The irony is that dude thinks he has critical thinking skills but believes everything the government tells him without question, resulting in zero thinking. Saying conspiracy theories don't involve critical thinking is the exact opposite of what it involves. It's called having intuition, I'm sorry you think everything is fine and dandy and everyone and everything regarding government is for the benefit of the people. Go watch some more mainstream news outlets thinking you know what's going on in the world, just believing everything those new anchors read off the script without any question.
Why are conspiracy theorists so dumb?
- Thread starter loquacious
- Start date
- Status
guy incognito
Well-Known Member
Go back to naturalnews and continue buying your "little pharma" natural remedies.
see4
Well-Known Member
Haha. Well you didn't last too long. Good news for you is that high school starts back up in a few weeks, them books should be keepin you busy for a while... see you next summer!
jkahndb0
Well-Known Member
I am no conspiracy "nut"...
But GMOs have not been proven safe. And studies have shown they they are not safe.
The FDA's own scientists said that more testing needs to be done and they shouldn't be introduced into the food supply.
Some more info:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/genetically-modified-soy_b_544575.html
"After feeding hamsters for two years over three generations, those on the GM diet, and especially the group on the maximum GM soy diet, showed devastating results. By the third generation, most GM soy-fed hamsters lost the ability to have babies. They also suffered slower growth, and a high mortality rate among the pups.
And if this isn't shocking enough, some in the third generation even had hair growing inside their mouths--a phenomenon rarely seen, but apparently more prevalent among hamsters eating GM soy."
And in regard to GE fish...
http://www.purdue.edu/uns/html4ever/0002.Muir.trojan.html
Several 100,000 Genetically Engineered Fish have already been accidentally introduced into the wild.
But GMOs have not been proven safe. And studies have shown they they are not safe.
The FDA's own scientists said that more testing needs to be done and they shouldn't be introduced into the food supply.
Some more info:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/genetically-modified-soy_b_544575.html
"After feeding hamsters for two years over three generations, those on the GM diet, and especially the group on the maximum GM soy diet, showed devastating results. By the third generation, most GM soy-fed hamsters lost the ability to have babies. They also suffered slower growth, and a high mortality rate among the pups.
And if this isn't shocking enough, some in the third generation even had hair growing inside their mouths--a phenomenon rarely seen, but apparently more prevalent among hamsters eating GM soy."
And in regard to GE fish...
http://www.purdue.edu/uns/html4ever/0002.Muir.trojan.html
Several 100,000 Genetically Engineered Fish have already been accidentally introduced into the wild.
burgertime2010
Well-Known Member
The essence of stubborn phony-intellectualism. I joined this discussion because the title was so simplistic I thought it was a joke. The fact I have not espoused one conspiracy and yet I support and believe them all and am absent of critical thinking in their perspective is just foolish. I could not get a response, and it makes sense.....willful ignorance is bliss too. It is hard to imagine that paradigm even existing. Too much Flouride maybe?
guy incognito
Well-Known Member
No it was probably the formaldehyde. You didn't happen to let them vaccinate you, did you?
burgertime2010
Well-Known Member
#444 wants you to read a little bit
guy incognito
Well-Known Member
Yeah I read it.
Can I check the study out for myself? I don't see a link from huffpost, or even the name of the study or where it was published. It almost sounds from the language of the article that it was written before the study was actually published, but the article was dated april 2010. I tried searching the internet but couldn't find the study.
This is pretty typical of huffingtonpost. They are a step above naturalnews and prisonplanet, but only about 1 step. I generally do not consider them a reliable source. More often than not it's an incredibly biased and inaccurate source that should be avoided. If there is any actual evidence or truth to something you will find plenty of reliable sources outside of huffington post.
And I don't see how the second article confirms or denies anything about GMO other than they could become an invasive species. I don't think anyone is advocating modifying organisms and turning them loose in the wild.
burgertime2010
Well-Known Member
In that event, you get to cherry-pick what you deem reliable. But, does the Huff Post have a hidden agenda? Are they providing false information? Is this not a conspiracy? It seems logical that intentionally misinforming the public might constitute conspiracy.
Nature cures, big pharma creates customers.
guy incognito
Well-Known Member
What is mike adams net worth? How much money does he make selling "natural cures"? How much money does he make from naturalnews? Do you not see that as a conflict of interest?
guy incognito
Well-Known Member
You are correct. If it has no peer reviewed article, or does not provide one (even though it is claiming that as the source) then it is deemed unreliable.
guy incognito
Well-Known Member
I don't understand how GMO is inherently bad because of this. You can make the same claim for any invasive species. I agree that this could potentially be a problem, but I don't see how it is exclusive to GMO.
His website sells superfoods, supplements, etc. and the website informs millions of people on a daily basis about natural cures that they can use to help deal with whatever health issue they have. Since when is running a business a conflict of interest? He doesn't try to patent natural things so he's the only one who can sell them and profit off them. The website lets you know the health benefits of certain products and then gives you the opportunity to purchase them if you'd like.
Dude, go eat some GMO's and take big pharma drugs, we're not stopping you. Just don't come crying to us when you end up with five different side effects that require even more drugs and that didn't even fix the original problem in the first place.
guy incognito
Well-Known Member
How is that even a reasonable response? All I said is I don't understand how letting a GMO fish loose in the wild, and the fish becoming an invasive species means GMO is inherently bad. I'm not saying it is a good thing, but isn't the real issue releasing non-native species into the wild and not GMO?
guy incognito
Well-Known Member
It's amazing that when mike adams does it it is for the greater good, and lining his pockets is purely coincidental.
But when anyone else does it they are evil and trying to kill everyone and only concerned with profit.
It's real coincidental he has all the answers in a convenient ready to purchase form.
burgertime2010
Well-Known Member
Why would a news source behave like you suggest? I mean, with millions of readers they would not survive a fact check. All they have is their reputation. They would be long gone by now.
guy incognito
Well-Known Member
Because assholes like you flock to them in spite of them being fact checked. Your argument would be a hell of a lot stronger if you had provided the source I asked for.
- Status