When you call yourself an Indian or a Muslim or a Christian or a European, or anything else, you are being violent. Do you see why it is violent? It is because you are separating yourself from the rest of mankind. When you separate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence. So a man who is seeking to understand violence does not belong to any country, to any religion, to any political party or partial system; he is concerned with the total understanding of mankind. ~ J. Krishnamurthi

Knowledge, idea, belief stands in the way of wisdom. ~ J. Krishnamurthi

More

If people didn't have ways to identify their tribal identity they would make one up. E.g. sports teams.

There's an old joke : A man gets rescued after living alone on a deserted island for many years. As they're leaving, the captain of the ship says "you built three buildings, if that ones your house then whats that other one over there for"

Man replied "oh that's my church"

"Well then whats that third building?"

"Never mind that one. Thats the church I used to go to"

Earthling.

100% agree. There is a great book on this.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Human-Zoo-Zoologists-Kodansha/dp/1568361041

Lol. I am an Indian. Suck it Krishnamurthi. There is nothing wrong with having borders. That means we are not a part of a hivemind. If some nation is jewing its people, folks from other nations can point it out.

It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.

This one though, is a profound statement.

Is separatism, perhaps the unpardonable sin in Ethan Brand?

Then you quote him by name. Pretty funny.

When you separate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence.

so like when Switzerland grows and grows and grows and everything has to be robbed from abroad because fucking Switzerland has no resources? Do you see how vain your statement is?

Uh, Idiots. The area around Switzerland was inhabited a long time by similar folks. It doesn't matter at all if there are borders or not, the cities within Jura and the Alps import tons of oil, plastics, metal and food and still grow and grows.

Switzerland has clocks.

and cheese.

And chocolate.

Switzerland and the surrounding counties in the countries, have metal engineering, thats the secret to Swiss clocks, its the intricate instrument building abilities of their machinists and technicians.

Nah, they have got clock trees! I am sure of it.

Too bad we can't get any of those trees, or even some good machinists and technicians.....

You're a good egg, Putin.

Yeah, this is a great little community here. Props due.

You should try r/occult. Open minded, friendly, supportive, and properly skeptical.

Thanks for your words of encouragement and love. I feel the same way about the majority of people here. Good night friend.

Look, just because I'm nice to you doesn't mean I'm going to rub your feet for only a dollar.

I love you Putin_loves_cats!

Open mind, open heart

Be careful though, there are a lot who are esoteric by choice and don't accept any fact easily verifiable for themselves. Especially when it is within geosciences, except when the subject is about geoengineering, then suddenly everything is clear and clear cut again. The same about esoteric history or material sciences.
Those best are those with a honest and open affiliation (even fascists, nihilists or desinterists), but know about all the dirty stuff out there. They try to accommodate for facts and built them in and they clearly shift to what I call a consistent mind. I think that mind is like a sphere, but it looks very different, depending from where you went there. Just like the moon looks different from here or on its backside.

thank you putin. stay warm up there.

Thanks Putin.

I would define love as continually and with great industry, enduring the slings and arrows of a vast majority of brainwashed people who are unwittingly conspiring with the government to keep you from several key truths about their role in shaping the all-injurious chaostrophe around you.

Every day that you find some new truths and send them forward, you are spreading love.

When one is open to new ideas and perspectives, one learns to understand not everything/everyone is purely black/white despite what others continually and consistently tell you(though caution is still very important depending on past experiences/stories/reputation.. eg Around... You lews).

It's called being a skeptic.

I've never seen skepticism in this subreddit

I doubt your statement. Do you have documented proof of your assertion?

A lot of conspiracy theories are skeptical of the status quo. Also you frequently see users asking for sources, and calling bullshit on dubious submissions. How come you think none of that qualifies as skepticism?

No, this subreddit practices denialism. The same thing that creationists and climate change deniers do. Asking for sources only means something when you listen and evaluate the evidence. When you simply dismiss everything you're given out of hand in favor for an opposing view which has no evidence, that's not skepticism its denialism. Even if you can claim "I just asked for sources." Its what you do with the source that makes the difference.

Well, what looks like denialism to you might look like skepticism to somebody else, and vice versa. But I really have no interest in discussing this further if you're not willing to accept that there's nuance among the hundreds of thousands of users in this sub.

No, they are very fundamentally different things. And of course there's variance, but the vast majority is knee jerk reactions from the no-bama crowd. For the most part this subreddit embodies why people dismiss all conspiracy theories as crazy, baseless nonsense.

Of course they're different things, what I meant is they can look very similar to another person, even more so when expressed in writing, and especially in a discussion among strangers on the Internet.

Otherwise I actually agree and wonder how I ended up defending this rather mediocre sub ;-)

because its 99% circle jerk and those people that do point out dubious claims or lack of evidence are immediately downvoted to oblivion and berated. But other than that this place is TOTALLY open minded and loving.

I'd say you're exaggerating a bit there, but I didn't downvote you and actually share your sentiment that this whole thread is silly, /r/conspiracy never seemed particularly "loving" to me either.

I mean, I wont claim I have ant hard statistics to back up my 99% figure, but still.

donvoting me kind of proves my point

Unless you theorize that perhaps the boring, unsexy official story may be right, because based on the preponderance of evidence it seems the most likely explanation.

Then God help you. I wouldn't describe the bile which follows to be open minded or loving. You are a shill, a moron, a fool.

This place is open minded only to the extent that your theory conforms to a very specific, narrow world view.

The local orgies are the best.

It's all love and kittens until you have a dissenting voice in the thread. Then it's personal attacks, death threats, posting of personal information and shadow bans.

Just try it, have a dissenting opinion on a thread. I am sure that opinion of yours will change.

/science should be renamed as /corporatescience

I like critical theorists for our title, but yours is way good man.

Thank you for such an uplifting message!!!

Dude, just thank you!

That include the Holocaust deniers ?

No one denies that the central bankers of Europe orchestrated the wholesale murder of over 50 million European citizens.

Honest research, right.

The burden is on those who assert, not those who doubt.

Muh 689123 gorillionnnn!!!

Not sure why you were downvoted. This sub has always had a problem with holocaust deniers (and upvoting them).

sjwification spotted

The call went out. They know they don't belong, but here is where people are gathering so here is where they'd like to camp.

In fact, there are even some retards who work together looking for leftist agitprop that they can bend and contort toward stretching for relevance to the general notion of "conspiracy."

It's amateur apartment-dweller electioneering, plain and simple.

The big one, and it's fucking hilarious, is pretending like the retardation in their own rearview mirrors belongs to someone other than themselves a la, "sjw were co-opted to discredit the legitimate leftist student movement."

[Ignoring of course that their "legitimate movement" IS the con, and that THEY are the SJW.]

Holocaust deniers are either shills trying to discredit this sub, or dumbass rightwingers who think this sub exists to popularize their nazi beliefs.

Many of us are against the extremist government of Israel, but that does not mean we're holocaust deniers.

Death of 6 million jews = holocaust = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dda-0Q_XUhk

I thought you were openminded.

How is the holocaust (a thing that indeed happened) relevant to the fact that the rightwing extremist government of Israel is an apartheid type government (a thing that is currently happening)?

Oh wait, I know: You are the type of shill that tries to discredit conspiracy theorists by mixing criticism towards the Israeli government with holocaust denial.

Nice try, way too generic and trite though. 4/10

Im not even talking about today's Israel and its warcrimes.

The fact that 6 million jews did not die according to many official records including that of the red cross and I just presented you with the hard evidence that they have been using the 6 million figure to gain public support and the actual fact that the revisionists are prosecuted in many EU countries and is banned over there just proves that it didn't happen. You can't prove or disprove it anyhow so we are open to draw our own conclusion. By admitting that it happened, you are only helping to spread their lies and legitimacy of the occupation of Palestine and Golan Heights.

Pretty sure you're a NWO shill working towards this:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/france-moves-to-make-conspiracy-theories-illegal-by-government-decree/5438970

The rationale being, NWO tries vehemently to mix conspiracy theories (what we're doing) with hate speech (what you are doing) in order to remove our collective right to free speech.

If you are not doing it on purpose, you're either an idiot or a very hateful person.

So denying the holocaust is hate speech?

I'm pretty sure who is a shill here.

You seem a little too obsessed with this topic. Try focusing on an issue which is life or death for people alive today.

The entire existence of Israel and western support to it is based on this topic.

But it's a dead end. Focusing on actions that matter by people alive today.

"You have to know the past to understand the present."

"Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

Focusing on actions that matter by people alive today.

You can't focus on anything properly unless you are viewing through the appropriate lens.

Then why are you bothering?

Because it's damaging to the sceptical movement for R/conspiracy to be filled with holocaust stories.

There is no movement.

approach?

Mixing "holocaust denial" with "conspiracy theory" is a life or death issue for Western governments.

Conspiracy theories are starting to sting is what I gather from all these attempts to silence us.

http://www.activistpost.com/2014/09/david-cameron-says-non-violent.html

No, it isn't. And your comments make no sense.

"Holocaust revisionism" is questioning a huge part of our recent history since the official narrative that is given (that there was a huge conspiracy to selectively murder all Jews by the Nazis, 6 million died, etc) doesn't jive with what most historians have found in terms of real evidence. This is, in fact, the definition of a conspiracy theory.

Furthermore, the fact that questioning this historical event in modern Germany can get you jailed, and can get you ostracized in US society shows that something is amiss. In a truly "free" society, everyone has a right to question whatever they want and look for their own answers. This is neither offensive or a matter of being defensive. It's just looking at a historical event from a different lens.

Just so we're clear, I never called "Germany" a "free society".

You mean the ones who "open mindedly" downvote comments that don't follow the posts premise either without comment or with insults and or rhetoric? Yes, them. Loving.

I have personally been wished death a couple of times in this sub in the past month. Never happened anywhere else.

Screen shot or it didn't happen.

Wouldn't matter anyway. You could just edit the HTML and screenshot that.

You sound like quite the conspiracy theorist.

To be completely honest, all it takes is F12.

http://imgur.com/ZJQaGb5

Can't. Comments deleted.

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/3tnkmj/jonathan_pollard_one_of_the_worst_traitors_of_the/cx7w2vh

The two removed comments in the threads told me that I suck Israeli cock and wishing me an agonizing death via colon cancer.

you should lie face down with a carrot wedged in your ass cheeks and ask your friend to set fire to it.

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/3ubw3b/its_happening_the_first_transparent_and_unbiased/cxfl3g6

Still not deleted because I had such a good retort I didn't report it.

So, yeah, enjoy telling yourself what a good community you are. Extremely open minded

We removed the one comment because its against the rules here, but I can still see the comment since I'm a mod here and its not death threat at all. Its a rule 10/4 violation so we removed it.

Want a screen shot to prove you just lied?

http://imgur.com/HDHnBT7 granted its a shitty comment (hence why we removed it) but its no death threat.

As I said, one of the comments is an accusation of sucking Israeli cock, and the other is a wish of colon cancer. Not a death threat, just a death wish. Could you please post a screenshot of the other deleted comment?

I don't see any mention of colon cancer, I see a silly back and forth.

http://i.imgur.com/mATOgvB.png

Thank you

In the other deleted comment?

I refer to the comment to this:

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/3tnkmj/jonathan_pollard_one_of_the_worst_traitors_of_the/cx81mcg

Yeah I see that now, seems like a shitty comment worthy of being removed, as it was.

Oh and look the user who made it spends a lot of time at /isrconspiracyracist. Fascinating! These things are typically bullshit and this one appears to be bullshit as well.

So one guy said he hopes you get colon cancer one time and /conspiracy is to blame?

Doesn't look from his comment history that he supports isrconspiracyracist.

I saw the "you suck Israeli cock" comment being upvoted before it was removed. This comment thread has a guy writing congratulating this community a few days after he wrote to me that I should stick a carrot up my ass and light it.

Look, I don't care about all this at all. cocksucking, carrot up the assing and colon cancer. But congratulating this place for open mindedness? If you write something obvious as "this video is very blurry" you get downvoted to -22. If you point out that someone wrote a lie, you get called a shill, a nazi, supporter of the establishment, whatever.

I think that's a very important point to make. I don't see this place as one that cares very much about facts. Wrong things get passed as truth all the time, and if you call them out, you're the enemy.

This discussion itself is somewhat against the rules, so if that bothers anyone I'm fine with not having it.

No it doesn't look like it, of course it didn't look like /u/european88 was a Jewish kid living in his mom's basement in Florida either.

It didn't look like hambaconeggs on commondreams.org was actually a teachers assistant at a college running both sides of a racist troll debate there.

These tactics are getting old real fast.

I'm not saying that there aren't really nasty people who identify as conspiracy theorist and also make these horrible comments, but it seems that in reality... more often than not its someone trolling for the benefit of people who wish to make us "look bad".

If it's so awful why are you still here? Go to r/actualconspiracies, you'd fit in better there.

Doesn't look from his comment history that he supports isrconspiracyracist.

I saw the "you suck Israeli cock" comment being upvoted before it was removed. This comment thread has a guy writing congratulating this community a few days after he wrote to me that I should stick a carrot up my ass and light it.

Look, I don't care about all this at all. cocksucking, carrot up the assing and colon cancer. But congratulating this place for open mindedness? If you write something obvious as "this video is very blurry" you get downvoted to -22. If you point out that someone wrote a lie, you get called a shill, a nazi, supporter of the establishment, whatever.

I think that's a very important point to make. I don't see this place as one that cares very much about facts. Wrong things get passed as truth all the time, and if you call them out, you're the enemy.

This discussion itself is somewhat against the rules, so if that bothers anyone I'm fine with not having it.

You just lied because if you didn't care you wouldn't even have posted what you wrote. LOL! Typical... sure buddy, sure. You don't care... right. Deep down really do... deep, very deep... :3

Oh oh, someone is crying. Hint: It's not me. :3

Death is inevitable. Don't sweat it.

This is true and it is true that we have the occasional irrational person here freaking out telling people they should die sooner, but being a mod and seeing all the reports... its few and far between.

If your life is not being threaten in this sub, you are doing something wrong. :-)

I would upvote for your username alone.

Loving, unless they are Jewish

So stupid

All of those people who harassed parents of children murdered at Sandy Hook and called them liars and actors were so loving and open minded! Salt of the earth people.

most open minded

Yes, they're "open minded" to ANYTHING that fits their desired conclusion. Facts or reasoning that go against their worldview or conclusion, no, that must come from a shill or a sheeple.

Do you realize that most truth seekers or conspiracy theorists have had major shifts in worldview before they came to their current conclusions? In seeking truth you must be open to new revelations potentially changing what you thought to be true. If a person mind is trapped in a box of rigid skepticism and has a stubborn unwillingness to say "I was wrong", that mind is stagnant and cannot gain in knowledge and wisdom.

Exactly, you are agreeing with me. Theorists come to their conclusion by "revelation" or "shift in worldview", not through facts. It is EXACTLY like religion; "I know the one truth, I don't have to listen to any facts or people who disagree with me, you're either with us or against us".

My shift of view was based on facts not religion.

Like the fact that we went to war with Iraq because we found a convenient excuse in 9-11 and not because Iraq had anything at all to do with 9-11.

The fact that we continue to support Saudi Arabia regardless of their involvement in 9-11 and their horrible human rights violations. The fact that the corporate elite are allowed to commit crimes without accountability and even with the assistance of our government.

we went to war with Iraq because we found a convenient excuse in 9-11 and not because Iraq had anything at all to do with 9-11

I agree completely. Does that prove that 9/11 was done by govt conspiracy ?

The fact that we continue to support Saudi Arabia regardless of their involvement in 9-11 and their horrible human rights violations. The fact that the corporate elite are allowed to commit crimes without accountability and even with the assistance of our government.

Again, I agree almost entirely (I don't think any direct connection between Saudi govt and 9/11 has been proven). Again, doesn't prove 9/11 was a govt conspiracy. Doesn't prove any other conspiracy, either (one world govt, Rothschilds, Jews, whatever).

What I disagree with is jumping from "view that govt does some bad things" to "conclusion that 9/11 was a govt conspiracy". That is done without facts.

My intention wasn't to prove that 9-11 was a US govt conspiracy.

My intention was to show why I don't believe US govt propaganda as fact, because it rarely is. The people in power at the time had an agenda and when 9-11 came along justice and truth wasn't their concern, getting support for a war was.

Look at the shit hole Iraq has become today compared to what it was before the US liberated them (a ridiculous phrase) and look how rich haliburton became. Meanwhile Saudi Arabia still funds terror and we still fund the Saudis.

I agree with all of that.

On 9/11, there's no need to "believe US govt propaganda as fact". The govt has presented the facts that support its explanation of 9/11. They include: footage/pictures of the hijackers in the airports, video and eyewitnesses of planes hitting the buildings, records of hijackers entering the USA, records and eyewitnesses of hijackers taking flight lessons, phone calls from passengers saying "we're being hijacked", flight 93 cockpit voice recorder showing struggles, accidental radio transmissions of the hijackers voices from the planes, Bin Laden claiming responsibility (after first denying it).

On the other side, I see no clear, simple facts given by the 9/11 conspiracy theorists. It's all speculation, or gaps in the govt's case, or slanted "questions".

Who do you think committed 9/11 ?

Who do you think committed 9/11 ?

A bunch of Saudi nationals, which is why I think the government was full of shit to go to war with Iraq over it.

Okay, so you're not a conspiracy theorist about 9/11. So you and I are agreeing.

What about Building 7? You think a fire can bring down a building at near free fall speed into a nice neat little pile?

Why not ? Fires did it to three almost-identically-constructed buildings that day. Most experts seem comfortable with that explanation; only a tiny fringe of engineers, architects, building construction people are calling for more investigation.

little pile

I don't know about WTC7 specifically, but the three or four WTC buildings combined resulted in: "Along with 1.4 million tons of debris removed from the site, 19,435 body parts have been recovered from ground zero." and "More than 110,000 truckloads of debris have been removed from ground zero." according to http://www.911memorial.org/rescue-recovery

How is that not a conspiracy theory if that is the truth and it is hidden, and consisted of a chain of events which were definitely harmful and illegal carried out by a group of people?

It's not a conspiracy theory because it's the official explanation, has facts, and is opposed by every 9/11 conspiracy theorist out there.

Okay. My bad. I should have read his statement more closely. I assumed something else.

Wait. No, I didn't. The official explanation was Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein whom were located in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and in a cave, wasn't it?

You almost got me there! I really shouldn't be talking about 9/11. My memory is coming back though. Definitely remember scary guy in cave and many wars trying to find him.

No, the govt explanation of 9/11 had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein. Bush/Cheney tried to make that connection later to justify the war, but the CIA told them many times it was nonsense. They decided to invade Iraq anyway.

Yeah, "scary guy in cave" was a Saudi multi-millionaire who survived war against the Russians in Afghanistan, headed an organization that attacked many countries successfully over 10 years or more, then hid successfully from the full might of the US military for more than 10 years until they finally got him. A real failure, that Bin Laden.

No, the govt explanation of 9/11 had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein.

Are you sure about that?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50679-2004Jun17.html

Yup, that article EXACTLY confirms what I said.

So, Bush consistently stating that there was a relationship and therefore the wars are justified for and after 9/11 would not be considered a government explanation? Was Bush not a part of the government? Sorry, I'm not really confident in speaking about 9/11, but I just don't understand that.

Yes, I'm taking "govt explanation" to mean what the 9/11 commission and NIST and FBI and NTSB and CIA and FEMA and EPA etc said and published, not some political maneuvering later by Bush.

not some political maneuvering later by Bush.

You do realize that this is a conspiracy theory when the President of the US, whom non-conspiracy theorists normally trust and is considered the most official person of the government, is making a political maneuver and justifying many wars to the public by lying to them?

I thought the conspiracy theory was that the govt (whatever part of it) did the 9/11 attacks ?

There isn't 'the' or 'one' conspiracy theory. There are many theories because the official explanation, the truth that we are supposed to accept, doesn't make sense. That's why people theorize many possibilities, in order to make sense of it.

A conspiracy theory is an explanatory hypothesis that suggests that two or more persons, a group, or an organization of having caused or covered up, through secret planning and deliberate action, an event or situation which is typically taken to be illegal or harmful.

If the Bush administration was hiding the truth, lying to, and motivating the public to support unjustified wars which resulted in millions of deaths, then it's still a conspiracy. It's also a conspiracy against the citizens of those countries that were being terrorized because of these lies, and they simply had to accept it.

You're talking about an Iraq war conspiracy, not a 9/11 conspiracy theory. I don't think there's anything theoretical about Bush's lies/distortions to start the Iraq war; it's been documented.

Allegedly, we started war in Iraq because of 9/11. All of it stems from the events that occurred on 9/11, so it falls under a 9/11 conspiracy. If there is a hole in the story, then everything in the story is questionable until the story is complete and makes sense. Well, that's how I feel.

Why does it bother you if people theorize that the government was a part of the towers going down? After all, based off of what you believe, the government lied to push us into war preceded by an event that pushed us into the war.

I don't think there's anything theoretical about Bush's lies/distortions to start the Iraq war; it's been documented.

Then would you agree that it would have been a conspiracy at the time before it was 'documented'? And why haven't they been punished for it? Why aren't you fighting for that, if you whole-heartedly feel that this is the truth? Instead, it seems to me, that you are fighting against people who simply want truth and justice.

Is the 'official explanation' more important to you, than the people who have suffered and died because of it? You admit to a group of people in the government being responsible for the wars amid a bunch of lies, a conspiracy, yet, you're failing to argue that point on /conspiracy, and instead you are arguing that it's okay because NIST and FBI and NTSB and CIA and FEMA and EPA documented the 'truth' and that's what we should all believe right now.

it falls under a 9/11 conspiracy

I think that's wrong, but you're free to think that. I think 9/11 was not a govt conspiracy, and Bush seized on it as a pretext to attack the dictator who had frustrated his father. As well as Bush's religious and ideological motivations: God put him in office to bring Christianity and democracy to the Mideast. The Iraq war being a fraud doesn't mean 9/11 was a conspiracy. In fact, the order of the wars (Afghan first, Iraq later) mitigates against that.

you are fighting against people who simply want truth and justice

I think most 9/11 conspiracy theorists simply have jumped to a conclusion that fits their worldview (govt is evil), despite the facts or lack of conspiracy facts. I just point that out; I am not trying to defend the govt explanation or deny any suffering.

These conspiracy theories do real harm. We should oppose harmful falsehoods.

If the lesson we learn from 9/11 is "govt is evil" or "the Jews did it", when the real lesson (I think) is "we should stop supporting dictators and invading countries", we risk more 9/11's. And people in the Mideast don't learn the lesson "we should stop the extremists among us".

If the lesson we learn from big events (9/11, Boston Bombing, HIV/AIDS, Ebola) is "don't trust anything the govt or scientists say", that helps lead to "deny climate change, refuse vaccines, deny evolution". In places such as Africa, it costs many lives every year.

Conspiracy theories generally are a form of religion: belief without evidence, even belief despite the evidence. This harms our country and our society.

And the logic of conspiracy theorists often is EXACTLY that of the religious: "I have no evidence for my claim, but if I can cast doubt on science/govt's evidence, that means my claim must be correct, right ?". No.

Yes, there have been real conspiracies. Yes, there is plenty of malice and incompetence by govts or govt agencies. But these conspiracy theories are a different thing: start with desired conclusion, and invent/deny facts to justify it.

http://www.billdietrich.me/Reason/ConspiracyTheories.html

Yea, I don't feel that all conspiracy theorists believe that everyone in the government is always and absolutely evil, but mostly all probably believe that people in government have done evil things in the past, and are capable of doing evil things presently and in the future.

Like I said, most of us theorize to try and make sense of things that don't make sense. When evidence keeps popping up throughout time, which shows that some government entities have failed to protect the people, and at times have intentionally hurt them, well then yea, sometimes it's expected for people to jump to absolute conclusions, because it becomes emotional, especially if they or others they care about, can be or are personally affected.

These conspiracy theories do real harm. We should oppose harmful falsehoods.

I don't agree. Thinking about possibilities or trying to find the right pieces of the puzzle, in order to make sense of the world, does no real harm. Being skeptical, theorizing, and questioning things enables us to create, correct, learn, and grow. Blindly accepting matters that do not add up, does not help anyone, but the people who are trying to blind you.

If the lesson we learn from 9/11 is "govt is evil" or "the Jews did it", when the real lesson (I think) is "we should stop supporting dictators and invading countries", we risk more 9/11's.

Those aren't the lessons I learned. Not quite sure what 'we' learned from that. Like I said, I don't really discuss it. How do we stop supporting dictators though? Did you know that Bush would do the things that you said? What did you feel after 9/11? Did you feel that the war was justified immediately after it happened? How do we, on conspiracy, get them to stop invading countries? Do you feel that bringing awareness to the conspiracies that the government has been involved in, in the past, has been beneficial? Have people become more cautious and more likely to critically examine things they see or hear from the media, government, or other authoritative figures? Is that so wrong?

If the lesson we learn from big events (9/11, Boston Bombing, HIV/AIDS, Ebola) is "don't trust anything the govt or scientists say", that helps lead to "deny climate change, refuse vaccines, deny evolution". In places such as Africa, it costs many lives every year.

It's not that we shouldn't trust anything the government or scientists say, but we should evaluate everything that they say, and if something is not right, we should question it and stay aware.

Conspiracy theories generally are a form of religion: belief without evidence, even belief despite the evidence. This harms our country and our society.

There are going to be a lot of crazy conspiracy theories, but not all of them are. However, you have to remember that they are only theories, thoughts, and ideas. I assume that you don't believe in a religion; if you think that belief without evidence is so harmful, and you care so much about what harms our society, then why don't you go into churches every day and tell them what they should and shouldn't believe in?

Thinking about possibilities or trying to find the right pieces of the puzzle, in order to make sense of the world, does no real harm. Being skeptical, theorizing, and questioning things enables us to create, correct, learn, and grow.

But this is not what conspiracy theorists do. Immediately after an event, they jump right to a conclusion that fits their worldview, then start a long search for facts to fit their conclusion. They avoid and deny facts that conflict with their conclusion. 14+ years now on 9/11, no simple solid facts that support their conclusion, and they're still trying. That's not a noble endeavor, or honest skepticism.

they are only theories, thoughts, and ideas

Every day, we see that false ideas and theories are harmful. As I said, they lead to people committing attacks (such as 9/11), people not vaccinating their kids, people refusing to act to stop AIDS, climate change denial, etc.

why don't you go into churches every day and tell them what they should and shouldn't believe in?

Every time someone posts religious cant on my Facebook feed or somewhere else I frequent, I do rebut it, telling them exactly how they're wrong, giving them facts and reasoning. Exactly as I do with the conspiracy theorists. As I said, the two are very much the same: claiming to know the truth, but unable to support the claim with facts, jumping to conclusion without or despite facts and reasoning. And both are harmful to society and the world.

But this is not what conspiracy theorists do. Immediately after an event, they jump right to a conclusion that fits their worldview, then start a long search for facts to fit their conclusion.

Some maybe, not all (x5).

Every day, we see that false ideas and theories are harmful. As I said, they lead to people committing attacks (such as 9/11), people not vaccinating their kids, people refusing to act to stop AIDS, climate change denial, etc.

That's your belief. People can learn to think for themselves. The more perspectives or sides they see, the more information they receive, then the better decisions they will be able to make. That's my belief. And I definitely don't believe that any of the theories here on /conspiracy are leading people to commit attacks like 9/11. You know, if I said something like that, you would ask me for a source, so where are your sources then?

Exactly as I do with the conspiracy theorists. As I said, the two are very much the same: claiming to know the truth, but unable to support the claim with facts, jumping to conclusion without or despite facts and reasoning.

You know, I've argued with you about GMOs before and you were throwing around the geneticliteracyproject link and you had absolutely no idea what was in the link. Your response was that you trust the experts. However, there are experts that brought conflicting information to the table. So you basically chose a side, with no other reason than trusting 'experts'. This was not based on all facts and reasoning. This was based on facts and reasoning that you chose to be aware of. You are biased and your way of thinking which is not really thinking, but it is based off of another's thinking, would actually be more harmful to society (if you want to compare), but mostly to yourself, because it means that you are easily manipulated and controllable.

Don't forget about the hijackers passport which they found. That was pretty convincing evidence to me that the government was telling the truth. /s

Wow, that's really a smoking gun, proves beyond doubt that Bush and Cheney orchestrated 9/11 ! Well done !

How the fuck did you get that I think Bush and Cheney orchestrated 9/11 from that?

Well, it's just completely obvious, isn't it ? Such an obvious error on their part, a passport that survived. Dead giveaway. Has Cheney's fingerprints all over it. Case solved !

Oh my good lord this person cannot be real, you cannot be a real person, please tell me I'm not the only one seeing what this douche is pulling.

I've come to see him as /r/conspiracy`s mascot of sorts, he's really funny - a distillation, a caricature even of all that is wrong with faithers, reality deniers, skeptopaths and what is not allowed to be called "shills" here. Reliable as a clockwork, he will "debunk" "essentially free fall" with a link that proves the Twins did actually fall a little slower, "debunk" the well-documented "dancing Israelis" with the corresponding 911myths article, "debunk" the allegation that the 9/11 Commission was a coverup (according to the commissioners) by insinuating you claimed Bush personally rigged WTC 7 with nanothermate. And each time pretend all previous debates never happened. Don't try to have a serious discussion, that is all, you will soon find he's actually really likeable in his stubbornness.

Yes, I disagree with you, therefore I must not be a "real person", I must be a sheeple or shill or something.

No way to prove I'm real or not a shill, but you're welcome to look at my web site http://www.billdietrich.me/

Moreover, people who hold one conspiracy as true are more likely to hold many others as well. And in addition, they tend to be more religious than not. This supports the idea that most lack the critical faculties to examine evidence and make reasoned conclusions. Check out the theory of cognitive dissonance if youre interested in seeing why people are so fixated on only taking into account evidence that supports their preconceived notions.

Moreover, people who hold one conspiracy as true are more likely to hold many others as well.

Obviously. If you pay attention in history class you should come out believing in many conspiracies. Examples off the top of my head include the Trojan Horse; The Gunpowder Plot of 1605; The Boston Tea Party.

Do you accept those are real? Then you believe in multiple conspiracies. Do you believe those are made up? Then you believe that the official history books are lying to you- which would be a conspiracy itself.

And in addition, they tend to be more religious than not. This supports the idea that most lack the critical faculties to examine evidence and make reasoned conclusions.

Did you know that people who aren't "conspiracy theorists" tend to be religious? This supports the idea that most lack the critical faculties to examine evidence and make reasoned conclusions. I point this out to you as a nihilist.

Check out the theory of cognitive dissonance if youre interested in seeing why people are so fixated on only taking into account evidence that supports their preconceived notions.

Cognitive dissonance is when a person's internal beliefs come into conflict with new data they have received and they are unable to integrate it causing a state of mental and often emotional stress. It's like in sci-fi when someone presents a paradox to confuse and destroy a.i. because the a.i. can't handle the cognitive dissonance and so it fails to process and overloads in the attempt. Humans are the same.

So here is a paradox, my friend. You do not believe in conspiracies? But you believe that the majority of the world is duped into supporting religious systems which are predicated on lies meant to manipulate the will of the masses into conforming with the wills of very few leaders at the top. Is that not a conspiracy? You believe in conspiracies but believe that you don't believe in conspiracies. Could you yourself be blinded by this cognitive dissonance of which you speak?

I shouldve been more clear in my definition. Conspiracies happen. All the time. Whether its between two people or within a government. To be a little more current, the Iran-Contra, Watergate, COINTELPRO, among others, happened. They are well documented cases supported by evidence.

Conspiracy theories, on the other hand, tend to be grounded in the paranoid, unsubstantiated, irrational claims and arguments that are supported by anecdote, misinterpretation of the facts, or outright fabrication.

Did you know that people who aren't "conspiracy theorists" tend to be religious? This supports the idea that most lack the critical faculties to examine evidence and make reasoned conclusions. I point this out to you as a nihilist.

This is besides my point. My point was that people willing to believe in things that are unseen, on faith, are willing to believe in unsubstantiated conspiracy theories by the same lack of rational. From there on they can rationalize evidence that supports or refutes their innately unfounded beliefs to reduce the amount of cognitive dissonance caused by this conflict with their worldview.

So here is a paradox, my friend. You do not believe in conspiracies? But you believe that the majority of the world is duped into supporting religious systems which are predicated on lies meant to manipulate the will of the masses into conforming with the wills of very few leaders at the top. Is that not a conspiracy? You believe in conspiracies but believe that you don't believe in conspiracies. Could you yourself be blinded by this cognitive dissonance of which you speak?

Youre putting a lot of words in my mouth. I never said anything about religious systems predicated on lies to manipulate the masses. I think our propensity to believe in superstition and the supernatural is ingrained in us given sufficient ignorance of how the world works and a lack of healthy skepticism. People may use this to manipulate for their own gain, and have (think the abuse of indulgences in the Catholic Church), but on the whole people will believe in these sorts of things with or without a grand conspirator behind it.

And of course I could be blinded by cognitive dissonance! The important thing for me is to rationally analyze evidence that may conflict with my world view and be humble enough to say "I was wrong" or skeptical enough to say "I dont know based upon the limited or inadequate evidence."

I think we are both on the same page as far as conspiracies happening, however this sub time and time again editorializes headlines, cite dubious sources based on anecdote, and overall provides inadequate evidence to support claims made. Some people catch this and call out the OP in the comments, but I am always amazed at what sort of unsubstantiated content gets upvoted here.

Same for basically any subreddit, political organization, religion or social movement.

Definitely not unique to conspiracy.

True of religions. Not true of most other subreddits or movements. They react much more rationally to facts and data; they don't immediately yell "false flag" or "shill" or "sheeple". And they present facts to support their own argument, not just "questions" about the opposing position.

They react much more rationally to facts and data; they don't immediately yell "false flag" or "shill" or "sheeple".

Right because they subreddits about conspiracies, this one is so false flags are a frequent topic of conspiracy theory.

they present facts to support their own argument, not just "questions" about the opposing position.

People present facts here as well, and people in other subreddits also question the position of people that oppose their subs.

There is nothing abnormal going on here or there.

Go to /conservative and people talk about conservatism

Go to /liberal and people talk about liberalism

Go to /communism and people talk about communism

Go to /mylittlepony and people talk about rainbow unicorns

Why is it so shocking to you when you go to /conspiracy and people talk about conspiracies?

I am not shocked by people talking about conspiracies. I join the conversation, and if they're wrong, I tell them so and tell them why.

I think the claim that CT's are "open minded" is wrong.

and if they're wrong, I tell them so and tell them why.

Did it occur to you this statement might come across as ironic?

I completely disagree and let me tell you the rational reasons why. The conspiracy theory perspective on the world is one of hate and fear. It is one, that at it's very core, tells people that the world/society is working against you, bad, and you should distrust and blindly assume the worst. The government is not trying to protect you and look after you it is trying to enslave you and kill you. Is blindly assuming the worst, something a "loving person" regularly does?

The actual world is the loving one, where nearly every law that exists is designed to protect and care for you, from jaywalking laws to speed limits to the ones that dictate that every person who dies must have an autopsy done to prevent/deter foul play. Why is assault, rape, stealing, murder, illegal and punishable by prison time? Is it possible that the government is trying to protect you and reduce/prevent these behaviors in society? Why do minimum wage laws exists, is the government caring for you and trying to prevent you from being exploited and actually enslaved by big companies? Etc.

Again, nearly every single thing the government does is a caring act, one of love, yet it all gets ignored. The literal letter of the law is proof that the government loves you and cares for you. And you people ignore it, cherry picking misunderstood anecdotes to confirmation bias the view that they are out to get you. That the world is a shitty place. No, the world is not a shitty place, full of liars and people working against you.

All of these wonderful laws we have in place(the government) are the product of the collective effort of our caring and loving ancestors and community members, trying to create the best world for us all and their kids, and it is continually trying to be improved upon, every single second, by millions of caring people as we speak.

Your community is a cesspool of hate and fear that is not grounded in any type of evidence or rational thought. You people are masochists who can't see the love and beauty in the world.

I wholly expect this comment to be deleted because you people dislike rational discourse with people who don't hold your warped negative views of the world.

where nearly every law that exists is designed to protect and care for you

Irrational men who don't let their wives go to the store alone are doing so by their own justification because they care about her and want to protect her. The reality is that they are afraid she will choose another man and that they own her. This is more similar to how the government protects and cares for our people.

Your community is a cesspool of hate and fear that is not grounded in any type of evidence or rational thought. You people are masochists who can't see the love and beauty in the world.

There is an element of that here, but no more or less than any other community.

The overwhelming notion here is anti-war anti-violence.

If that is all you have to say in defense of your worldview, then you exude the same willful ignorance that lays the foundations for your negative and hateful view of the world. Free thinking implies you look at evidence objectively, without bias, and have it form your views and beliefs, regardless if it contradicts your prejudices and preexisting understanding of the world. Like I said, the literal letter of the law, is the evidence that the government cares for you, yet your mind is not free and unbiased, so evidence makes no difference to you. You should give free thinking a shot, you may begin to see the vast amount of beauty and love in the world.

None of the founders were opposed to the existence of a government...

Government is not a person.

Government is incapable of "love," "concern," or even "spite."

I envy your Pollyanna-like vision though. :)

nearly every single thing the government does is a caring act, one of love

I'm not of the everything the government does is evil camp, but this statement is beyond farcical.

Asset forfeiture without criminal charges: They love you so much they take your money.

Attacking nations on pretenses they know are false: So much love they use your money to kill innocent people.

Preventing states from requiring GMO food to be labeled when over 90% of people want it to be mandatory: Love you enough to protect you from your own ignorance by negating your right to know.

Send people to jail for years for possession of marijuana and don't even attempt to bring charges for bank fraud that has cost Americans trillions. Longer sentences for petty theft than for massive white collar fraud: I guess they love some people more than others.

No hint of rehabilitation left in prisons. Prisons run by corporation which are less safe for inmates and guards, pay guards less, lack even the veneer if rehabilitation and use inmates for slave labor: corporations are people too, they need love.

Appointing former lobbyists and execs to major regulatory agencies overseeing the industry they used to work and or lobby for: loving the bottom line of Monsanto, Pfizer and Exxon.

Making money off of student loans when equally prosperous nations don't charge citizens for equal quality education at all: loving... whatever.

Shit welfare and unemployment benefits and no mandatory maternity leave (certainly not paid) or paid vacation unlike the rest of the world: tough love.

Spending over a decade torturing people they knew were innocent: better safe than not love voters enough.

And of course the routine, even requisite torrents of lies about virtually everything: because they love us.

That's about the first 1/1,000th of the bigger points. I believe in taxation to pay for a social safety net and infrastructure and education, but compared to other economically developed nations we squander our wealth on militarism, the debt it creates and giving tax breaks and government handouts to corporations and the very wealthy. Also, I don't want to hear "what about Social Security?" because that is just the government forcing you to give them money which they hold, then plunder, then pay back to you at a rate that is on average far less than you would have if you had put the money into a simple savings account.

Kudos on telling people that they wrongly think people and the world are in bad shape then saying:

Your community is a cesspool of hate and fear that is not grounded in any type of evidence or rational thought. You people are masochists who can't see the love and beauty in the world.

I know, how could we miss it with caring people like you giving evidence to that?

You basically came here to insult this sub and talk about how great government is. I guess the "rational reasons" that you gave for this were J-walking laws and something grossly untrue about autopsies. Stop dismissing viewpoints you disagree with out of hand. Say "boohoo it's so hateful" all you want but that's just objective opinion, nothing to do with provable facts like the government takes more wealth from people without legal justification than do burglars.

P.S. We don't delete comments for disagreeing, just for violating the rules.

Your counter argument is essentially, laws aren't perfect so the government is out to get you. Most of those things you mentioned are being addressed as we speak by the countless caring people dedicated to making the future a better place. How about you list all the things that are working correctly in the people's collective interest? There would be too many, you would just have to open any book of laws and start reading.

The ones that are bad and not perfected yet, is not evidence that government is out to eat your babies, enslave you, depopulate the earth, etc. This is an important fact. As the people become aware of bad laws, they get fixed by politicians... history consistently shows us this.

Again, the existence of imperfect laws is not evidence that the government wants to eat your babies.

And you people ignore it, cherry picking misunderstood anecdotes to confirmation bias the view that they are out to get you.

Some of your examples fit into that category but none more so than your GMO anecdote. Remember how politicians fix bad policies when the public becomes aware of them, why aren't they doing this with gmo labelling? Should we just blindly assume they are evil and trying to depopulate the earth, allowing millions of their people to die early deaths(including their kids and grandkids who also consume GMO goods!) or should we at least try to understand the reasoning and arguments for their positions.

The vast majority of conspiracy theorists aren't even aware of the arguments for certain policy decisions as evidenced by your mentioning of GMO labelling. The fact remains is that there is no data, academic or medical consensus, to support the belief that GMOs kill you. Then people typically ask well what is the harm in labelling anyway, why not let the people decide? Then the answer to that is that people will not purchase products/foods that they otherwise would, costing the food industry billions of dollars, which would lead to loss of a lot of countless jobs, higher costs for consumers, all over irrational fears.

Then you get the people that begin to suggest all the academics and medical professionals all across the ENTIRE world(not just in America) who study or specialize in understanding this subject all being in on it. They are all evil and are covering up the fact GMOs are killing everyone they know and care about... It really is a disgusting, non loving, and hateful thing to assume, all just because they refuse to accept the realities involved.

I have rationally addressed most if not all of your points(a rational and freethinking person would now be forced to change their related beliefs). Now if you would be so kind as to RATIONALLY explain this point you blanketedly made

grossly untrue about autopsies.

The government absolutely does mandate you to get an autopsy when you die because they care about us all and want to make sure you weren't killed to deter murders. Explain that point, please, how is that point incorrect?

Don't run away and write off my rational refutations of your points, that is all too common here and a defense mechanism.

Most of those things you mentioned are being addressed as we speak by the countless caring people dedicated to making the future a better place.

BWAHAHAHAHA!. Which ones? That close Guantanamo thing? The out of the middle east thing? They're strengthening the legal backing of hiding GMO's, just approved GMO meat for the first time without a labeling requirement and with the passage of the TPP will make labeling tuna dolphin safe illegal. A couple states have passed some limits on asset forfeiture laws but 2015 will still be the most yet, an order of magnitude over just 10 years ago. When was the last time you saw a major piece of legislation addressing private prisons, prisons charging rents and paying slave wages etc.? Look at the overlap between high-level regulatory agency positions and the sectors they're supposed to overlap; regulatory capture has gotten worse under both parties for forty years and the news doesn't talk about it because they're part of the trend or owned by companies that are. Token changes in student loan laws that still leave student unable to even declare bankruptcy (based on a fabrication that they would disproportionately file right after graduation and lobbied for by the groups that held their loans) without significantly reducing the likelihood that they will have to while at the same time not significantly regulating for-profit colleges despite horrifically bad academic standards and equally bad rates of graduation and employment in the field with higher rates of delinquent loans. Continued assaults not just on welfare and other benefits like food stamps and unemployment (while piling on tax-cuts for the rich) but actually trying (most recently successfully) to lower social security payments. That's the moral equivalent of a bank telling you that they're keeping part of your savings account and if you don't like it tough shit. Political lies are more frequent than at any time in probably a century.

I'm not really seeing them "being addressed". I also don't see how saying it makes it true.

As the people become aware of bad laws, they get fixed by politicians... history consistently shows us.

Yes, thank god that we finally saw how Glass-Steagall was stopping banks from financially raping us and ended it. Thank god we finally saw that Congress having the power to declare war should only be a formality and our president should be able to bomb whoever he wants. It's a good thing we got rid of all that tort law so consumers can't sue corporations for damages. Usury law? Crushing individual debt for the poor is good! All that right to privacy stuff? So pre-9/11. Right to a speedy trial? Same.

Again, this is maybe 1/1,000th of the major points. You are delusional regarding the motive, actions and direction of government.

The fact remains is that there is no data, academic or medical consensus, to support the belief that GMOs kill you.

Bull. Shit. The data has been around as long as GMO's have been. Many nations have banned certain GMO crops for this reason (why else) and some have banned them altogether. You are getting you information from 5 corporations about studies conducted and controlled by the companies that stand to profit from their sale and "evaluated" by an agency run by their former employees who by their own records ignores the vast majority of provably falsified studies and an even higher percent of those that show anomalous and non-repeatable results. These studies are also all short enough that they will only reveal fast developing side effects. Look at the percent of industry-run studies which show that specific GMO's are safe vs. independent studies. ~99% say safe for industry studies, ~40-50% for independent studies.

costing the food industry billions of dollars, which would lead to loss of a lot of countless jobs, higher costs for consumers, all over irrational fears.

None of this actually holds up to scrutiny. A lot of that has to do with the patenting of seeds. The suicide rate of farmers in India skyrocketed with the introduction of GMO crops because the farmers went bankrupt when they couldn't pay for the next season's seeds and the plants have been engineered not to produce their own. Higher costs for farmers= higher costs for consumers. Any decreased cost from increased output is swallowed by patented seeds, increased use of glyphosate (banned in many nations most considered backwards compared to the US in terms of regulation and more considered much better than us) and unpredicted new plant diseases and fungal infections due to altered genetics among other things.

And the government solution to this controversy? Fund independent studies? Make the data from them available to the public? No. Deny citizens the right to know despite their desire to know. "You can't have this knowledge because you're stupid." Is that really the kind of democracy you want to live in, or democracy at all?

Then you get the people that begin to suggest all the academics and medical professionals all across the ENTIRE world(not just in America) who study or specialize in understanding this subject all being in on it.

Nope, just the ones whose livelihoods and reputations are based on companies that demand positive results (this extends to many technically employed by colleges because their grants come largely from corporations and grants improve their status and pay). I don't think a majority of the scientific communities in countries that have banned some or all GMO's are in on anything. But, you just claimed something that isn't true anyway, so why am I bothering to rebut it?

I have rationally addressed most if not all of your points(a rational and freethinking person would now be forced to change their related beliefs)

OK, I get it you're a troll. How is "Most of those things you mentioned are being addressed as we speak by the countless caring people dedicated to making the future a better place." addressing any of my points, especially when its the opposite of the truth? No one could be stupid enough to believe that previous quote of yours. Hence you must be a troll. The one point you did address was nothing more than Monsanto talking points fed to yu by that bastion of truth and impartiality cable news.

The government absolutely does mandate you to get an autopsy when you die because they care about us all and wants to make sure you weren't killed to deter murders. Explain that point, please, how is that point incorrect.

Well, it is incorrect because it is not true. It is not true for every death, it is not even true for the deaths of famous and powerful people or in many cases of indeterminate cause of death. It is incorrect because you are. Have you never heard of someone being exhumed for an autopsy when new information came to light? Have you never read an article about someone who died and their was controversy over whether there should be an autopsy? Did you learn everything you know on the subject from CSI?

Are autopsies done on everyone who dies?

To answer your question -- No. Autopsies are not performed on everyone who dies. The laws of each state vary, but ultimately the family and the wishes of the person (if known) are respected.

https://www.zocdoc.com/answers/7205/are-autopsies-done-on-everyone-who-dies

You are wrong. Period.

Don't run away and write off my rational refutations of your points

OK, I've addressed your "refutations" regarding GMO's and autopsies, now the rest:

Most of those things you mentioned are being addressed as we speak by the countless caring people

Most of those things you I mentioned are not being addressed as we speak by the countless caring people.

There, that was the only "refutation" left to address.

Let me first say your post is a form of logical fallacy in itself. It is the shotgun fallacy, I think it is called. Mitt Romney used it a lot in his debates against Obama during the 2012 race. It is where you say so many incorrect things that they overwhelm the person they are being spoken to. The person, limited by time, is unable to address them all. I will address a few points before going to sleep, I will respond to the rest when I wake up(so your fallacy won't work unless you decide to run from my superior and accurate arguments).

You have to keep in mind when you shotgun all these supposed supporting points for your position, you are in fact arguing that because things are not Perfect now, that means the government is trying to eat your babies. This is not a straw man, this is in fact what you are arguing.

Your points on GMOs are completely off and you use a tone of intellectually dishonest points to argue your incorrect position. The FACT is that there is no data nor consensus from the academic or medical communities to support the view that GMOs are bad.

Many nations have banned certain GMO crops for this reason (why else)

That is pure assumption and there is no data to support that claim. You are assuming, there are other valid reasons. You are assuming myself and the politicians who decided against labelling are getting my information from x, the one thing is certain you are getting your information from fringe anti gmo websites that support other unscientific positions like anti vaccines.

~99% say safe for industry studies, ~40-50% for independent studies.

Dude... That is called pulling numbers out of your ass to support your position. Be intellectually honest with yourself.

costing the food industry billions of dollars, which would lead to loss of a lot of countless jobs, higher costs for consumers, all over irrational fears.

None of this actually holds up to scrutiny.

You are not understanding what I am saying and your reasoning doesn't make sense. The food companies lose out on billions of dollars in sales because their food is labelled to have GMOs, they do and will in fact lose out on money from this labelling which leads to higher prices, fewer, and less access to food(three things politicians are responsible for managing). This basic economics, you don't want to scare people away from purchasing something because some conspiracy theorists think it will kill you, especially when there is no solid data to support the position and the consensus in both MEDICAL and academic communities say there is there is no harmful effects.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/the-gmo-debate-5-things-to-stop-arguing/2014/10/27/e82bbc10-5a3e-11e4-b812-38518ae74c67_story.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2014/09/17/the-debate-about-gmo-safety-is-over-thanks-to-a-new-trillion-meal-study/

So you are misinformed on the gmo issue for the same reason that conspiracy theorists are incorrect about most issues. An incorrect and unhealthy understanding of science and academia, inability to distinguish credible sources from non credible ones, and confirmation bias(this all culminated in your gathering of information on GMOs from antiscientific sources that you visited only to confirm what you wanted to believe). We already observed your intellectual dishonesty when you just made up percentages out of thin air and your ASSUMPTION, that GMOs are banned in Europe because there is data to support they are harmful(there is none, in fact there is overwhelming data saying it is safe).

You are delusional regarding the motive, actions and direction of government.

This is another example of how you people don't understand what you are talking about. You people anthropomorphize the government, which makes it easier to blindly label it evil, or say it has "motives" that are sinister. Once you realize it is not a person and get that absurd contexualization out of your head, you can begin to have a healthier and more realistic understanding of it. It should also be noted that you people usually assume that humans are liars and cartoonishly evil, as demonstrated by your false ASSUMPTION, that academics and doctors would lie the safety of GMOs, at the expense of the health of their friends and families. Obama and no other president has said GMOs are unhealthy so they must be in on it to, mwuhahahaha(which is particularly odd since Michelle Obama's main goals is to get people eating healthy to reduce the leading killer of Americans(diabetes and heart disease).

Again, all you have to do is pick any book of laws to see how the government serves the people by reading the actual laws. The ones that are bad, are changed over time. I will expand on this when I wake up.

Regarding the correlation between industry relations and positive results in GMO studies:

“In a study involving 94 articles selected through objective criteria, it was found that the existence of either financial or professional conflict of interest was associated to study outcomes that cast genetically modified products in a favorable light. While financial conflict of interest alone did not correlate with research results, a strong association was found between author affiliation to industry (professional conflict of interest) and study outcome. “

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/journal-retracts-groundbreaking-gmo-study-monsanto-scientist-hired/

The third citation is more or less a press release showing results from some major agencies that indicate no need for ing of the many articles cited by the organizations cited is more than I'm willing to wade through (plus I don't have access to internet journal sites like Jstor anymore) but you're welcome to, it's citation number 4 on the above Wiki link.

This is hardly conclusive I know, but its a huge topic, I tire of providing to others new links to information essentially identical to many other studies and articles I've seen over the years and I think its at least enough to counter your more ridiculous statements like:

The FACT is that there is no data nor consensus from the academic or medical communities to support the view that GMOs are bad.

Very little research done outside the scope of a few eternally pro-corporate large US news conglomerates is required to show that what I have provided here is quite common in its implications.

costing the food industry billions of dollars, which would lead to loss of a lot of countless jobs, higher costs for consumers, all over irrational fears.

The impact is pretty small. One study shows non-GMO soy yield around 4% higher with costs higher by around 7.5%. Overall, the non-GMO soy was actually almost 1% more profitable per acre than the GMO soy.

It's also important to note that the savings in GMO cost came from reduced pesticide use which more than offset a nearly 50% higher seed cost. This means that this is not a positive step for small farmers in less developed nations who rely less on pesticides.

Corn yields were almost 9% higher per acre for GMO than non-GMO and about 3% more profitable.

So, as far as yields, a light improvement with GMO crops but the profit margin is mixed in the case of these two crops in this study.

Here's a more recent article with some figures that show non-GMO corn more profitable and higher yield than GMO, in large part because of pest adaptation to GMO defenses in the intervening 13 years.

So, I don't think a massive number of jobs, if any, would be lost overall if fewer GMO crops were grown. Besides, many people would still buy GMO if it were consistently and significantly cheaper.

you don't want to scare people away from purchasing something because some conspiracy theorists think it will kill you

We've been through this. I do not accept that the testing has been adequate nor, more importantly, impartial.

there is no solid data to support the position and the consensus in both MEDICAL and academic communities say there is there is no harmful effects.

The former part of this is untrue, the latter misleading as there are plenty of members of both those communities who say the opposite; hardly rare with evaluations of new technologies.

In all fairness, I didn't quite make numbers out of thin air. Those are just approximations of the results of a meta analysis I read some months ago. In all honesty it could have been as low as 95% of industry studies showing no reason for concern and as high as 55% of independent studies showing no reason for concern, but the dichotomy is very significant. I don't remember authors or journal o anything and don't really feel like looking around for it. There is the one relevant link above though.

blah blah blah, no data...

This is another example of how you people don't understand what you are talking about You people anthropomorphize the government, which makes it easier to blindly label it evil, or say it has "motives" that are sinister.

Ooh, two "you people"'s in as many sentences. I swear you sound like you feel like a missionary trying to educate the poor ignorant savages with the glory of Christ trusting the motives of those in power implicitly.

In actuality, your comment is another example of how you don't understand what you're talking about. Yes I use the "they" convention, but I do not speak of motives, nor do I see these injustices as being perpetrated for the same underlying reason, by the same people or in pursuit of the same goals (aside from many which are profit). But, go ahead, make shit up about my argument and insult me based on what you made up. That's a straw man argument.

get that absurd contexualization out of your head

Could you like, not pretend to know what I think. You've repeatedly made such assumptions and A) they've all been wrong and B) they make you look like an asshole.

false ASSUMPTION, that academics and doctors would lie the safety of GMOs, at the expense of the health of their friends and families. Obama and no other president has said GMOs are unhealthy so they must be in on it to, mwuhahahaha(which is particularly odd since Michelle Obama's main goals is to get people eating healthy to reduce the leading killer of Americans(diabetes and heart disease).

First of all, you totally nailed me Mr. Strawman. Here I was ranting about how the government is trying to kill us all with unhealthy food. Try arguing against my points, not against the points you say I make, genius.

Second, if GMO-employed doctors and the Obama administration trust GMO foods so much why are Monsanto corporate cafeteria's and White House menus entirely GMO free? And anyway, how the fuck do you know what these doctors and politicians say to their friends and family about what to eat?

Again, all you have to do is pick any book of laws to see how the government serves the people by reading the actual laws.

Non-point. I never denied that many laws are good. I never said (you said i said that repeatedly however) that government is uniformly evil. However, if you look at the direction of American policy in the last 40 years it has been good in one direction: civil rights (racial, gender and sexual orientation equality under the law). It has been bad in economic egalitarianism, personal freedoms, militaristic endeavors, socioeconomic well being, domestic labor policy, campaign finance, education, cost of comfortable living measured in hours worked per year and some stuff I forgot.

At least everyone gets an autopsy no matter what :-P

First of all, you totally nailed me Mr. Strawman. Here I was ranting about how the government is trying to kill us all with unhealthy food. Try arguing against my points, not against the points you say I make, genius.

Lol! This so much. He keeps twisting around everything you say.

Preface: This is kind of stupid because I included the GM example in my original post just to illustrate how severely and how often laws go against public wishes. It's turned into a discussion of that one topic but instead regarding whether it goes against the public good. I never argued for an outright ban of GMO foods, only pointed out that the safety testing is usually anything but impartial and the duration too short (as echoed by a citation below). I do however believe in some cases that it is to people's detriment and at least as importantly that if the overwhelming majority of Americans want labeling, they should get it and "it would hurt business" is just an excuse by certain politicians beholden to the industry for a variety of reasons or who stand to benefit from pro-GMO legislation either through future lobbying jobs or through investments they or their families and friends hold (Congress recently voted once again not to investigate the insider trading activities of its members).

your fallacy won't work unless you decide to run from my superior and accurate arguments

You really are delusional. Your "superior and accurate arguments" thus far have consisted of corporate talking points on GMO's (which I addressed_) and a patently false statement about autopsies.

you are in fact arguing that because things are not Perfect now, that means the government is trying to eat your babies. This is not a straw man, this is in fact what you are arguing.

Dafuq?

When I argue that the government ignores the problems inherent in private prisons, I am arguing just that and so for all of my points. You're right, you're not throwing up a straw-man argument. You're generalizing all points as an invalid caricature without addressing any of them.

That is pure assumption and there is no data to support that claim. You are assuming, there are other valid reasons.

Well, 19 of 28 EU nations have banned the growing of GMO crops for safety reasons and all require labeling. As far as scientific basis, there have been many studies showing serious reason for concern.

I chose this one just because it was posted to this sub less than a day ago.

The book Trust us We're Experts discusses a study from around 20 years ago that showed unusually high rates of irregular organ size among rats fed GM potato. The university researcher in charge was contractually obligated not to disclose the results without the approval of the company funding it (this is a very common contractual clause so generally only the positive results see the light of day). Of course he didn't get it but revealed the results anyway at the cost of a lawsuit and his job.

This is a fairly common outcome but us little discussed in the media. Further, more and more GMO companies are not funding university research but doing their own. This means the power to skew results through things like cutting off studies at arbitrary points to report good results where the original duration might not be as good or good at all, skewing sample populations for positive results, selective choice of which tests to conduct and report and so on. Occasionally there is outright fraud but more often just stacking the deck so to speak.

Wiki:

the American Academy of Environmental Medicine ("AAEM") released a position paper calling for a moratorium on GM foods pending independent long term studies to investigate the role of GM foods on human health.[110][111] The authors asserted that "there is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects." The paper cited numerous animal studies showing adverse effects and posited that the biological plausibility, as defined by Hill’s criteria, in light of this data is that adverse health effects are also caused in humans.[112] A 2011 study found maternal/fetal pesticide exposure associated with GM crops in Quebec.[113] A leading critique, Gilles-Éric Séralini of the University of Caen, and his team reported that rats fed GM corn developed tumors and organ damage in 2012 in the Journal Food and Chemical Toxicology.[114] After reanalyses of the results, and the paper was retracted by the publisher, Elsevier, on the ground that the study consisted of a limited number of test samples (Sprague-Dawley rats) to make any conclusive evidence on the adverse effect of GM on the rats.[115][116] Sprague-Dawley rats are known to develop tumours even under normal conditions.[117] But Séralini defended his study and republished the same findings in Environmental Sciences Europe in 2014, published by SpringerOpen.[118]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food#Controversies

What's interesting here is that the retracted article is the one I linked to a story about above. It was retracted by the journal only in the face of a large PR campaign by the makers of the crop and the publishers of the study won 2 distinct defamation lawsuits against those claiming faulty data and fraud and stand by their data.
there being no evidence of fraud or wrongdoing shortly after hiring a long time Monsanto employee as an editor who is also affiliated with a group funded by GMO companies.

Of the three Wiki citations for the statement "There is general scientific agreement that food on the market from genetically modified crops is not inherently riskier to human health than conventional food", one was simply a study that surveyed 39 Kenyan millers and grocery stores on their opinion and focused on market forces, no scientific analysis.

Another was from a researcher who has had two papers on the efficacy of GMO rice retracted and a third called seriously into question.

Her work was correctly retracted due to errors, which included mislabeled samples and failure to use replicable experimental conditions, and more.

...Dr. Ronald’s retracted GMO studies have been cited by at least 121 times.

A quick perusal of the cited article shows that in discussion of 'Round-up ready" crops she lists glyphosate as non-carcinogenic (we now know this to be false and Monsanto has known for over 3 decades and lied about it). These crops promote greater use of the pesticide as well as post harvest spraying both of which increase human intake. Further, the article acknowledges the dangers of creating pesticide resistant crops which can further increase the application of other pesticides.

Also, like crops that use terminator seeds, these modifications are not generally of use to farmers in poorer regions who cannot afford the quantity of pesticides required anyway.

http://www.genetics.org/content/188/1/11.long

Six countries have completely banned glyphosate in food crops: Sri Lanka, The Netherlands, Brazil, Germany, Bermuda and Argentina which is labeled as a major success story for round-up ready crops in the above listed article.

http://www.sott.net/article/297251-Down-with-Monsanto-Increasing-number-of-countries-banning-cancer-causing-glyphosate-and-GMO-s

Most of those things you mentioned are being addressed as we speak by the countless caring people dedicated to making the future a better place.

Yea, like Barack "The Drone King" Obama.

Your counter argument is essentially, laws aren't perfect so the government is out to get you.

How did it go from him mainly disproving your point that

nearly every single thing the government does is a caring act, one of love

to your conclusion that he believes that the government is out to get him because laws are not perfect?

If you're going to answer this, please answer my other comments first.

You basically came here to insult this sub and talk about how great government is.

I forgot to mention this logical fallacy that greatly supports my point. I came here to help you see the love and beauty in the world and to show you how the government cares for you and it's people greatly. You then ignore all my rational arguments and accuse me of having bad intent. Yeah I came here to insult you and not to help my fellow man see the world in a far positive and objective light... I did not come here to insult anyone...

I came here to help you see the love and beauty in the world

Your community is a cesspool of hate and fear that is not grounded in any type of evidence or rational thought. You people are masochists who can't see the love and beauty in the world.

...you people dislike rational discourse with people who don't hold your warped negative views of the world.

Wow. You are really bad at that. You must teach me more of this method of educating people by making blanket, objective statements and insulting them for disagreeing with you. Forget the debate team, you could probably found a global following based on this enlightened attitude.

You then ignore all my rational arguments

Dude until you said some things about GMO's you had made no points. It's like saying that "It's all good in tha hood." is a rational point. Oh, well you did have that point about autopsies which was categorically incorrect. Wait J-walking. J-walking is for the public good. I thank you for that insight, I had never realized that [big, fat, fucking /S!]

Yeah I came here to insult you and not to help my fellow man see the world in a far positive and objective light... I did not come here to insult anyone...

Well, you produced nothing to argue for you positive message and you insulted us repeatedly while being utterly dismissive and making false assumptions and repeatedly generalizing us as "you people" (do you know how often and on what a variety of topics I disagree with people in this sub? No. Hint: more often than I agree with them).

I know I've already said it but it really bears repeating: "You are really bad at that."

whos "us"? please leave their usernames in comments. for research purposes.

Uh, members of this sub.

Hes looking for shills. He wants to brigade people who disagree with his viewpoint.

Some of the things he's said outside of /conspiracy.

You say "mainstream media", so I am guessing you are in fact a conspiracy theorist. What do you consider credible sources of news/information?

I have no interest in wasting my time trying to reason with a conspiracy theorist on this subject.

You and the other special thinkers here are just anti government conspiracy theorists.

To imply or blatantly assume the government is waiting for you to become a nuisance to them, to then come down on you with these ASSUMED offenses, that are worthy of prison time, is textbook anti government conspiracy theory.

That is conspiracy theorist bullshit.

Conspiracy theorists need to keep this is mind when pursuing the "truth".

This rambling post of yours is just uneducated conspiracy theories that go against basic common knowledge in their respective fields.

It seems that he really hates conspiracy theories and anyone that believes in them, but most of us knew that already.

Has there has ever been a group of people who secretly conspired to hide or carry out something that is illegal or harmful to others?

Has our government ever been involved in a conspiracy?

Are you a loving person?

Those are not rhetorical questions. I really want to know what you think.

Oh you are correct, the government is not out to get us all and our children. All those laws that exist to protect you are all a ruse. How could I have been so foolish? \s

Don't kid yourself. The OP specifically referenced the "conspiracy theorist" community, which almost unanimously thinks the government is trying to eat your babies. Your nuanced rhetorical question is not indicative of the views held by the community at large. If you believe one "conspiracy theory", you most likely believe in 20 others.

All those laws that exist to protect you are all a ruse.

Just because there are laws that exist to protect us, does not mean that there aren't any conspiracies happening. Do you feel that if a person does good things, then they are not capable of doing any bad?

If you believe one "conspiracy theory", you most likely believe in 20 others.

More than one conspiracy theory has came true in the past, so why do you feel that multiple conspiracies could not be happening now? Is there a limit to how many conspiracies that can happen or can be happening at one time?

which almost unanimously thinks the government is trying to eat your babies.

That's a new one lol >_<

Please reread my first comment. I was editing as you submitted.

Oh blow it out your ass, this sub NEVER deletes comments.

Since you seem to post a lot here (part of your job as a Shillary volunteer, obv) you should know that we value Freedom of Expression more than anything else.

Like I said, you people dislike rational discourse, as demonstrated by the substance of your comment. I just provided you with whole lot of wisdom and information that disproves your hateful worldview, and you felt compelled to look into my comment history to find a reason to ignore the rational arguments I just provided. That is a defense mechanism and mental gymnastics, be objective and try to be rational. If you don't have a rational counter argument nor be able to rationally argue your position, then guess what, you are most likely not correct and you certainly are not a free thinker.

So, the world is exactly as the media and state tells us it is. Is that your position? Because it certainly seems like it is.

And if that is indeed your position, then there is only ONE non "free-thinker" I'm really seeing in this thread...

And that's you.

Check his posts, he's probably a shill "media volunteer" for the Democrats and Hillary.

You're getting closer.

Again I ask, do you think that the world is exactly as media and the state says it is? Is that your position?

Sorry for not responding to your first post quick enough, I was too busy writing a long response to a person who tried to rationally respond to what I said in my original post. I recommend you give that comment a read.

Your responses are what is called a straw man. It is a logical fallacy that people use to irrationally dismiss an argument by saying it is something else(often something ridiculous) that they can refute/argue against. I am saying exactly what the words I used communicate mean, no more, no less.

You're an Israeli, aren't you. Lol

You certainly fit the bill.

Your response is hilariously textbook. "Oh no, this person is presenting rational arguments that contradict my worldview! He must be a JEW!“

No. It's just that every Israeli I've ever talked to sounds just like you. Like, to the T.

I'm right aren't I. I bet I fucking am.

.

......let's go hunting.....

.....HOLY FUCK!!! I JUST READ YOUR COMMENT HISTORY. I WAS RIGHT!

I'm a Jew and an atheist.

YOU ARE AN ISRAELI. Baaahahaha

I knew it. I fucking knew it.

You really do show it, I have to say. It's that pompous, know it all, yet completely ignorant to the world attitude that just screams 'Israeli.' It really does. Of course, you don't notice it because you're used to the smell. Classic indoctrinated Israeli.

And no. That wasn't a reference to the size of your nose.

...Which I'm sure is equally as large as your inflated fucking ego. Douchebag.

There is not a single comment in my history that says "I am a jew and an atheist...", even paraphrased.

You are taking far too much gratification from your own willful ignorance and intellectual dishonesty. The only reason you thought I was an Israeli was because you didn't have a rational counter argument to anything I said. On top of that you are are going to make up a quote... Then say a bunch of antisemitic comments.

You have to be a troll or a person intentionally trying to make this community seem bad. I this community had antisemitic leanings and undertones(they are notorious), but you making up that quote is just absurdly over the top.

If you can't rationally argue against my points or argue for yours, you are by definition irrational and not reasonable.

Hhhaahaha.

I don't see a denial in that whole pile of bullshit you just wrote.

You're an Israeli. And by the looks of your comments about your love for the government, you're a Zionist at that.

To the T, man. To the fucking T!!

Oi vey!!!

The only reason you thought I was an Israeli was because you didn't have a rational counter argument to anything I said.

Actually it's because of your pompous fucking demeanor about "rationality," when you are anything but rational.

Classic Israeli. You stick out like a sore thumb.

Then say a bunch of antisemitic comments.

Hahahajhaha.

Oh here we go.

Yup. Classic Israeli. Jump right to being attacked from a religious or racist angle... Deflect deflect deflect, right?

Its never that you're just a douchebag right? Never your fault. It's always someone else.

You are ridiculous.

Again, nearly every single thing the government does is a caring act, one of love, yet it all gets ignored.

Oh my. You are a good little statist. If the (federal) government was taken over by special interests and corporations, and still a government by the people for the people, I'd agree with you.

On a local level, one whose representatives are still accountable to the people who put them there, I think you're still being a little naive, but you're probably close.

Are you stupid?

All those laws that exist to protect you are all a ruse.

Just because there are laws that exist to protect us, does not mean that there aren't any conspiracies happening. Do you feel that if a person does good things, then they are not capable of doing any bad?

If you believe one "conspiracy theory", you most likely believe in 20 others.

More than one conspiracy theory has came true in the past, so why do you feel that multiple conspiracies could not be happening now? Is there a limit to how many conspiracies that can happen or can be happening at one time?

which almost unanimously thinks the government is trying to eat your babies.

That's a new one lol >_<

Please reread my first comment. I was editing as you submitted.

Doesn't look from his comment history that he supports isrconspiracyracist.

I saw the "you suck Israeli cock" comment being upvoted before it was removed. This comment thread has a guy writing congratulating this community a few days after he wrote to me that I should stick a carrot up my ass and light it.

Look, I don't care about all this at all. cocksucking, carrot up the assing and colon cancer. But congratulating this place for open mindedness? If you write something obvious as "this video is very blurry" you get downvoted to -22. If you point out that someone wrote a lie, you get called a shill, a nazi, supporter of the establishment, whatever.

I think that's a very important point to make. I don't see this place as one that cares very much about facts. Wrong things get passed as truth all the time, and if you call them out, you're the enemy.

This discussion itself is somewhat against the rules, so if that bothers anyone I'm fine with not having it.

True of religions. Not true of most other subreddits or movements. They react much more rationally to facts and data; they don't immediately yell "false flag" or "shill" or "sheeple". And they present facts to support their own argument, not just "questions" about the opposing position.

Hes looking for shills. He wants to brigade people who disagree with his viewpoint.