to remember that this is typical conspiracy theorist speak, and that they're only saying it because they're mad that you don't believe them.
Friday, July 19, 2013
'Conspiracy theorists' sane: government dupes crazy, hostile: A flawed article about conspiracy theorists and skeptics
A few days ago I came across an article that had been published on PressTV (which is owned by the government of Iran) that was titled "New studies: 'Conspiracy theorists' sane; government dupes crazy, hostile".
The title alone made it quite clear that the article was one sided, and that it is also quite clear what the writer of the article thinks about skeptics and debunkers... and anyone else who believes the reality that the U.S. government did not stage the worst terrorist attack in history.
Let me share with you the first couple of paragraphs of this article:
I can tell just by reading this that what this article is claiming is very flawed.
For one thing it's assuming that the majority of people making comments on an internet news article reflects the views of the majority of the people. Even on non-conspiracy theory subjects where the majority of people posting comments may seem like the overall majority, in reality they are just being the more vocal of the two groups.
The seconded problem is this "coded comments" thing. What exactly does this mean? Does it mean that the people who did this study read comments individually and were able to establish their content and context? Because of the way it was worded it doesn't sound like it to me. It makes it sound like the people who did the study actually let a computer search for certain words and phrases that are commonly used among conspiracy theorists and skeptics, which is a highly flawed way to research something like this because computers can't understand context like humans can.
This of course isn't the only thing this article claims. It also claims that those that believe what they are calling the "mainstream views" are also display more anger and hostility towards those who don't:
I admit, sometimes skeptics and debunkers do get angry at conspiracy theorists, but actual hostility is actually pretty rare (although it this can be questionable as what some people consider to be hostility might not be considered hostility to others), and usually comes in the form of insults to the conspiracy theorist's intelligence or sanity (both of which after time becomes questionable) and rarely includes the form of threats (unless you include threats of getting banned and having your comments removed). Conspiracy theorists on the other hand engage in hostility towards others all the time, including fellow conspiracy theorists.
This paragraph is also making the assumption that just because the majority of people who comment on internet articles about the 9/11 attacks reflects the majority of the population itself. It does not. In fact the majority of the American people have never believed that the government committed the 9/11 attacks.
The next two paragraphs makes it appear that skeptics are the real conspiracy theorists:
This is of course another common claim and belief among conspiracy theorists in that the skeptics of the 9/11 conspiracy theories haven't done their research and just assume that the official account is correct, when in reality skeptics have done their research and have determined that the official account is for the most part correct, and that it is the claims that the conspiracy theorists make that are flawed and incorrect.
This article also makes it appear that skeptics feel like they are "rivals" to conspiracy theorists. This is completely untrue. Skeptics don't consider themselves to be rivals to conspiracy theorists because skeptics don't consider a conspiracy theorists conspiracy theory to be rival to the truth.
As it turns out this whole article is hugely cherry picked from the original article published by Micheal J. Woods and Karen M. Douglas (read here) and comes to an entirely different conclusion than what the original article did.
This article for PressTV, which was written by Dr. Kevin Barrett, a 9/11 Truther and conspiracy theorist himself, is hugely deceptive, and is nothing more than an attempt to make people who are not apart of the 9/11 Truth movement look like a bunch deluded people who live in a fantasy world, when in reality the opposite is true.
In conclusion, the article is nothing more than propaganda and dis-information.
The title alone made it quite clear that the article was one sided, and that it is also quite clear what the writer of the article thinks about skeptics and debunkers... and anyone else who believes the reality that the U.S. government did not stage the worst terrorist attack in history.
Let me share with you the first couple of paragraphs of this article:
- The most recent study was published on July 8th by psychologists Michael J. Wood and Karen M. Douglas of the University of Kent (UK). Entitled “What about Building 7? A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories,” the study compared “conspiracist” (pro-conspiracy theory) and “conventionalist” (anti-conspiracy) comments at news websites.
The authors were surprised to discover that it is now more conventional to leave so-called conspiracist comments than conventionalist ones: “Of the 2174 comments collected, 1459 were coded as conspiracist and 715 as conventionalist.” In other words, among people who comment on news articles, those who disbelieve government accounts of such events as 9/11 and the JFK assassination outnumber believers by more than two to one. That means it is the pro-conspiracy commenters who are expressing what is now the conventional wisdom, while the anti-conspiracy commenters are becoming a small, beleaguered minority.
I can tell just by reading this that what this article is claiming is very flawed.
For one thing it's assuming that the majority of people making comments on an internet news article reflects the views of the majority of the people. Even on non-conspiracy theory subjects where the majority of people posting comments may seem like the overall majority, in reality they are just being the more vocal of the two groups.
The seconded problem is this "coded comments" thing. What exactly does this mean? Does it mean that the people who did this study read comments individually and were able to establish their content and context? Because of the way it was worded it doesn't sound like it to me. It makes it sound like the people who did the study actually let a computer search for certain words and phrases that are commonly used among conspiracy theorists and skeptics, which is a highly flawed way to research something like this because computers can't understand context like humans can.
This of course isn't the only thing this article claims. It also claims that those that believe what they are calling the "mainstream views" are also display more anger and hostility towards those who don't:
- Perhaps because their supposedly mainstream views no longer represent the majority, the anti-conspiracy commenters often displayed anger and hostility: “The research… showed that people who favoured the official account of 9/11 were generally more hostile when trying to persuade their rivals.”
I admit, sometimes skeptics and debunkers do get angry at conspiracy theorists, but actual hostility is actually pretty rare (although it this can be questionable as what some people consider to be hostility might not be considered hostility to others), and usually comes in the form of insults to the conspiracy theorist's intelligence or sanity (both of which after time becomes questionable) and rarely includes the form of threats (unless you include threats of getting banned and having your comments removed). Conspiracy theorists on the other hand engage in hostility towards others all the time, including fellow conspiracy theorists.
This paragraph is also making the assumption that just because the majority of people who comment on internet articles about the 9/11 attacks reflects the majority of the population itself. It does not. In fact the majority of the American people have never believed that the government committed the 9/11 attacks.
The next two paragraphs makes it appear that skeptics are the real conspiracy theorists:
- Additionally, it turned out that the anti-conspiracy people were not only hostile, but fanatically attached to their own conspiracy theories as well. According to them, their own theory of 9/11 - a conspiracy theory holding that 19 Arabs, none of whom could fly planes with any proficiency, pulled off the crime of the century under the direction of a guy on dialysis in a cave in Afghanistan - was indisputably true. The so-called conspiracists, on the other hand, did not pretend to have a theory that completely explained the events of 9/11: “For people who think 9/11 was a government conspiracy, the focus is not on promoting a specific rival theory, but in trying to debunk the official account.”
In short, the new study by Wood and Douglas suggests that the negative stereotype of the conspiracy theorist - a hostile fanatic wedded to the truth of his own fringe theory - accurately describes the people who defend the official account of 9/11, not those who dispute it.
This is of course another common claim and belief among conspiracy theorists in that the skeptics of the 9/11 conspiracy theories haven't done their research and just assume that the official account is correct, when in reality skeptics have done their research and have determined that the official account is for the most part correct, and that it is the claims that the conspiracy theorists make that are flawed and incorrect.
This article also makes it appear that skeptics feel like they are "rivals" to conspiracy theorists. This is completely untrue. Skeptics don't consider themselves to be rivals to conspiracy theorists because skeptics don't consider a conspiracy theorists conspiracy theory to be rival to the truth.
As it turns out this whole article is hugely cherry picked from the original article published by Micheal J. Woods and Karen M. Douglas (read here) and comes to an entirely different conclusion than what the original article did.
This article for PressTV, which was written by Dr. Kevin Barrett, a 9/11 Truther and conspiracy theorist himself, is hugely deceptive, and is nothing more than an attempt to make people who are not apart of the 9/11 Truth movement look like a bunch deluded people who live in a fantasy world, when in reality the opposite is true.
In conclusion, the article is nothing more than propaganda and dis-information.
Tuesday, July 16, 2013
5 Things I've noticed about... False Flag Conspiracy Theorists
False flag conspiracy theorists are conspiracy theorist who believe that almost anytime there is some type of large attack in this country then it is most likely done by the government.
While there are a lot of things that these types of conspiracy theorists tend to do, I narrowed it down to five things.
So here are five things I've noticed about false flag conspiracy theorists:
5. They have no idea what a false flag attack really is.
Most conspiracy theorists believe that false flag attack is when a government agent disguises themselves as an enemy, and commits an attack against the public. Technically speaking this is not a false flag attack.
A false flag attack is actually a navel term for when you put up your enemy's flag on your ship in order to sneak behind them and attack them. That is what a false flag attack really is. You're not posing as your enemy in order to attack your own people, but to attack your enemy.
4. They think everything is a false flag attack.
It doesn't matter how obvious it is that an attack was done by some whack job, it doesn't matter how many people died in the attack, or even if it was someone whom killed their self and their self only, according to a conspiracy theorist, it was a false flag attack.
In fact it doesn't even matter if it was a random act of nature, or an industrial accident, or a plane crash, as long as people got killed (or even if people didn't die) according to many conspiracy theorists, they were most likely false flag attacks.
3. They think that other alleged false flag attacks prove their claims.
If you ever ask a conspiracy theorist what proof do they have that what they are claiming to be a false flag really is a false flag attack, they will usually give you a long list of other attacks that they believe to be false flag attacks.
There are two problems with this: the first one is that these other alleged false flag attacks have themselves almost always have never been proven to be false flag attack, and two, even if they could prove that any of those attacks really were false flag attacks, it's still not evidence that what they are claiming to be a false flag attack is a false flag attack.
2. They have a very low opinion of anyone who disagrees with them.
If you tell a conspiracy theorist that you believe them, or are at least willing to hear them out, then their your best friend and will treat you kindly. Disagree agree with them however, well then you should prepare yourself for a barrage of insults and allegations.
If you tell them that you don't believe their claims of a false flag attack what will usually happen is that they will call you a sheep or a sheeple. If then continue on and actually debunk their claims, then they will call you a troll, shill, and a disinfo agent (along with other less than nice words).
1. They always think it will lead to something bigger.
One of the things that conspiracy theorists claim about false flag attacks is that it will always lead to some larger attack in the near future, and eventually Martial law, the New World Order taking over, etc., etc.
The one biggest problem with this is that rarely does an attack (false flag or not) gets followed up soon after with one that is larger in scale and lose of life. In fact the largest terrorist attack ever (and one that's still claimed to be a false flag attack, despite all the evidence that says otherwise) the 9/11 attacks has never been followed up by anything bigger in the near twelve years since the attack, nor has Martial law ever been declared nation wide since the attack either.
While there are a lot of things that these types of conspiracy theorists tend to do, I narrowed it down to five things.
So here are five things I've noticed about false flag conspiracy theorists:
5. They have no idea what a false flag attack really is.
Most conspiracy theorists believe that false flag attack is when a government agent disguises themselves as an enemy, and commits an attack against the public. Technically speaking this is not a false flag attack.
A false flag attack is actually a navel term for when you put up your enemy's flag on your ship in order to sneak behind them and attack them. That is what a false flag attack really is. You're not posing as your enemy in order to attack your own people, but to attack your enemy.
4. They think everything is a false flag attack.
It doesn't matter how obvious it is that an attack was done by some whack job, it doesn't matter how many people died in the attack, or even if it was someone whom killed their self and their self only, according to a conspiracy theorist, it was a false flag attack.
In fact it doesn't even matter if it was a random act of nature, or an industrial accident, or a plane crash, as long as people got killed (or even if people didn't die) according to many conspiracy theorists, they were most likely false flag attacks.
3. They think that other alleged false flag attacks prove their claims.
If you ever ask a conspiracy theorist what proof do they have that what they are claiming to be a false flag really is a false flag attack, they will usually give you a long list of other attacks that they believe to be false flag attacks.
There are two problems with this: the first one is that these other alleged false flag attacks have themselves almost always have never been proven to be false flag attack, and two, even if they could prove that any of those attacks really were false flag attacks, it's still not evidence that what they are claiming to be a false flag attack is a false flag attack.
2. They have a very low opinion of anyone who disagrees with them.
If you tell a conspiracy theorist that you believe them, or are at least willing to hear them out, then their your best friend and will treat you kindly. Disagree agree with them however, well then you should prepare yourself for a barrage of insults and allegations.
If you tell them that you don't believe their claims of a false flag attack what will usually happen is that they will call you a sheep or a sheeple. If then continue on and actually debunk their claims, then they will call you a troll, shill, and a disinfo agent (along with other less than nice words).
1. They always think it will lead to something bigger.
One of the things that conspiracy theorists claim about false flag attacks is that it will always lead to some larger attack in the near future, and eventually Martial law, the New World Order taking over, etc., etc.
The one biggest problem with this is that rarely does an attack (false flag or not) gets followed up soon after with one that is larger in scale and lose of life. In fact the largest terrorist attack ever (and one that's still claimed to be a false flag attack, despite all the evidence that says otherwise) the 9/11 attacks has never been followed up by anything bigger in the near twelve years since the attack, nor has Martial law ever been declared nation wide since the attack either.
Tuesday, July 9, 2013
5 Things I've noticed about... Conspiracy Theorists on the Internet
Ever encounter a conspiracy theorist on the internet? Most of us have, especially if you're a skeptic like myself who has their own blog about debunking. At that point they tend to come to you.
While there are a lot of things about conspiracy theorist on the internet that I've noticed they tend to do, I've narrowed it down to five main things.
So here are five things I've noticed about conspiracy theorist on the internet:
5. They love using quotes.
Be it in their signature line on an internet forum, or in their timeline on their Facebook page, conspiracy theorists love posting quotes on the internet. Usually these quotes are allegedly from some musician, or politician, or philosopher, or just some famous person whom they think would share their beliefs. Sometimes these quotes are accompanied with a picture of the person who allegedly said it.
The problem with this is that (and this is true anytime someone quotes someone) is that the quotes can be taken out of context, the quote can be mis-quoted, or it could be something that person never said at all.
There is of course one truth about these quotes: they do absolutely nothing to back up what ever conspiracy theory they are claiming to believe in.
4. They love collages.
Go to any conspiracy theorist group on Facebook or conspiracy theorist forum and you'll usually find some collages of photo-shopped pictures along with conspiracy theory claims within the collage.
These collages are often times confusing at the least, and more times than not, disturbing looking.
Many conspiracy theorists might think these collages helps get whatever point they have across, but the reality is that they are really a turn off for normal minded people and makes them all look like a bunch of wackos.
3. They don't have a sense of humor.
Conspiracy theorists (at least on the internet) take things way to seriously, and when someone makes a joke or a sarcastic remake, they tend to go ballistic, either because they don't think you should be joking about the subject at hand, or they think you're being serious.
They also can't tell when someone (or some website) is being sarcastic either. An example of this would be Skeptic Project. On the front page of the website it says "Your #1 COINTELPRO cognitive infiltration source." To most people they are clearly being sarcastic. But apparently some people in the Infowars forums thought they were actually admitting to being a COINTELPRO website.
2. They are extremely rude.
Ever try having a conversation over the internet with a conspiracy theorist about some conspiracy they believe, and you tell them that you don't believe in it, or that it isn't true, then you have most likely been on the receiving end of one of the most logical faulty and volatile rants that you will probably ever encounter.
While this behavior is nothing unexpected (be it unwelcomed) from a conspiracy theorist on the interenet, what is unexpected is that some of them make threats (which can get them in trouble), try to take down other peoples' internet pages if they don't like what is on there, troll internet pages and spam them with their conspiracy theories, and harass people who disagree with them.
1. They think everyone whom disagrees with them is a disinformation agent.
Anyone who has a blog dedicated to skepticism and debunking, or gets into an argument with a conspiracy theorist on the internet in which you present evidence debunking whatever claims they are making, will eventually get called a disinformation agent (or a sheeple at the very least).
Because conspiracy theorists so badly believe that what they believe is real, they actually can not believe that someone would honestly not believe them, so anyone who says otherwise must be a disinformation agent, thus they can disregard whatever information is posted that contradicts what they believe to be true.
Of course being called a disinformation agent really means nothing to skeptics. Some of us even consider it a kind of badge of honor.
While there are a lot of things about conspiracy theorist on the internet that I've noticed they tend to do, I've narrowed it down to five main things.
So here are five things I've noticed about conspiracy theorist on the internet:
5. They love using quotes.
Be it in their signature line on an internet forum, or in their timeline on their Facebook page, conspiracy theorists love posting quotes on the internet. Usually these quotes are allegedly from some musician, or politician, or philosopher, or just some famous person whom they think would share their beliefs. Sometimes these quotes are accompanied with a picture of the person who allegedly said it.
The problem with this is that (and this is true anytime someone quotes someone) is that the quotes can be taken out of context, the quote can be mis-quoted, or it could be something that person never said at all.
There is of course one truth about these quotes: they do absolutely nothing to back up what ever conspiracy theory they are claiming to believe in.
4. They love collages.
Go to any conspiracy theorist group on Facebook or conspiracy theorist forum and you'll usually find some collages of photo-shopped pictures along with conspiracy theory claims within the collage.
These collages are often times confusing at the least, and more times than not, disturbing looking.
Many conspiracy theorists might think these collages helps get whatever point they have across, but the reality is that they are really a turn off for normal minded people and makes them all look like a bunch of wackos.
3. They don't have a sense of humor.
Conspiracy theorists (at least on the internet) take things way to seriously, and when someone makes a joke or a sarcastic remake, they tend to go ballistic, either because they don't think you should be joking about the subject at hand, or they think you're being serious.
They also can't tell when someone (or some website) is being sarcastic either. An example of this would be Skeptic Project. On the front page of the website it says "Your #1 COINTELPRO cognitive infiltration source." To most people they are clearly being sarcastic. But apparently some people in the Infowars forums thought they were actually admitting to being a COINTELPRO website.
2. They are extremely rude.
Ever try having a conversation over the internet with a conspiracy theorist about some conspiracy they believe, and you tell them that you don't believe in it, or that it isn't true, then you have most likely been on the receiving end of one of the most logical faulty and volatile rants that you will probably ever encounter.
While this behavior is nothing unexpected (be it unwelcomed) from a conspiracy theorist on the interenet, what is unexpected is that some of them make threats (which can get them in trouble), try to take down other peoples' internet pages if they don't like what is on there, troll internet pages and spam them with their conspiracy theories, and harass people who disagree with them.
1. They think everyone whom disagrees with them is a disinformation agent.
Anyone who has a blog dedicated to skepticism and debunking, or gets into an argument with a conspiracy theorist on the internet in which you present evidence debunking whatever claims they are making, will eventually get called a disinformation agent (or a sheeple at the very least).
Because conspiracy theorists so badly believe that what they believe is real, they actually can not believe that someone would honestly not believe them, so anyone who says otherwise must be a disinformation agent, thus they can disregard whatever information is posted that contradicts what they believe to be true.
Of course being called a disinformation agent really means nothing to skeptics. Some of us even consider it a kind of badge of honor.
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
5 Things I've noticed about... Homophobics
Homophobics are individuals whom for some reason or another hate (or more likely fear) homosexuals. Now while there are many things that I've notice about homophobics, I've managed to narrow it down to five things.
So here are five things I've noticed about homophobics:
5. They're gay.
When I use the word "gay" I don't mean that they're happy people (because most of them aren't) or, as what some high school students mean when they use the word "gay", that they're stupid (although they are, but that meaning really should stop). No, what I mean when I say that homophobics are "gay" is that they really are gay...
Not only have there been several notorious homophobic individuals that have been caught in gay sex scandals (and several more are suspected of being closeted homosexuals too), several studies suggest that people with strong homophobic beliefs are actually themselves homosexuals.
4. They're arguments against homosexuality is based off of fraud studies and emotion.
If you ask a homophobic person why same sex marriage should remain illegal, and why same sex couples shouldn't be aloud to adopt children, and why homosexuality itself should be outlawed, they'll give you a number of different "reasons" why. The problem with the arguments that are often given is that they are often emotionally based rather than fact based, and that religious beliefs, going against nature claims, and slippery slop fallacious are often times used as covers for what is really a person's emotionally based prejudices.
Sometimes of course these people will not only give an emotionally based reasons for continuing to discriminate against homosexuals, they will actually give you "studies" that "show" why homosexuals should be discriminated against. The problem with this is that these studies are not produced by any credible medical or psychological organizations, and are in fact often produced by anti-gay hate groups. These studies are considered to be questionable at best, but often times are considered to be outright fraudulent and nothing more than propaganda.
3. They don't seem to understand the harm they are causing.
Because of homophobic politicians creating laws like DOMA and other state laws and amendments outlawing the legal recognition on both the state and federal levels of same sex marriage, this has caused both financial and legal troubles for many same sex couples.
Besides the political aspect of the harm they're causing, they're causing a lot of social harm as well. They've made some people believe that it's perfectly acceptable to mistreat homosexuals, and homophobia has caused families to break apart because someone (usually a parent) couldn't accept a family member who was gay (usually a child of said parent).
2. They're shrinking.
There's not as many people who believe that homosexuality is wrong and that same sex marriage should be illegal as there was ten years ago, or even five years ago. In fact some surveys suggest that a majority of Americans now believe that same sex marriage should be legal.
In fact most of the time when it comes to homophobic beliefs people tend to go one way, and that is they get over their fears and prejudices about homosexuals and accept that homosexuality is okay. In fact it's pretty rare for someone who isn't homophobic to develop homophobic beliefs, and usually the only people who this happens to are ex-gays (which are homosexuals who have been brainwashed into believing that they aren't homosexuals).
1. They're failing.
Over the years homophobics have been failing more and more to influence anyone other than fellow homophobics. Where once threats of boycotts by homophobic groups against companies for making gay friendly policies or advertising in a gay newspapers would actually get those companies to drop those policies and ads are now being ignored with no harm coming towards them. On the other hand, when there was a boycott against Chick-fil-a due to it's COO's (along with the WinShape Foundation and the company in general) support of anti-gay groups, the boycott was successful and lead to the company ceasing of support of anti-gay groups.
They're also failing in politics too. Same sex marriage is now legal in 12 states and the District of Columbia, and is legal in 15 counties (along with civil union and registered partnerships in eight states and 17 countries). In fact many religious groups (including Christian religious groups) now support gay rights and same sex marriage as well.
Eventually homophobics will have no say what so ever in politics. People won't vote them in, and they'll be treated just like any other bigots.
So here are five things I've noticed about homophobics:
5. They're gay.
When I use the word "gay" I don't mean that they're happy people (because most of them aren't) or, as what some high school students mean when they use the word "gay", that they're stupid (although they are, but that meaning really should stop). No, what I mean when I say that homophobics are "gay" is that they really are gay...
Not only have there been several notorious homophobic individuals that have been caught in gay sex scandals (and several more are suspected of being closeted homosexuals too), several studies suggest that people with strong homophobic beliefs are actually themselves homosexuals.
4. They're arguments against homosexuality is based off of fraud studies and emotion.
If you ask a homophobic person why same sex marriage should remain illegal, and why same sex couples shouldn't be aloud to adopt children, and why homosexuality itself should be outlawed, they'll give you a number of different "reasons" why. The problem with the arguments that are often given is that they are often emotionally based rather than fact based, and that religious beliefs, going against nature claims, and slippery slop fallacious are often times used as covers for what is really a person's emotionally based prejudices.
Sometimes of course these people will not only give an emotionally based reasons for continuing to discriminate against homosexuals, they will actually give you "studies" that "show" why homosexuals should be discriminated against. The problem with this is that these studies are not produced by any credible medical or psychological organizations, and are in fact often produced by anti-gay hate groups. These studies are considered to be questionable at best, but often times are considered to be outright fraudulent and nothing more than propaganda.
3. They don't seem to understand the harm they are causing.
Because of homophobic politicians creating laws like DOMA and other state laws and amendments outlawing the legal recognition on both the state and federal levels of same sex marriage, this has caused both financial and legal troubles for many same sex couples.
Besides the political aspect of the harm they're causing, they're causing a lot of social harm as well. They've made some people believe that it's perfectly acceptable to mistreat homosexuals, and homophobia has caused families to break apart because someone (usually a parent) couldn't accept a family member who was gay (usually a child of said parent).
2. They're shrinking.
There's not as many people who believe that homosexuality is wrong and that same sex marriage should be illegal as there was ten years ago, or even five years ago. In fact some surveys suggest that a majority of Americans now believe that same sex marriage should be legal.
In fact most of the time when it comes to homophobic beliefs people tend to go one way, and that is they get over their fears and prejudices about homosexuals and accept that homosexuality is okay. In fact it's pretty rare for someone who isn't homophobic to develop homophobic beliefs, and usually the only people who this happens to are ex-gays (which are homosexuals who have been brainwashed into believing that they aren't homosexuals).
1. They're failing.
Over the years homophobics have been failing more and more to influence anyone other than fellow homophobics. Where once threats of boycotts by homophobic groups against companies for making gay friendly policies or advertising in a gay newspapers would actually get those companies to drop those policies and ads are now being ignored with no harm coming towards them. On the other hand, when there was a boycott against Chick-fil-a due to it's COO's (along with the WinShape Foundation and the company in general) support of anti-gay groups, the boycott was successful and lead to the company ceasing of support of anti-gay groups.
They're also failing in politics too. Same sex marriage is now legal in 12 states and the District of Columbia, and is legal in 15 counties (along with civil union and registered partnerships in eight states and 17 countries). In fact many religious groups (including Christian religious groups) now support gay rights and same sex marriage as well.
Eventually homophobics will have no say what so ever in politics. People won't vote them in, and they'll be treated just like any other bigots.
Friday, June 21, 2013
8 Alternate UFO explanations
UFOs, and what they are, have been a subject of debate throughout the world for decades now.
For those who are apart of the UFO community, UFOs are usually considered to be extra-terrestrial spacecraft. For skeptics however most UFOs can be easily explained as either being some type of natural weather or astronomical phenomenon, a mis-identification of a man made object, or a hoax.
Beside the most obvious explanations for what UFOs are, there are a few not so obvious (or in some cases, accepted) explanations for what UFOs really are:
8. Extra-dimensional
Probably one of the far most common alternative UFO explanations is that UFOs (and the alleged beings operating them) are actually from other universes, rather than other planets.
This explanation has become so common among UFO believers that many believers actually try to determine if a UFO in a photo or video is of either extra-terrestrial or extra-dimensional origin (rather than of natural or man made origin).
7. Time travelers
Another explanation for the origin of UFOs is that they are from Earth, just far, far into the future. Just how far exactly is often debated amongst the UFO believers who believe this theory.
Some people believe that they're from a few hundred years into the future. Some people believe that they're from several millions of years into the future. Some people even believe that they're just from a few decades into the future.
6. Angels and Demons
Probably one of the more popular explanations amongst devout and fundamentalist Christians (especially those who don't believe in even the possibility of extra-terrestrial life existing elsewhere in the universe) is that UFOs are either angels sent by God, or (more commonly) demons sent by Satan.
While this explanation is far more accepted with devout and fundamentalist Christians (at least those who actually believe in UFOs to begin with) most UFO believers (and skeptics for that matter) do not.
5. Secret and experimental military aircraft
One of the more common explanations for UFOs amongst both skeptics and UFO believers is that many UFOs are actually secret and experimental military aircraft.
The reason why this is accepted among skeptics as well as UFO believers is because several different kinds military aircraft, back when they were still secret and/or experimental, were thought to be UFOs (i.e. F-117, B-2) and that sometimes the government even used the UFO phenomenon as a cover to help keep certain aircraft secret for years (like with the SR-71).
While skeptics and UFO believers do accept that some UFOs are most likely secret and experimental aircraft, many UFO believers also believe that these aircraft are far more technologically advance than what anyone believes is currently possible, and that the technology being used in them is of extra-terrestrial origin.
4. Holograms
Some UFO believers believe that some UFOs aren't even physically real at all, and that they're actually holograms created by the military.
While the main reasons behind why the military would even do this in civilians areas (if they even are doing this at all) are unknown, speculations from UFO believers vary from either being tests for holographic projection weapons, to being part of a bizarre conspiracy theory called Project Blue Beam.
3. Inner-terrestrial
Particularly popular amongst supporters of the hollow Earth theory, some people believe that UFOs are actually created by beings that supposedly live inside the Earth.
This theory is of course impossible, being that modern science has completely dis-proven the hollow Earth theory, although some will say that there are large areas underground that are hollowed out, not the whole Earth, and that these alleged beings live in those areas (at least those that don't claim that there is a conspiracy to hide the "truth" about the Earth being hollow).
2. Spirits
Some people in the UFO community believe that UFOs are neither of alien, or even of technological origin (or natural either) and that they're actually supernatural in nature.
While the belief that UFOs are actually spirits is somewhat popular amongst those in the New Age Movement, the explanation that UFOs are spirits are usually dismissed by both skeptics and UFO believers alike.
1. Ancient human astronauts
Some people believe (especially those who believe in the myth about Atlantis) that humans were more technologically advanced in the past than we were actually known to be, and that some even managed to build spacecraft and left the Earth thousands of years ago, and that they sometimes come back to Earth from time to time.
While this theory may sound plausible, so far no evidence has ever been found that we are far more advanced technologically in the past then we are today.
For those who are apart of the UFO community, UFOs are usually considered to be extra-terrestrial spacecraft. For skeptics however most UFOs can be easily explained as either being some type of natural weather or astronomical phenomenon, a mis-identification of a man made object, or a hoax.
Beside the most obvious explanations for what UFOs are, there are a few not so obvious (or in some cases, accepted) explanations for what UFOs really are:
8. Extra-dimensional
Probably one of the far most common alternative UFO explanations is that UFOs (and the alleged beings operating them) are actually from other universes, rather than other planets.
This explanation has become so common among UFO believers that many believers actually try to determine if a UFO in a photo or video is of either extra-terrestrial or extra-dimensional origin (rather than of natural or man made origin).
7. Time travelers
Another explanation for the origin of UFOs is that they are from Earth, just far, far into the future. Just how far exactly is often debated amongst the UFO believers who believe this theory.
Some people believe that they're from a few hundred years into the future. Some people believe that they're from several millions of years into the future. Some people even believe that they're just from a few decades into the future.
6. Angels and Demons
Probably one of the more popular explanations amongst devout and fundamentalist Christians (especially those who don't believe in even the possibility of extra-terrestrial life existing elsewhere in the universe) is that UFOs are either angels sent by God, or (more commonly) demons sent by Satan.
While this explanation is far more accepted with devout and fundamentalist Christians (at least those who actually believe in UFOs to begin with) most UFO believers (and skeptics for that matter) do not.
5. Secret and experimental military aircraft
One of the more common explanations for UFOs amongst both skeptics and UFO believers is that many UFOs are actually secret and experimental military aircraft.
The reason why this is accepted among skeptics as well as UFO believers is because several different kinds military aircraft, back when they were still secret and/or experimental, were thought to be UFOs (i.e. F-117, B-2) and that sometimes the government even used the UFO phenomenon as a cover to help keep certain aircraft secret for years (like with the SR-71).
While skeptics and UFO believers do accept that some UFOs are most likely secret and experimental aircraft, many UFO believers also believe that these aircraft are far more technologically advance than what anyone believes is currently possible, and that the technology being used in them is of extra-terrestrial origin.
4. Holograms
Some UFO believers believe that some UFOs aren't even physically real at all, and that they're actually holograms created by the military.
While the main reasons behind why the military would even do this in civilians areas (if they even are doing this at all) are unknown, speculations from UFO believers vary from either being tests for holographic projection weapons, to being part of a bizarre conspiracy theory called Project Blue Beam.
3. Inner-terrestrial
Particularly popular amongst supporters of the hollow Earth theory, some people believe that UFOs are actually created by beings that supposedly live inside the Earth.
This theory is of course impossible, being that modern science has completely dis-proven the hollow Earth theory, although some will say that there are large areas underground that are hollowed out, not the whole Earth, and that these alleged beings live in those areas (at least those that don't claim that there is a conspiracy to hide the "truth" about the Earth being hollow).
2. Spirits
Some people in the UFO community believe that UFOs are neither of alien, or even of technological origin (or natural either) and that they're actually supernatural in nature.
While the belief that UFOs are actually spirits is somewhat popular amongst those in the New Age Movement, the explanation that UFOs are spirits are usually dismissed by both skeptics and UFO believers alike.
1. Ancient human astronauts
Some people believe (especially those who believe in the myth about Atlantis) that humans were more technologically advanced in the past than we were actually known to be, and that some even managed to build spacecraft and left the Earth thousands of years ago, and that they sometimes come back to Earth from time to time.
While this theory may sound plausible, so far no evidence has ever been found that we are far more advanced technologically in the past then we are today.
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
How to tell a Conspiracy Theorist from a Conspiracy Believer
In a previous post I discussed how some conspiracy theorists aren't really conspiracy theorists, and that those people should instead be called "conspiracy believers".
While I did point out some basic differences between the two, I didn't really go into to much detail into what those differences really are.
Here I have put together a list of things that conspiracy theorists tend to do that sets them apart from conspiracy believers:
Terminology
Conspiracy theorists has certain words that they tend to use and is quite common for them to use in a conversation (or argument). Some of the more common words used are shill, sheeple, blue pill, red pill, and dis-info agent.
There are of course more then just that, but if you hang around enough conspiracy theorist websites (or get into an argument with a conspiracy theorist on Youtube) you'll learn more of them.
Creating conspiracy theories
One of the primary things that set conspiracy theorists apart from conspiracy believers is that conspiracy theorists actually create conspiracy theories.
Many of these conspiracy theories tend to be either expanding on a already established conspiracy theory, or a conspiracy thats directed at them. Of course, sometimes conspiracy theorists create entirely new conspiracy theories as well.
Emotional Reactions
While conspiracy believers might not become to emotional when discussing a conspiracy theory that they believe in, many conspiracy theorists on the other hand tend to become emotional when they discuss a conspiracy theory they believe. The levels of emotional reactions varies depending on how important the conspiracy theory is to that person, how much they believe the alledged conspiracy affects them, and if the person they are discussing the conspiracy theory with believes them or not.
The use of logical fallacies
While conspiracy believers try to avoid using logical fallacies, conspiracy theorists on the other hand tend to use them all the time, and appear to not even know that they are doing so.
While logical fallacies of all types tend to be used, two of the most common types used are association fallacy and emotional appeal.
Rejection of contradicting and disproving evidence
Conspiracy believers, while they many or may not stop believing in a conspiracy theory once they have been given evidence that can prove the conspiracy theory that they believe in is not true (or at least having a high probability of not being true) conspiracy theorist on the other hand tends to reject any evidence that contradicts and/or disproves what they believe, unless there is something in that evidence that they feel actually proves the conspiracy theory they believe in.
Confirmation bias
While both conspiracy believers and conspiracy theorists tend to have confirmation bias, conspiracy theorists tends to see any small piece of evidence as being absolute confirmation that the conspiracy theory they believe in is true, no matter small it is, no matter if it is taken out of context or not, and no matter if it is even real or not. Conspiracy believers at least will see evidence as just that, evidence, and is more willing to disregard such evidence if it can be proven to them that it isn't true, or taken out of context.
Inappropriate behavior
Conspiracy believers tend to be civil, and tries not to engage in behaviors that would be considered inappropriate because they tend not to get frustrated with people who don't believe them. Conspiracy theorists on the other hand tends to get frustrated pretty easily, and because of this they get angry easily and start behaving in ways that many people would consider to be inappropriate. Examples of this would be insults, threats, spamming internet threads, vileness, manipulation, personal attacks, stalking, harassment, creating inappropriate conspiracy theories, defending another person's inappropriate behavior, and engaging in behavior that most people would consider to be disturbing.
Seeing people who disagree with them as their enemy
When a conspiracy believer talks to some one who doesn't believe in the conspiracy theory that they believe in they will only think of that person as someone who simply disagrees with them. A conspiracy theorist on the other hand sees a person who disagrees with them as being their enemy that is working for whatever group that they believe is committing the conspiracy that they believe in, or at the very least someone who is less intelligent then they are, and therefore (in their minds) more prone to believing whatever they are told by said group.
Belief that what they are doing is the right thing
While both conspiracy believers and conspiracy theorists believe that believing in certain conspiracy theories is okay, conspiracy theorists tend to take it a step further by spreading these conspiracy theories and "correcting" those who disagree with them. They do this because they strongly believe to be real the conspiracy theories that they believe in, and because of that they tend to think that anything they do to promote these conspiracy theories is okay and the right thing to do.
While I did point out some basic differences between the two, I didn't really go into to much detail into what those differences really are.
Here I have put together a list of things that conspiracy theorists tend to do that sets them apart from conspiracy believers:
Terminology
Conspiracy theorists has certain words that they tend to use and is quite common for them to use in a conversation (or argument). Some of the more common words used are shill, sheeple, blue pill, red pill, and dis-info agent.
There are of course more then just that, but if you hang around enough conspiracy theorist websites (or get into an argument with a conspiracy theorist on Youtube) you'll learn more of them.
Creating conspiracy theories
One of the primary things that set conspiracy theorists apart from conspiracy believers is that conspiracy theorists actually create conspiracy theories.
Many of these conspiracy theories tend to be either expanding on a already established conspiracy theory, or a conspiracy thats directed at them. Of course, sometimes conspiracy theorists create entirely new conspiracy theories as well.
Emotional Reactions
While conspiracy believers might not become to emotional when discussing a conspiracy theory that they believe in, many conspiracy theorists on the other hand tend to become emotional when they discuss a conspiracy theory they believe. The levels of emotional reactions varies depending on how important the conspiracy theory is to that person, how much they believe the alledged conspiracy affects them, and if the person they are discussing the conspiracy theory with believes them or not.
The use of logical fallacies
While conspiracy believers try to avoid using logical fallacies, conspiracy theorists on the other hand tend to use them all the time, and appear to not even know that they are doing so.
While logical fallacies of all types tend to be used, two of the most common types used are association fallacy and emotional appeal.
Rejection of contradicting and disproving evidence
Conspiracy believers, while they many or may not stop believing in a conspiracy theory once they have been given evidence that can prove the conspiracy theory that they believe in is not true (or at least having a high probability of not being true) conspiracy theorist on the other hand tends to reject any evidence that contradicts and/or disproves what they believe, unless there is something in that evidence that they feel actually proves the conspiracy theory they believe in.
Confirmation bias
While both conspiracy believers and conspiracy theorists tend to have confirmation bias, conspiracy theorists tends to see any small piece of evidence as being absolute confirmation that the conspiracy theory they believe in is true, no matter small it is, no matter if it is taken out of context or not, and no matter if it is even real or not. Conspiracy believers at least will see evidence as just that, evidence, and is more willing to disregard such evidence if it can be proven to them that it isn't true, or taken out of context.
Inappropriate behavior
Conspiracy believers tend to be civil, and tries not to engage in behaviors that would be considered inappropriate because they tend not to get frustrated with people who don't believe them. Conspiracy theorists on the other hand tends to get frustrated pretty easily, and because of this they get angry easily and start behaving in ways that many people would consider to be inappropriate. Examples of this would be insults, threats, spamming internet threads, vileness, manipulation, personal attacks, stalking, harassment, creating inappropriate conspiracy theories, defending another person's inappropriate behavior, and engaging in behavior that most people would consider to be disturbing.
Seeing people who disagree with them as their enemy
When a conspiracy believer talks to some one who doesn't believe in the conspiracy theory that they believe in they will only think of that person as someone who simply disagrees with them. A conspiracy theorist on the other hand sees a person who disagrees with them as being their enemy that is working for whatever group that they believe is committing the conspiracy that they believe in, or at the very least someone who is less intelligent then they are, and therefore (in their minds) more prone to believing whatever they are told by said group.
Belief that what they are doing is the right thing
While both conspiracy believers and conspiracy theorists believe that believing in certain conspiracy theories is okay, conspiracy theorists tend to take it a step further by spreading these conspiracy theories and "correcting" those who disagree with them. They do this because they strongly believe to be real the conspiracy theories that they believe in, and because of that they tend to think that anything they do to promote these conspiracy theories is okay and the right thing to do.
Tuesday, June 4, 2013
Anti-Vaccination & Anti-GMO: Proof that bad things do come from "Good Intentions"
Many of you probably already know about the Anti-vaccination and Anti-GMO crowds, and what they stand for. For those that do not, I'll refresh your memories:
The Anti-vaccination crowd claims that vaccines can cause debilitating in children, primarily autism, while the Anti-GMO crowds claim that food from genetically modified plants are unhealthy and possibly dangerous.
While I know that both of these groups believe very strongly that what they are saying is true, and that they are spreading whatever they think is true because they only have "good intention" and think what they're doing is right, the reality is what they are doing is very wrong.
Besides the fact that the information that both of these groups put out tends to be out right false, or is based upon outdated information, they don't seem to realize the real damage they are actually doing.
For the Anti-vaccination, the damage is very obvious.
The spreading of the anti-vaccine propaganda has caused some parents to become unnecessarily fearful of vaccines, which in turn has cause those parents to choose to not allow their children to get vaccinated, which has caused the rise of many illnesses among children that I had not even heard of anyone getting when I was in school, and that for the most part I didn't even think could kill someone because I had never heard of anyone dying from these illnesses before, more or less know someone who died from something like the measles.
As a result of this combination propaganda and paranoia, hundreds of children, if not more so, have died, and thousands of children have gotten sick unnecessarily because their parents failed to get them vaccinated, or because they were to young to get vaccinated, and they got sick from another child that was sick with something that could been prevent with a vaccine shot.
Then there is the Anti-GMO crowd, which while might not seem as harmful, could actually be worse.
While there is this popular belief that GMO foods are harmful, untested, and unregulated, all of these are false as GMO foods are heavily tested, heavily regulated, and are no more harmful than organic foods.
While organic food itself isn't actually bad, the people in the Anti-GMO crowd wants to ultimately ban GMO foods, and that is bad thing because the world population can not sustain it's current levels on organic food alone. In fact only 2/3 of that current world population would be able to sustain itself on organic food (and that's the high end).
The fact is that the world hunger problems are bad enough as they are, and would be far worse if the Anti-GMO crowd had it their way and the only food we grew was organic food.
I know that both groups have good intentions, and that both think what they are doing is for the betterment of human kind, but the fact is that they only things these two groups are doing are bringing needless suffering and death, and instead of being saviors of humanity, they are harming it.
The Anti-vaccination crowd claims that vaccines can cause debilitating in children, primarily autism, while the Anti-GMO crowds claim that food from genetically modified plants are unhealthy and possibly dangerous.
While I know that both of these groups believe very strongly that what they are saying is true, and that they are spreading whatever they think is true because they only have "good intention" and think what they're doing is right, the reality is what they are doing is very wrong.
Besides the fact that the information that both of these groups put out tends to be out right false, or is based upon outdated information, they don't seem to realize the real damage they are actually doing.
For the Anti-vaccination, the damage is very obvious.
The spreading of the anti-vaccine propaganda has caused some parents to become unnecessarily fearful of vaccines, which in turn has cause those parents to choose to not allow their children to get vaccinated, which has caused the rise of many illnesses among children that I had not even heard of anyone getting when I was in school, and that for the most part I didn't even think could kill someone because I had never heard of anyone dying from these illnesses before, more or less know someone who died from something like the measles.
As a result of this combination propaganda and paranoia, hundreds of children, if not more so, have died, and thousands of children have gotten sick unnecessarily because their parents failed to get them vaccinated, or because they were to young to get vaccinated, and they got sick from another child that was sick with something that could been prevent with a vaccine shot.
Then there is the Anti-GMO crowd, which while might not seem as harmful, could actually be worse.
While there is this popular belief that GMO foods are harmful, untested, and unregulated, all of these are false as GMO foods are heavily tested, heavily regulated, and are no more harmful than organic foods.
While organic food itself isn't actually bad, the people in the Anti-GMO crowd wants to ultimately ban GMO foods, and that is bad thing because the world population can not sustain it's current levels on organic food alone. In fact only 2/3 of that current world population would be able to sustain itself on organic food (and that's the high end).
The fact is that the world hunger problems are bad enough as they are, and would be far worse if the Anti-GMO crowd had it their way and the only food we grew was organic food.
I know that both groups have good intentions, and that both think what they are doing is for the betterment of human kind, but the fact is that they only things these two groups are doing are bringing needless suffering and death, and instead of being saviors of humanity, they are harming it.
Friday, May 24, 2013
5 Things I've noticed about... the Anti-Vaccination Movement
The anti-vaccination movement is a large group of like minded people whom believe that vaccines cause autism (along with some other stuff, but mostly autism). While there are a lot of things I've noticed about this movement, I've managed to narrow it down to five.
So here are five things I've noticed about the anti-vaccination movement:
5. There's no need for it to exist.
If you are part of the anti-vaccination movement, then you are in a movement that does not need to exist, and in fact shouldn't exist.
Every claim made about vaccines being harmful and causing debilitating neurological conditions (most commonly autism) has been proven to be false, and vaccines have been proven to be not only the cheapest method of disease control and prevention, but also the best, and the safest.
Complications from vaccines are rare (around maybe 1 and 1000) and mostly minor. Serious complications are extremely rare (around 1 to 2 per million), and deaths are even rarer than that.
4. It's biggest supporters are a bunch of cranks.
The biggest supporters (and leaders) of the anti-vaccination are not only people who should not be giving out medical advice, most of them aren't even doctors (and the ones that are tend to have some questionable credentials).
Jenny McCarthy, one of the top supporters, is not a doctor. In fact she left nursing school in order to become a model. She promotes therapies that are harmful, and she's also a liar too...
Andrew Wakefield, the ex-doctor whom's 1998 research paper that was published in the Lancet that claimed to show a connection between vaccines and autism, was stuck off of the British General Medical Council register (the British equivalent of having your medical license revoked) after the Lancet retracted his paper after it was proven his research was based off of fraud. He still claims his research was not fraudulent, and that there was a conspiracy against him to destroy his research (despite the fact that it took over ten years from the time his paper was published for his paper to be retracted, and for the GMC to strike off his name).
Then there is Alex Jones, who thinks that vaccines are being used to create genetically modified people and causes diseases, not prevent them.
3. The movement is based off of lies.
The whole bases for the anti-vaccine movement is based off of the proven fraudulent 1998 research paper by Andrew Wakefield that claims there is a connection between the MMR vaccines and austim. The paper was highly controversial even when it came out, and the claims made in it had been dis-proven years before it was formally retracted for fraud.
Other lies made by the movement are that vaccines have been made more dangerous over the years (in fact they have been made safer) and that and the rates of autism in children who are un-vaccinated is far lower then those that have been vaccinated, which is false. In fact the rates are the same.
2. People in the movement do stuff that's legally iffy.
Many of the things that people in the anti-vaccination movement do could be considered walking on the edge of the law, and even illegal.
Most states won't allow a parent to enroll their child into school unless they have been vaccinated.
Not vaccinating your child could be seen as form of child neglect.
The constant claims made against the companies that make vaccines could be considered liable and slander.
And even telling people that vaccines cause autism could be considered distribution of fraudulent medical advice.
1. What it's promoting is dangerous.
The anti-vaccination movement has been linked to the deaths of thousands of children, and not just children whom's parents got caught up in the anti-vaccine hysteria, but children who were to young to get vaccinated too.
Not only are people in this movement are putting their own children at risk of getting a serious illness, they're putting other children at risk as well. Not only is that dangerous, that's pretty selfish too.
So here are five things I've noticed about the anti-vaccination movement:
5. There's no need for it to exist.
If you are part of the anti-vaccination movement, then you are in a movement that does not need to exist, and in fact shouldn't exist.
Every claim made about vaccines being harmful and causing debilitating neurological conditions (most commonly autism) has been proven to be false, and vaccines have been proven to be not only the cheapest method of disease control and prevention, but also the best, and the safest.
Complications from vaccines are rare (around maybe 1 and 1000) and mostly minor. Serious complications are extremely rare (around 1 to 2 per million), and deaths are even rarer than that.
4. It's biggest supporters are a bunch of cranks.
The biggest supporters (and leaders) of the anti-vaccination are not only people who should not be giving out medical advice, most of them aren't even doctors (and the ones that are tend to have some questionable credentials).
Jenny McCarthy, one of the top supporters, is not a doctor. In fact she left nursing school in order to become a model. She promotes therapies that are harmful, and she's also a liar too...
Andrew Wakefield, the ex-doctor whom's 1998 research paper that was published in the Lancet that claimed to show a connection between vaccines and autism, was stuck off of the British General Medical Council register (the British equivalent of having your medical license revoked) after the Lancet retracted his paper after it was proven his research was based off of fraud. He still claims his research was not fraudulent, and that there was a conspiracy against him to destroy his research (despite the fact that it took over ten years from the time his paper was published for his paper to be retracted, and for the GMC to strike off his name).
Then there is Alex Jones, who thinks that vaccines are being used to create genetically modified people and causes diseases, not prevent them.
3. The movement is based off of lies.
The whole bases for the anti-vaccine movement is based off of the proven fraudulent 1998 research paper by Andrew Wakefield that claims there is a connection between the MMR vaccines and austim. The paper was highly controversial even when it came out, and the claims made in it had been dis-proven years before it was formally retracted for fraud.
Other lies made by the movement are that vaccines have been made more dangerous over the years (in fact they have been made safer) and that and the rates of autism in children who are un-vaccinated is far lower then those that have been vaccinated, which is false. In fact the rates are the same.
2. People in the movement do stuff that's legally iffy.
Many of the things that people in the anti-vaccination movement do could be considered walking on the edge of the law, and even illegal.
Most states won't allow a parent to enroll their child into school unless they have been vaccinated.
Not vaccinating your child could be seen as form of child neglect.
The constant claims made against the companies that make vaccines could be considered liable and slander.
And even telling people that vaccines cause autism could be considered distribution of fraudulent medical advice.
1. What it's promoting is dangerous.
The anti-vaccination movement has been linked to the deaths of thousands of children, and not just children whom's parents got caught up in the anti-vaccine hysteria, but children who were to young to get vaccinated too.
Not only are people in this movement are putting their own children at risk of getting a serious illness, they're putting other children at risk as well. Not only is that dangerous, that's pretty selfish too.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)