Thursday, February 28, 2013

5 Things I've noticed about... Organic Food

There's a lot of things I've notice organic foods and the claims about it, and of all the things I've noticed about organic foods, there are five things about it that really stand out for me.

So here are five things I've noticed about organic food:

5. It's expensive.

Organic food cost an awful lot, and in some cases twice as much as non-organic foods, and unless you are very well off, it can get expensive real quick and make a real hit on a households budget.

Even if organic food were to cost only 10% more than conventional food, the expense can still add pretty quickly, even if not all the food you buy is organic, just some of your food.

4. It's not as environmentally friendly as one might think.

Due to the sheer fact that organic farming doesn't produce as high of a yield of crops per acre as with regular farming, if organic farming was done nation wide (or world wide for that matter) over regular farming, then a lot more land would be needed to grow crops in order to feed everyone, thus things like deforestation would increase in order to make open land to grow crops on, and to raise animals for meat on.

3. There's no set guide lines for what's considered organic.

There is really no set of criteria or laws and regulations for what can be considered and labeled organic food, and also what is considered to be organic to one person might not be considered organic to another person.

Also, because there is no set criteria or guide lines for what is considered organic, a farmer could claim what they are growing is organic, but in reality is not by most anyone's standards, and could be claimed to be organic to only be used as a selling point to get people to buy their product.

2. The benefits don't outweigh the costs.

Studies have shown that organic foods is no more healthier or nutritious than conventional, non-organic foods.

In fact the only real benefits organic foods have over conventional foods is that sometimes organic foods tastes better, and that organically raised meat animals do have a much lower chance of getting certain types diseases that results from eating food made with animal by products, but it doesn't prevent animals from getting certain types of diseases that could be prevented through the use of antibiotics. Some people could even argue that not giving an animal antibiotics is a form of animal cruelty.

1. It's not really organic.

Most people who prefer organic foods over conventional foods will tell you that organic foods must be free of genetic modifications, but the thing about that is that most of our basic foods have been genetically modified at one point in time or another, either through crossbreeding, cross pollination, or just simple crop and animal selection.

Most of our modern basic foods are the result of some type of man-made genetic modifications. The only real difference is that it wasn't done in a laboratory using modern scientific equipment.

Tuesday, February 26, 2013

Conspiracy Theorists and Fascist Thinking: Do the Two go Hand-in-Hand?

Conspiracy theorists have been called many things throughout the years, but one of the things that they have commonly been called (and to many skeptics, accurately called) Fascists.

Now one of the things that made me start think about this claim is a question that I thought to myself "why do so many skeptics tend to call conspiracy theorists 'Fascists' when so many conspiracy theorists claim to opposes Fascism to begin with?" In fact many conspiracy theorists claim to support Libertarianism (or at least something that isn't anything like Fascism), rather than Fascism.

Finally after going to multiple conspiracy theorist websites and reviewing the comments left on those websites, and articles on those websites themselves I have finally come to the conclusion as to why conspiracy theorists are accused of having a Fascist mentality: They have a "Us vs. Them" way of thinking, and they believe that only they are correct.

Conspiracy theorists will claim that they want their "theories" to be given equal consideration and be on equal levels with what is official, but from what I have observed with their behaviors, that isn't true. They don't want their theories to be given equal ground, they want their theories to be considered "fact" (even after the fact that their claims have been discredited and dis-proven), and what is official and actually proven to be true to be seen as a big lie, because in their minds it is a big lie, and they don't want others to think otherwise. In fact it very seriously angers them when someone questions their "theories" (hypothesis would be a more accurate word) or has tested their "theories" and have proven them to be false.

Not only do conspiracy theorists tell other conspiracy theorists (and those curious about conspiracy theories) not to trust the information from reliable sources, they will insult you, question your intelligence, call you a "sheep" (at the very least), and basically try to use intimidation tactics to try to force you over to their side, if you question their "information".

Another thing that many conspiracy theorists will do is that (if the have the ability to do so) they will remove comments that offend them on websites when they can. In fact one famous Youtube vlogger and conspiracy theorist by the name of Christopher Hudson is notorious for this, often times blocking any comments that are in any way critical of his videos. Of course he isn't the only one either, but one example of many people on Youtube, or Facebook, or any individual blogs that promote conspiracy theories and don't allow people to question them.

Sometimes this goes even further then that by not only dis-allowing criticism on their own turf, but sometimes trying to get any criticism of their beliefs removed the internet entirely. They do this either through the use of threats and harassment, to actually trying to have a website shut down.

These are just few of examples of many of the actions and thinking that many conspiracy theorists tend to have and do, but there are many more than just what has been stated.

The reality is that these conspiracy theorists have, as a result of their self-delusions and frustrations over not being able to get the positive attention that they believe their "theories" deserve, they have basically become what they are claiming to fight.

Friday, February 22, 2013

5 Things I've noticed about... The New Age Movement

I've made some observations about people in the New Age Movement, and that there are certain things that tend to be a common trend amongst New Agers.

Here are five things that I've noticed about the New Age Movement:

5. They love energy.

New Agers tend to believe that energy (in one form or another) is all around them, and that somehow they can somehow control this energy, and that they can somehow convert it and use it for their own personal means (such as healing, or some type of food source), or that they can use it to gain knowledge, rather than gaining knowledge the old fashion way, by reading.

Some New Agers even believe that you don't even need food, that all you need is to absorb sun light, or breathing clean air.

It should noted that last one is very dangerous and has resulted in the deaths of several people.

4. They're obsessed with crystals.

Most New Agers seriously believe that crystals are more then just pretty objects that make for nice coffee table or mantle decorations. Apparently they believe that crystals can be used for dowsing (which has not been proven to work), healing, and warding off negative energy, which apparently a small crystal being in your pocket, or hanging around your neck, is suppose to protect your entire body from all sides from negative energy that's suppose to be bombarding you from everywhere...

3. They believe they don't have to do much to alter their lives.

Apparently New Agers believe that if you just do a few good things, or if you rearrange the furniture in your house in a certain way, or you carry around some good luck charms, or if you put some plants in your house, or even if you have just positive thoughts, that you can dramatically alter your life for the better, rather than actually working hard and putting some real effort into changing their lives, which has been proven to be much more effective.

2. Talking to "other" beings.

Not only do New Agers believe in aliens (be it from another planet, or another dimension), spirits, and other super natural beings, they also believe that they can communicate with them (usually by telepathy), and gain knowledge from them. Some people even believe that they can even see the places that these beings are from, and even let those beings talk through them to other people.

They also believe they can communicate with dolphins...

1. It's pretty narcissistic.

Almost everything about the New Age Movement seems to be centered around the individual rather then others around them, and that the primary reason why you should do anything in the first place is to better yourself, even when the true heart of doing something is to help and benefit others. While there is nothing wrong with trying to improve one's self, everything New Agers tend to do is apparently to benefit themselves, and that helping others is a secondary bonus to them.

Also, New Agers tend to blame others for their problems, and that none of their problems are their own fault, or the result of unforeseen circumstances, and that those that wronged them (real or not, major or minor) will be punished in some way, some time in the future.

Tuesday, February 19, 2013

Stereotypes Conspiracy Theorists have against Skeptics

There are a lot of stereotypes that conspiracy theorists believe about skeptics, and for the most part they're just not true. Most of the time these beliefs are either the result of manipulation, or just misunderstandings.

Here are some of the most common claims that conspiracy theorists have against skeptic, and why these claims are not true:

All skeptics work for the government.

One of the most common claims by conspiracy theorists about skeptics is that skeptics work for, or at least are being paid by the government, or to a lesser extent, private companies, to run debunking websites (they're usually referred to by conspiracy theorists as "dis-information agents"). Usually these accusations are followed up with a joke by a skeptic, usually something like, "I'm still waiting for my check."

The reality is that most skeptics don't work for the government, and most likely never would. Those that do work for the government are not being paid by the government to run these skeptic websites, and they are doing what they do on their own free will.

Skeptics believe whatever the government or media says.

No they don't. In fact skeptics are highly critical of both the government and the media.

Skeptics know that the government lies to the public all the time to try to make itself not look as bad, and that the media tends to report things way to early, or sensationalizes stuff, so bad information gets to the public, rather then correct information.

Skeptics don't believe in conspiracies.

Skeptics actually do believe in conspiracies. The difference is between skeptics and conspiracy theorists is that the conspiracies that skeptics believe in either have been proven to be true, or has enough evidence (real evidence, not made up evidence) to prove the conspiracy to be true, or at least likely to be true.

All skeptics are alike.

One of the biggest misconceptions about skeptics in general is that we are all alike, and that we have similar beliefs and education, and that we all see things exactly the same, but in reality this is not true at all.

We all debunk things differently, and we sometimes come to different conclusions on things, and there are fights within the skeptics community.

All skeptics are Atheists.

While a large amount of skeptics are Atheists, not all of them are. In fact I'm not an Atheist. I'm actually a Christian, and I do believe in God.

Some Atheists may use their beliefs as an excuse for being a skeptic, but there's no religious test for being a skeptic, and anyone can be a skeptic regardless of there religious beliefs (or lack there of).

All skeptics have the same political beliefs.

No two skeptics are alike, and no two skeptics have the same political beliefs. There are skeptics that are conservatives  There are skeptics that are liberals. There are skeptics that are libertarians. There are skeptics that are socialists. There are skeptics that are moderates.

There is just as much of a wide range of political diversity among skeptics as there are among none skeptics.

All skeptics have the same educational levels and work in the science or educational field.

It is widely believed that most, if not all skeptics have a college degree.

While many probably do, not all of us do, and not all of us are scientists or teachers. Some of us are blue collared workers who only have some college education. Some of us might not even have that.

Skeptics believe that conspiracy theorists should be locked up.

The only time skeptics tend to believe that conspiracy theorist should be locked up is when it's suspected that the person might become a danger to themselves or to others, or when they are engaging in criminal activity (such as harassment or stalking).

Other times we consider conspiracy theorists to just be annoying, but that's about it.

Skeptics refuse to examine evidence other then official evidence.

Actually skeptics do examine evidence other then what's official, we just dismiss the alternative evidence when it's been proven to either be not true, or not possible.

Friday, February 15, 2013

5 things I've noticed about... Alex Jones

While there are a lot things I could say about radio host/conspiracy theorists Alex Jones (and it would be a lot) I noticed a few things he seems to do quite a bit.

So here are five things I've noticed about Alex Jones:

5. His sites have a lot of advertisements on them.

If you go to either of his two main websites (Infowars and Prisonplanet) there are a lot of advertisements on the right side of those websites. Not only are there ads for other people's products, but also for his own products as well (mainly his videos).

And his websites have their their own shop pages where you can buy more of his videos and other merchandise.

4. He always tells people he is not crazy.

Alex always seems to need to remind people that he is not crazy (in his view). I don't know why he feels the needs to do this. I don't know why people would believe he is crazy in the first place...

Maybe it's because he does stuff like this:

Author's note: go two minutes in. That's when the best stuff starts.

3. He's against fascism and totalitarianism... unless it's in another country.

While Alex Jones is a notorious outspoken critic of anything that he perceives as fascism and totalitarianism in this country, he apparently has no problem with it in other countries (especially countries that the US has very poor diplomatic relations with).

A good example of this would be that he often calls rebels in the Syrian Civil War "terrorists" and often claims that many of the atrocities committed by the Syrian government was actually committed by the rebels.

2. He respects the 2nd Amendment more than the 1st Amendment.

While Alex doesn't think there should be any gun control laws, he calls anyone who does want more gun control laws unpatriotic, criminals, and a member of the New World Order.

And if you're from another country and you call for more gun control laws, he wants you deported.

1. He has a hard time keeping friends.

While he is always happy to ally himself with anyone who shares his beliefs in certain conspiracy theories, if you stop believing in the conspiracy theories that he believes in, or if you believe in any conspiracy theories that he doesn't believe in (which is not many), or if you disagree with his political beliefs, he'll call you an elitist and dis-information agent, and will want nothing to do with you... until he decides that you aren't a elitist and a dis-information agent.

Tuesday, February 12, 2013

Same Sex Marriage: Why there is no valid argument for keeping it illegal

Same sex marriage.

Throughout the the 1990's and up til now it has been very controversial. While many people support it and believe it should be legal nation wide (and world wide for that matter) there are still many whom oppose legalizing it, despite the fact that the movement to legalize it is growing, and opposition is shrinking. In fact many people who once opposed same sex marriage now support it's legalization (I happen to be one of them).

Those who still oppose same sex marriage will often give four primary reasons why they believe same sex marriage should be illegal. Those reasons are is that they believe that it's immoral, it's against nature, it's disruptive to society, and it will increase child molestation.

Of those four reasons (and many others) there is the one thing that they all have in common: not one of them is valid.

As for the first argument, that it's immoral, is more of a matter of opinion then fact.

Not all people consider it to be immoral. In fact several religions consider same sex marriage to be as perfectly moral as heterosexual marriage.

One could even argue that not legalizing same sex marriage might be a violation of the 1st Amendment, particularly the part about freedom of religion, because one could say that denying a marriage license to a couple because they are the same gender is illegal and unconstitutional because the state would be imposing one religious belief (that being only heterosexual couples can get married and that homosexuality is wrong) over the religious belief of another (that being that homosexuality is okay, and that same sex marriage is okay under that religious belief).

The second argument that opponents of same sex marriage make is that it is against nature.

That argument is total non-sense, as it has been shown through observation that many animal species have members that are homosexual (I believe the number is somewhere between 300 to 400, but it could be much higher).

There is only one species that has shown to discriminate against the homosexuals of it's species: Humans.

Not only is the nature argument invalid, one could even say that discrimination against homosexuals is against nature.

The third argument, that it's disruptive to society, is also not true. In fact many of the best countries in the world have legalized same sex marriage. The Netherlands for example legalized same sex marriage in 2001, and is currently one of the richest and most stable countries in the world.

If anything it helps improve society because it shows that society treats everyone as equal.

Plus, it hasn't affected American society either because what most people who oppose same sex marriage do not realize is that same sex couples have been getting married in this country for decades now, it's just been in the last decade that some states have begun issuing those couples marriage licenses.

The forth argument (and one that has often been described as homophobic propaganda) is that it would result in a higher amounts of child molestation.

This argument stems from the belief that most homosexuals are also pedophiles, and that married homosexual couples would molest any children that they adopt.

Besides this accusation being quite sick, it's completely and totally false.

Every legitimate study about this has shown that homosexuals have no more higher rates of pedophilia than heterosexuals. The studies that say otherwise on the other hand are not from legitimate institutions, and are for the most considered to be fraudulent and nothing more then propaganda created by religious institutions that strongly oppose homosexuality (it should be noted that the organizations that do promote this type of propaganda are listed by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups).

Now while there are other arguments that are made against the legalization of same sex marriage, these are the four big ones, and as I have shown, none of them are valid (along with any other arguments not mentioned).

The fact remains is that there is no reason what so ever to keep from allowing same sex couples from having their marriages legally recognized.

Friday, February 8, 2013

10 People who never stood a chance at becoming President, Part 1: 1800 to 1900

10. Charles C. Pinckney

Charles C. Pinckney received the Federalist Party's nomination for president twice (first in 1804, and then again in 1808), and in both presidential elections he did terribly. In fact in the 1804 election he only got 27.2% of the popular vote and 14 electoral votes, and in the 1808 election, he only did a little bit better, getting 32.4% of the popular vote, and 47 electoral votes.

9. Rufus King

Rufus King is noted as being the last Federalist Party candidate to run for president. He also did horribly in the election of 1816, with only getting 30.9% of the popular vote, and 34 electoral votes. This election is also noted as basically being the death blow to the Federalist Party.

8. William H. Crawford

The election of 1824 was probably the strangest presidential election in United States history, mainly because the winner had to be decided by congress (because no one won the majority of the electoral votes, which a candidate is required to win in order to become president) and all four candidates were members of the Democratic-Republican Party.

Out of all four candidates, William H. Crawford did second to worst (Henry Clay did even worse then him). Crawford only got 11.2% of the popular vote (which is worst then what Clay did), and 41 electoral votes (which is better then what Clay did).

7. William Wirt

Back in the early to mid 1800's Freemasonry was strongly opposed (especially in New England states) and actually led to the creation of a single-issue party known as the Anti-Masonic Party in 1828.

In the election of 1832 the Anti-Masonic Party fielded it's first (and only) major candidate for the presidency, William Wirt. While he did manage to win the state of Vermont and it's seven electoral votes, in the election in general he did awful, only getting 7.1% of the popular vote.

6. Hugh L. White

The election on 1836 was another weird election. While the Democratic Party fielded one candidate, Martin Van Buren, the newly formed Whig Party had four candidates: William H. Harrison, Daniel Webster, Willie P. Mangum, and Hugh L. White.

Hugh L. White came in third in the election, winning only 9.7% of the popular vote, and 26 electoral votes. Of course that is better than what Webster and Mangum did, but worse then what Harrison and Van Buren did (who won that election).

5. John P. Hale

The Free Soil Party was formed in 1848 to oppose the expansion of slavery within the United States, and had even fielded two major candidates in two presidential elections. The first was former president Martin Van Buren in 1848, the second was John P. Hale in 1852.

Both candidates did terribly in both elections, and in Hale's case, he only got about 4.9% of the popular vote, and no electoral votes.

4. Stephen A. Douglas

The election of 1860 of another strange and complex one, fielding four major candidates, including two Democratic Party candidates.

While the main Democratic Party candidate, Stephen Douglas, with only 12 electoral votes, came in forth in terms of electoral votes (John C. Breckinridge, the other Democratic Party candidate came in second with 72 electoral votes, and John Bell, the Constitutional Union Party candidate, came in third with 39 electoral votes) he did come in second in the popular vote at 29.5%.

3. James B. Weaver

In the election of 1892, a new third party, most commonly known as the Populist Party, fielded a major presidential candidate, James B. Weaver.

While Weaver did manage to get 22 electoral votes, he only got 8.5% of the popular vote.

This is also the only presidential election that the Populist Party managed to get any electoral votes.

2. George B. McClellan

In the election of 1864, General George B. McClellan actually ran against his president and commander-and-chief, Abraham Lincoln, as the Democratic Party's candidate (it should be noted that he didn't resign from the army until the election day, November 8).

While General McClellan did win 45% of the popular vote, he only won 21 electoral votes.

1. Horace Greeley

The election of 1872 is the only election in history in which two Republicans ran for president: President Ulysses S. Grant, and Horace Greeley.

While Greenly got only 66 electoral votes and 43.8% of the popular vote, it wouldn't have mattered if he had won the election or not anyways, because he never would have become president. It wasn't that he never stood a chance of becoming president, it's that he died on November 29, 1872, before the Electoral College could even cast their votes.

Monday, February 4, 2013

5 Weapons that are great for killing Zombies

In a previous article that I wrote a while back I discussed five weapons that people thought were great for fighting zombies, but in reality actually were not.

Since then I have been thinking to myself "what are the five best weapons a person can use for fighting zombies"?

Since then I have thought about it and have come up with a list of the five best weapons a person can use for killing zombies.

So in honor of the return of the hit TV show "The Walking Dead", and my friend Sean Munger's new novel "Zombies of Byzantium" I present to you the five weapons that are great for killing zombies:

5. Katana

While it is preferable not to get into a melee fight with a horde of zombies, if you should ever find yourself in such a situation, the best possible weapon you can use is a katana.

Besides the fact that most katanas are lite weight (which makes them easier and less tiring to use, plus you can swing the blade at much higher speeds then with most other melee weapons of the same size), and it's single edge makes it safer to use then a regular broadsword, a well made katana can be extremely sharp and durable. Also, because of the fact that most katanas are lite weight, and their single edge makes them safer to use then regular broadswords, with enough training you could use two of them at once, doubling your chances of surviving a zombie hoard.

4. Crossbow

If you're in a situation where ammo is at a premium, and you would have to resort to using weapons that shoot arrows, then the crossbow is the way to go.

Besides the fact that the crossbow is much easier to aim and hit your target than the bow & arrow (and thus requires less skill in order to use) it also fires it at a faster speed, and at a much further range.

While you can fire more arrows from a bow & arrow then you can from a crossbow, it won't matter if you can't hit a zombie in it's brain to take it down. You have a much better chance of doing that with a crossbow.

3. Grenade

Of all the explosive weapons you can use, the grenade is probably the best of all the explosive weapons out there you can use for fight zombie hordes.

Besides the fact that the grenade is easily portable, and the fact you can carry multiple grenades on your person, you can also throw them directly into a zombie horde, and take out several zombies at once (unlike with mines, which you have to place, and you pretty much just have to hope that a zombie randomly walks on the trigger, and you could also accidentally take yourself out with a mine as well.)

Also, if you find yourself in the middle of a zombie horde with no way to escape, you can use a grenade to take yourself out, rather than face the fate of being eaten, or turned into a zombie, along with taking out several other as well zombies.

2. Machine Pistol

When fighting zombies, it's always best to keep a second, smaller side arm with you, and the best thing you can use is the machine pistol (or for those that do not know what that is, a handgun that uses an ammo clip).

The reason for choosing a machine pistol over the classic revolver is besides the fact that machine pistols can hold more shots, you can also reload them faster, and they are a tad bit easier to to aim and shoot as well.

1. Hunting Rifle

Of all the weapons you can possibly use to fight zombies with, the hunting rifle is probably the weapon you can use.

Besides the fact that they are easily portable, they can also shoot from a great distance, and many can be modified to increase range and accuracy, not to mention that obtaining ammo for hunting rifles is easier then it would be for obtaining ammo for military sniper rifles (which tend to use higher caliber ammo then standard hunting rifles, and thus is less common in most sporting goods stores).

Friday, February 1, 2013

One more thing we can call Jenny McCarthy...

There are a lot of things that Jenny McCarthy has been called in the past few years.

She's been called a bimbo, a moron, a nutcase, and even down right dangerous.

Now there is one more thing we can call the former Playboy Playmate of the Year: a liar.

For several days now there has been a huge amount of buzz and controversy going about the internet about how McCarthy was going to be headlining for the Ottawa Regional Cancer Foundation's March 2nd fundraiser at the Ottawa Athletic Club.

The reason why this was so controversial in the first place is because she is a big promoter of the belief that vaccines cause autism, which is a form of medical quackery that's based primarily on the fraudulent works of Andrew Wakefield that has been linked to the deaths of hundreds, if not thousands young children.

Immediately after it was announced that she was going to be headlining this event, there was a huge amount of backlash, and many people were calling for her to be dropped from the event. There was even a hashtag on Twitter called #DropJenny.

Well apparently the promoters of the event gave in because of the shifting (i.e. negative) attention her scheduled appearance was generating, and dropped McCarthy for fitness guru Tommy Europe, who is a far better choice.

So how McCarthy taking this? Is she angry? Is she saddened?

Nope. She's lying about it.

According to her (via her Twitter page) she was the one who dropped out of the event, and not the other way around, as you can see here:
But clearly that is not true: Read here.

The only thing in the statement that was true was that she wasn't going to be at the event (and that maybe she will be doing some taping for her new show that day).

I wonder if she will ever tell the truth about being dropped from the event, and the reason why she was dropped, and why she lied about it in the first place?

Only time will tell...

Conspiracy Theorists: No longer harmless

Up until a couple of weeks ago I use to believe that most conspiracy theorists were just a bit nutty, and perhaps hostile online towards skeptics and people who debunked conspiracy theories, but were relatively harmless, except for those who are violently mentally disturbed (example: Jared Lee Loughner), and that at the most were more likely to alienate themselves from friends and family then anything else, and thus do more harm to themselves then to others.

I no longer believe this.

The reason I no longer believe this is because of the massive amount of illegal harassment being done by conspiracy theorists towards the parents of the children who died in the Sandy Hook elementary school massacre, and towards the heros who's efforts helped saved the lives of many more children.

While the claims made by conspiracy theorists that the attack was staged, or didn't even occur in the first place, wasn't something that fellow skeptics and debunkers like myself were not expecting (in fact, due to the predictability of conspiracy theorists we would have been more surprised if these claims were not made at all) what did surprise us was the sheer amount of slander and harassment (bordering on outright stalking) that has begun to occur.

Because of the actions of some conspiracy theorists in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre I feel that I have been forced to re-examine my view of conspiracy theorists and their behavior, and that view is even more negative then it once was.

It appears that over the last few years as more and more conspiracy theories get debunked, the hostility of conspiracy theorists who continue to hold on to the beliefs continues to rise.

Online threats and even emails towards those who disagree with conspiracy theorists (and don't even try to debunk their claims, just say they don't agree with them and/or don't believe them) have become common place.

Some blogs and vlogs that are dedicated to debunking conspiracy theories are sometimes attacked, and even forced to be taken down by what can only be presumed to be the actions of conspiracy theorists.

Many conspiracy theorists have been purchasing large amounts of weapons for what they very seriously believe will be the coming of the New World Order, in which they will (in their minds) have to fight and defeat.

Now, they are harassing and possibly stalking people who have gone through an extreme trauma, and they do not care that they are causing even more grief and trauma because they don't believe anything happened.

As much as I hate to suggest it, I am seriously starting to believe that we should start sending at the very least the most hostile conspiracy theorists to mental health hospitals, as many of them are appearing to have serious mental health issues that is causing them act out in such and extremely hostile manner towards total strangers, and might cause to to eventually engage in violence.