Profile
Search
Register
Log in
Gulf of Mexico Oil Leak (British Petroleum)
View previous topic | View next topic >

Post new topic Reply to topic
Strange Famous Forum > Social stuff. Political stuff. KNOWMORE

Author Message
firefly



Joined: 27 Sep 2002
Posts: 3990
Location: Montreal
 Reply with quote  

I'm not the one getting all reactionary and associating reasonable conspiracy theories with ridiculous alien nonsense.
Post Tue Jul 20, 2010 6:01 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
C.R.A.Z.Y



Joined: 18 Feb 2008
Posts: 2734
Location: Vote for me and i'll vote for you.
 Reply with quote  

firefly wrote:
I'm not the one getting all reactionary and associating reasonable conspiracy theories with ridiculous alien nonsense.


then you're not having fun.
that's what i keep saying about you.
Post Tue Jul 20, 2010 7:34 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Plum Puddin'



Joined: 26 May 2008
Posts: 1829
Location: Run Ebola, Run.
 Reply with quote  

Post Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:19 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
firefly



Joined: 27 Sep 2002
Posts: 3990
Location: Montreal
 Reply with quote  

C.R.A.Z.Y wrote:
firefly wrote:
I'm not the one getting all reactionary and associating reasonable conspiracy theories with ridiculous alien nonsense.


then you're not having fun.
that's what i keep saying about you.


Fun times.

Post Tue Jul 20, 2010 9:17 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
breakfast



Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 2895
 Reply with quote  

Yes, I can see how a company failing to cut their use of a chemical dispersant can be construed as validation of a comically far-fetched conspiracy theory.
Post Wed Jul 21, 2010 12:35 am
 View user's profile Send private message
firefly



Joined: 27 Sep 2002
Posts: 3990
Location: Montreal
 Reply with quote  

Please explain to me what the
breakfast wrote:
comically far-fetched conspiracy theory.
is.

By the way, you must of missed the other videos I posted.
Post Wed Jul 21, 2010 4:10 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Stumbleweed



Joined: 09 Mar 2005
Posts: 9740
Location: Denver
 Reply with quote  

Plum Puddin' wrote:


*yoink*
Post Wed Jul 21, 2010 9:29 am
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger
breakfast



Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 2895
 Reply with quote  

firefly wrote:


**WARNING: CONSPIRACY THEORY BELOW**

Accidents and incompetence are the new weapons.

They're spraying this corexit shit everywhere even though the shit is toxic as hell. If this is some population control type conspiracy, Katrina was the test.

People will be begging Obama to implant his RFID carbon tracking system thing-a-ma-jiggy.

Then you have all the crooked contractors banking off this mess.

I'm not saying that this is the case for sure. There are just too many unanswered questions and things that don't add up. Like what you mentioned regarding not having a plan. I don't fall for the incompetent card anymore.
Post Wed Jul 21, 2010 10:01 am
 View user's profile Send private message
C.R.A.Z.Y



Joined: 18 Feb 2008
Posts: 2734
Location: Vote for me and i'll vote for you.
 Reply with quote  

redball wrote:



firefly you must watch redballs video.

you really take your conspiracies too far while defending them without enough evidence.

the main thing about this that bothers me when you do it is that you are so insistent and act like we have a problem for not buying what you're sellin. i mean you already mocked me for being an obama supporter and told me im reactionary and defensive...for not jelling with your lame ideas.

i have a theory here.
you're not as smart as you would have us all think you are.
but you think you are. so good luck with all the answers.
Post Wed Jul 21, 2010 10:16 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
laurapalmer



Joined: 10 Jul 2002
Posts: 1474
 Reply with quote  

Much like the juggalo gathering video, i didn't look at this thread soon enough. major lolz, fucking reptillian agenda.
Post Wed Jul 21, 2010 10:50 am
 View user's profile Send private message
breakreep
homophobic yet curious


Joined: 27 Sep 2004
Posts: 6627
Location: Fifth Jerusalem
 Reply with quote  

Haha. What breakfast said.
Post Wed Jul 21, 2010 5:45 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Dr Sagacious



Joined: 01 Mar 2009
Posts: 1843
Location: Redford
 Reply with quote  



Here you go Firefly. I know somewhere on a different plane of the multiverse, you and the seventeen year old me are holding hands, spewing stuff out about Ben Bernake and whathaveyous.
Post Wed Jul 21, 2010 8:30 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
redball



Joined: 12 May 2006
Posts: 6871
Location: Northern New Jersey
 Reply with quote  

I disagree with Firefly but I don't think he's dumb. I think he's too quick to accept some of these theories. Of course, he's not the only one doing that.

Some of the things I said were aimed at Firefly, but many weren't. There's a multitude of BP conspiracies every day. Some have merit, others don't. Frankly, I'm sick of them all. I think the need to further vilify BP is ridiculous. We already know that they're a terrible company. We don't need conspiracy theories for that, all we have to do is look beyond North America to see the kind of shit that they and other oil companies do across the world.

I think these conspiracies fill a few needs. The first, and the biggest, is the ability to outsource guilt. If we can convince ourselves that this was due to some vast conspiracy then it's easier to forgive ourselves for our dependence on oil - the real cause of this. I'm not suggesting that anyone here, least of all Firefly, is particularly guilty of this reasoning. However, it does exist and it helps these fallacies gain traction.

The second is the need to blame someone, or more appropriately the desire to blame certain people. It should be no big secret that many of the BP conspiracies try to tie in the current administration to the problem. The administration bungled the response initially, but almost any objective look at the situation demonstrates that this was due to a combination of misinformation, incompetence, and the absence of a proper response structure. Being dumb, unprepared, and lied to doesn't help you respond. While being dumb and unprepared is something you can directly blame the administration for (to varying degrees) you can't blame them for being lied to. It is no coincidence that many conspiracy theories about BP involve some sort of greater communication between the government and the company before the government began to respond in earnest. Many of the others involve the government letting BP off the hook by allowing them to perform the bulk of response operations, ignoring the precedent for this set by past incidents. This strikes at the inability to properly blame the administration for being unprepared. The insinuation is that the government is prepared but they're allowing BP to spill more oil because that is somehow better for BP or the administration, ignoring that this defies all forms of logic.

The last need that I believe these cover, and I think it's the one that's the most apt here, is the need to believe that those in power are necessarily selfish and evil. This belief, of course, is fallacy. While it would also be a fallacy to believe that no one in power is corrupt or evil, that does not mean that everyone in power is. In this case we have BP as the prime evil-doer. It's so much easier to think of BP as a company of evil people doing evil things, instead of the reality that BP is much like any other company in this country and the people that work there are no more or less likely to be bad than anyone else. Any company that size is bound to have greedy execs, middle managers who cover up problems, and employees whose primary concern is the next paycheck. The staff is human. Same with the administration, the sidekick villain. Obama is not perfect and anyone who ever claimed he was is a fucking idiot. That said, he's been a damned good President for the most part. He messed up here, so did his team. That doesn't mean they were trying to protect powerful interests. Besides, how are you supposed to protect powerful interests when you throw them under the bus, threaten to severely penalize them by passing costly legislation, and even if you didn't do all of this your response has jeopardized your ability to ever protect them again? None of that makes sense.

When you look at who would advance these theories and why you're left with a few profiles. The first, and easiest to identify, are those who are interested purely for political reasons. The second is the group that believes this is a prime opportunity to punish corporations for simply existing, a stance I'm sure has sympathy around these parts but it is flawed none the less. The last is the group that simply rails against any power structure, which is probably the stupidest concept of all. The former group does this as a calculated maneuver to gain an advantage. The latter two, and especially the last, are merely stupid. They fail to look at the reality that corporations must exist in our society, at least in some state, and that blind and unfocused punishment will not fix the inherent problems that corporations cause in our society. The last group fails the test of reason that power structures are a necessary part of large scale society, without them there is chaos, and given any length of time without a power structure a natural one will emerge. Typically they merely want radical change because they believe the current structure is unfair to some group of people, which is always true, but a structure has yet to emerge that is truly fair to all people and it is less likely to happen due to radical change than it is due to tempered evolution.

Anyway, before I close I want to revisit a topic that's been bugging me. Firefly said that the video I posted about how we see patterns when there aren't any ignores that people will refuse to see patterns due to preexisting beliefs. What he says is partially true, people will ignore patterns because those patterns don't match their belief system. However, he's wrong to say that the one cancels out the other. Loosely held beliefs are typically overcome by knowledge, but deep seated beliefs are not. Even so, these beliefs are more likely to cause you to see and believe a certain pattern, as well as refuse to accept evidence contrary to it, than they are to cause you not to recognize a pattern. Then again, I'm curious as to what belief system he was implying that we subscribe to that causes us not to see the "truth" in these theories? I don't think that a belief pattern that calls for evidence and reason is one that is particularly susceptible to missing out on greater truths. Maybe in the short run but certainly not in the long run.

Here's an interesting and related report:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128490874
Post Wed Jul 21, 2010 9:46 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
firefly



Joined: 27 Sep 2002
Posts: 3990
Location: Montreal
 Reply with quote  

See, this is what is annoying me. I mention a theory that has a lot of evidence to back it up but because I put the words "conspiracy theory" on top everyone writes it off. The important thing here is to have an open mind to the possibility so that when/if more evidence surfaces or some of my predictions happen, people will find these theories easier to believe (because for most people, they go against their paradigms so much that they are incredibly hard to believe). If plants around the coast start getting weird and unknown diseases then maybe it's time to take this shit seriously (I was warning people about corexit before the reports started coming in).

Let me break down what I said in my original post:

A) The corexit conspiracy has a LOT of evidence backing it up actually. The marine biologist in the video I posted talks about the system that the EPA uses to test these chemicals (if you saw the video it explains that it's completely flawed and misleading). So right here you have the EPA (government), the company that owns corexit and BP in on the whole thing. That right there is the definition of conspiracy. Not crazy. Not comical. Tons of evidence. Multiple parties, working together on a corrupt project = conspiracy. The amount of evidence here, is enough that I wouldn't even call it theory anymore. Is the EPA too incompetent/stupid to know how to test things properly??? Don't even fucking pretend to believe that that makes any sense.

B) Obama does intend of implanted a system where your cars will measure the amount of fuel you use and will be taxed upon later (the measuring will be made possible with the use of RFID chips). Not exactly crazy or comical. He has said this himself. Here, it is just my theory that he will use this disaster to gain support for this initiative. I'm not saying that this means he is allowing the spill to continue because of this. But I don't have
any reason to believe that he gives enough of a shit to not let this happen. So I find this to be quite possible.

C) Population control, I know sounds crazy to people but if you measure the state of the world, the amount of natural resorces left, there is no possible way for us to continue this way of life without a dramatic loss in the world's population. Watch "The end of Suburbia" to understand what I'm talking about. This is obviously the more far fetched theory that I posted and I never said that I believe it to be true. I even made sure to write:


Quote:

I'm not saying that this is the case for sure. There are just too many unanswered questions and things that don't add up. Like what you mentioned regarding not having a plan. I don't fall for the incompetent card anymore.


But then I still have people saying "Prove it!!!", "Show me answers!". It is simply a theory and since you're asking I will post evidence if it does pop
up.

C.R.A.Z.Y, I made fun of your Obama defence because it was a very reactionary comment to my jab. Like I stated before, I wasn't trying to bring up a whole Obama debate, I was just pointing out the irony of how the man who ran on "hope" completely blew this whole thing and left Hope behind. So to recap, me calling you "reactionary" in this thread had nothing to do with not taking my ideas seriously and everything to do with how you defended Obama when I wasn't even really attacking him. I'm not trying to sell anything really, I just want to bring up alternative ideas about this whole situation.

Redball, to address this comment:


Quote:

Then again, I'm curious as to what belief system he was implying that we subscribe to that causes us not to see the "truth" in these theories? I don't think that a belief pattern that calls for evidence and reason is one that is particularly susceptible to missing out on greater truths. Maybe in the short run but certainly not in the long run.


I am talking about how people associate a conspiracy theory with nonsensical fantasies even if they have merit (like the corexit one). Here it is the belief that anyone who suggests anything that happens to be a conspiracy must believe in ALL the nutjob conspiracies that circulate the internet. I am certainly not talking about a belief in evidence and reason as I believe in the same thing. Its funny how - like in all scientific research - most people see one bit of evidence and ignore another to advance their goals. The mind is a funny thing. It has a life of it's own (another potential conspiracy). It has thought patterns and desires it wants fullfilled. That is how magic works (and religion). People either want to believe or they want to NOT believe.
Post Thu Jul 22, 2010 8:37 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
redball



Joined: 12 May 2006
Posts: 6871
Location: Northern New Jersey
 Reply with quote  

The corexit thing does seem to have some merit, in that there seems to be a lot of evidence that these dispersants do more harm than good and are meant to limit the visible damage rather than limit the environmental damage. Though I won't pretend to know all the reasons for using them. However, I dispute the part of it that insinuates that the government is an active participant in this, I think the governments involvement is easily explained as the EPA is still weak from the Bush years, it's obvious that the administration wrongly took a hands-off approach, and there's an existing problem where the EPA lets oil companies get away with shit in this country that other governments wouldn't tolerate. That part of the theory falls flat for me and I haven't seen anything to explain away those simple reasons why the government would act that way it does.

As for your B and C conspiracies: The first is not a conspiracy, its an idea. I don't know that I particularly oppose or support it. I don't believe that Obama does, though. I'll see if I can find some articles on it, but if I remember correctly it's supposed to be a way to tax use of roads in lieu of a gas tax, since alternative fuel vehicles don't have a taxation system in place to help pay states to maintain the roads system. We have to find a way to appropriate tax road use since the future looks like we'll be moving to shared fuel systems and we don't want to increase taxes on utilities such as electricity and unduly punish people who may not even own a car. Alternatives include increasing the number of toll roads, but systems like that are equally invasive and are prone to punishing people who live close to tolls.

The population control theories are fairly crap. They ignore that first world population has not significantly increased. The way you control population is to decrease child mortality. Why do we need to control a population that is growing rather slowly? Do you want to end up like Japan with empty schools and an aging population with no means to sustain itself other than working later and later in life? Don't you think that our government has taken note of China's failed experiment with population control? You know, where baby girls were killed because families wanted boys and now there's a grossly distorted percentage of males to females that promises future underpopulation... None of that even goes into the evidence of the theory, which is very problematic. This one fails on both sides. Just for good measure, watch this: http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_on_global_population_growth.html

I think part of the problem here is that it's being posted in conjunction with other theories that have no merit and easily fail on grounds of reason or evidence. And many of these attacks on conspiracy theories are general attacks that include - and often focus upon - the other theories, yet you are taking them as a personal assault on the theory you're advocating. Eventually this discussion wondered away from that and became one that does include personal assaults, including assaults of dubious merit on that theory.

edit: I wrote an reformatted this but then I messed up when I moved stuff around, I just realized this so I'm putting things where they belong but not changing any content otherwise.


Last edited by redball on Thu Jul 22, 2010 11:01 am; edited 1 time in total
Post Thu Jul 22, 2010 9:14 am
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11, 12  Next
All times are GMT - 6 Hours.
The time now is Thu Oct 30, 2014 12:02 pm
  Display posts from previous:      


Powered by phpBB: © 2001 phpBB Group
Template created by The Fathom
Based on template of Nick Mahon