Conspiracy Theory Debate

[milstar]

Welcome to a whole new avenue of puerile sniggering, Funt.

See, any you all laughed when I said that Disney had secretly taken over the world!!!!!

Lol that beats the conspiracy that Jews rule the world. Maybe in fact it's the Irish.

[milstar]

Thanks for looking into it - fair points all round.  Nobody thinks of Christopher Steele, I suppose, as a Robot-Archie-like automaton, just as nobody thinks of Simon Pegg as a small clasping device on a washing line.

Donald Trump, on the other hand...

Not to mention Boris Johnson.

Or Mickey Mouse, now that I know that means Penis Mouse in Ireland.

I've never seen Steamboat Willy, and now I'm not sure I want to.

We should all be ashamed, we're not taking this discussion about conspiracies seriously.

I suggest the mods split off all the Stalin stuff into a separate thread where we can properly objectify history's greatest monsters. Possibly rank them in order of sexiness? Ranking is popular here right? I'm an enthusiastic ranker myself. I think my ranking activity has increased now that I'm at home all the time.

Hm... Well, conspiracies basically are not serious subject. Seriously.

As for your suggesting, I heard that Hitler was impotent, others say he preferred men. Don't know where it place him in terms of ranking. Or if you ask for their sex appeal? I find Robert Carlayle more attractive than Adolf. Do fictional portrayals count as real guys?

[JayzusB.Christ]

Lol that beats the conspiracy that Jews rule the world. Maybe in fact it's the Irish.

Shhh! Don't tell everyone. Like the mice in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, we've successfully managed to convince everyone we're at the bottom of the pecking order rather than the top.

(Mice, see? It's all connected.)

[milstar]

Lol that beats the conspiracy that Jews rule the world. Maybe in fact it's the Irish.

Shhh! Don't tell everyone. Like the mice in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, we've successfully managed to convince everyone we're at the bottom of the pecking order rather than the top.

(Mice, see? It's all connected.)

I always had tremendous respect for the Irish. Well, except Guiness beer.

[Funt Solo]

It's all true:

China's Selling Genetically-Modified Mice for $17,000 a Pair

MOUSE MADNESS! - biggest mice swarms ever seen


++Funt Solo: Taking the mickey since 2003++

[JayzusB.Christ]

I always had tremendous respect for the Irish. Well, except Guiness beer.

OK, now you're DEFINITELY trolling.

[milstar]

I always had tremendous respect for the Irish. Well, except Guiness beer.

OK, now you're DEFINITELY trolling.

[sheridan]

While the House of Mouse is in the thread, epic rap battles: Stan Lee versus Jim Henson

[Rara Avis]

What a dreamboat and killed 45 million in 4 years!

[Funt Solo]

I suggest the mods split off all the Stalin stuff into a separate thread where we can properly objectify history's greatest monsters. Possibly rank them in order of sexiness?

See what you have done!

[The Legendary Shark]

Opening with an incredibly patronizing ad hominem in which I'm portrayed as incapable of understanding. Nice.

Have you read your own posts?

You asked for some evidence of his charlatanism - I provided it (and, as sintec pointed out, it does have citations you can follow up - just like your beloved guru) and you've dismissed it out of hand. Because you love him and won't have anyone detract without punishment. You are biased and incapable of shifting position one iota. Someone posted a few pages ago that providing you with data is not a solution. Goal posts shift and it's a never-ending story. Here's a thought experiment for you: what's more likely? That your beloved guru is correct, but that the entire journalistic world hasn't (even with all his evidence and all his years of posting) caught on to the terrible truth of the global cabal OR it's all just pasted together half-truths painting an amazing fictional picture that you think is real? Thank-you and goodnight. 

No, you provided no evidence. You pointed to a markedly biased website, probably without reading it and certainly without checking whether the information presented is accurate and taken in context. "...you love him and won't have anyone detract without punishment. You are biased and incapable of shifting position one iota." What were you saying about ad homs? I don't care whether you agree with him or not - I don't on everything - but I feel that if one is going to challenge a person's position, call them anti-semitic and fascist, then one should - at the very least - examine what that person actually says to support one's accusations. I get that you might disagree with his position and perspective, but you don't - you disagree with your fantasy of what his position is based on one biased website. Your argument is mist inspired by fog. In answer to your thought experiment - neither. (Because you presented a false dichotomy and decorated it with ad homs and your beloved absurdities.) Here's a thought experiment for you - A says something. B tells C what A said. Should C believe B without checking with A? The Court of Solo. Judge Solo: You are accused of badness! Prisoner Corbett: On what grounds? JS: I read it on the internet. PC: You've read my work? JS: Of course not! It might break my brain! PC: Eh? So what badness am I accused of? JS: I don't know. It says on this website, though. PC: But that's all misrepresentations and spin. JS: Nevertheless, it is hard evidence. Send him down! PC: I knew the system was rigged! JS: Sure you did. Next case!

[Funt Solo]

++WALL OF TEXT RESPONSE++

(It just looks like you're ranting at me now. I can't read that: sorry.)

(Conclusion: anyone else reading can make up their own minds what they think of your supposed source. I have, and your arguments otherwise are not swaying me.)

[The Legendary Shark]

Oh and a bit more googling finds videos of him discussing "The Great Reset", favoured theory of white power advocates and QAnon followers.  Yeah I'm out. Last time I heard that phrase was an old friend who went full alt-right...

The Great Reset is a real initiative backed by the World Economic Forum -

https://www.weforum.org/great-reset/

Hands up how many people think we'll get to vote on it?

As an aside, there was a fantastic faux pas on the WEF's Twitter thing last month. I wrote a post about it, with links, but dithered over posting it in case it upset the mods so I slept on it. By the next evening, however, none of the links worked any more so I didn't post it.

Basically, the WEF tweeted that lockdowns were "quietly improving cities," which stirred up criticism from locked-down city dwellers fed up of losing their jobs, freedoms, and minds. The WEF later backed down and tweeted that lockdowns aren't "quietly improving cities," but are essential in the fight against Covid.

But the criticism didn't end and the WEF finally put the matter to bed with the unfortunately phrased tweet (read it in a Cyberman's voice to get the full effect...),




It was written by a working human being who made a mistake. It was deleted. —

World Economic Forum (@wef) February
27, 2021

eek



NB - this isn't really a conspiracy theory, unless one thinks the WEF (of Davos fame) wants all common humans locked away in their homes until needed. But, even if some of them do want that, they're not going to get it.

What? Oh. Right.

[Funt Solo]

Hands up how many people think we'll get to vote on it?

You don't believe in voting, of course. 

[The Legendary Shark]

++WALL OF TEXT RESPONSE++

(It just looks like you're ranting at me now. I can't read that: sorry.)

(Conclusion: anyone else reading can make up their own minds what they think of your supposed source. I have, and your arguments otherwise are not swaying me.)

So, now you won't even read my arguments. Because "wall of text." You want one word answers? How about, "no." Short enough for ye?

I thought we'd reached Peak Lunacy when you all but invoked National Security ("[I'm not posting the links or even saying the name of the guy's site, because I know you know it already and because I don't want to spread his horrible messages around]") to avoid the core question of how you can understand someone's position without actually listening to them, but you've just topped that with the All New Stratospheric Lunacy of refusing to even read opposing views!

Genius!

I bow to your superior logic and will endeavour to use it myself in the future. If I ever lose my mind. And my self-respect. (Yes, that is an ad-hom, because there's nothing else left and because it seems acceptable.)

I have given you every opportunity to engage in an honest discussion but every time you refuse or weasel out of it. I find this very frustrating and disappointing but I know I'm not wrong about you. You have a better mind than that and, to be frank, I don't care if you agree with Corbett or not but, please, make up your mind honestly and don't just parrot the words of some anonymous critic because it's "the right thing to do" or whatever.


(Conclusion: anyone else reading can make up their own minds what they think of your supposed source. I have, and your arguments otherwise are not swaying me.)


Addendum - I don't believe voting trumps moral obligations.