Jump to content

Conspiracy Theories


Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, BFTD said:

I take it gulls must taste like absolute dugshite. People certainly don't avoid eating them due to lack of availability.

I've only had pigeon once, but I remember it being surprisingly good, so maybe I'll start putting traps out for those wee buggers. Fewer birds means more insects too, so win-win.

I remember reading in the Inverness Courier a snippet from ww2 where locals were collecting seagull eggs to feed to injured soldiers. Apparently you have to feed them wheat or meal or something like that for a week or so or the eggs taste really fishy. Boak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely anyone who has been in a car crash will be restrained from getting up? That's basic stuff. You don't want folk with potentially multiple breaks/fractures getting up and trying to walk and possibly doing more harm to themsves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, ICTChris said:

Why do narcissists find conspiracy theories so appealing?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352250X22001051

 

I like how they immediately admit that there is a weak link between the five  common narcissitic personality and conspiracy beliefs then immediately shift to don't worry we found a shonky way to make it work and we did it twice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Detournement said:

I like how they immediately admit that there is a weak link between the five  common narcissitic personality and conspiracy beliefs then immediately shift to don't worry we found a shonky way to make it work and we did it twice.

They don't though.  They say there's a weak link with the big 5 personality traits.  Narcissism is not one of them. 

I'm not vouching for the validity of the study but your reason for dismissing it doesn't hold up. I'm sure you can find another because you dislike the implications.  That's how conspiracy nuts do evidence isn't it? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, coprolite said:

They don't though.  They say there's a weak link with the big 5 personality traits.  Narcissism is not one of them. 

I'm not vouching for the validity of the study but your reason for dismissing it doesn't hold up. I'm sure you can find another because you dislike the implications.  That's how conspiracy nuts do evidence isn't it? 

Aye but they say that narcissism is derived from 3 of the 5 and there is no observable relationship between those 3 and conspiracy beliefs. They then go on to redefine narcissism in ways which allows them to make their conclusion (and in the future will allow centrist melts to cite it when they are struggling to make an argument).

I'm not sure what a conspiracy nut is. The paper defines it as "accusing secret groups of colluding to achieve nefarious goals" which is obviously something that happens. It cites belief in climate change denial as  an example which is fair enough on the one hand but falls apart if you have the knowledge that climate change denial exists because of the nefarious goals of a group of secretly conspiring oil executives. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Detournement said:

Aye but they say that narcissism is derived from 3 of the 5 and there is no observable relationship between those 3 and conspiracy beliefs. They then go on to redefine narcissism in ways which allows them to make their conclusion (and in the future will allow centrist melts to cite it when they are struggling to make an argument).

I'm not sure what a conspiracy nut is. The paper defines it as "accusing secret groups of colluding to achieve nefarious goals" which is obviously something that happens. It cites belief in climate change denial as  an example which is fair enough on the one hand but falls apart if you have the knowledge that climate change denial exists because of the nefarious goals of a group of secretly conspiring oil executives. 

 

They haven't made the link though,  they've taken that link from other studies and are just proposing an explanatory mechanism. 

A conspiracy nut is someone who believes 9/11 was an inside job,  for example. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, coprolite said:

They haven't made the link though,  they've taken that link from other studies and are just proposing an explanatory mechanism. 

A conspiracy nut is someone who believes 9/11 was an inside job,  for example. 

It's difficult to explain why the Saudi Arabians who funded 9/11 faced no consequences unless their friends in US intelligence were also in on it. The Saudi Ambassador to the USA transferred money to the hijackers and was still hanging out with the head of the CIA and major figures from the Bush administration years later. 

Just believing Saudi Arabia had a hand in it is a conspiracy theory.

There is also no way Building 7 wasn't a demolition. The 9/11 Commission report didn't even mention that it collapsed because it's impossible to come to another conclusion than demolition. 

Edited by Detournement
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Detournement said:

It's difficult to explain why the Saudi Arabians who funded 9/11 faced no consequences unless their friends in US intelligence were also in on it.

Not really. Money and oil. That's a pretty easy explanation. 

As for the 9/11 demolition pish that's been debunked countless times. If you want to continue believing it go ahead but don't say it's impossible to come to another conclusion as the experts in the field who studied it did come to another conclusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Detournement said:

It's difficult to explain why the Saudi Arabians who funded 9/11 faced no consequences unless their friends in US intelligence were also in on it. The Saudi Ambassador to the USA transferred money to the hijackers and was still hanging out with the head of the CIA and major figures from the Bush administration years later. 

Just believing Saudi Arabia had a hand in it is a conspiracy theory.

There is also no way Building 7 wasn't a demolition. The 9/11 Commission report didn't even mention that it collapsed because it's impossible to come to another conclusion than demolition. 

Not getting into a 9/11 debate.  But the above is shite

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, AsimButtHitsASix said:

Not really. Money and oil. That's a pretty easy explanation. 

As for the 9/11 demolition pish that's been debunked countless times. If you want to continue believing it go ahead but don't say it's impossible to come to another conclusion as the experts in the field who studied it did come to another conclusion.

Building 7 has never been debunked. As I said the fact that it collapsed isn't mentioned at all in the 9/11 Commission Report. 

The proven insider trading was never addressed by the government either. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...