Is disinformation being used as a tool in this instance?

ilivetolearn · 09-06-2009 9:58am #1

Hi All,

Conspiracy theorists so often fall prey to existing disinformations or complete and utter fabrications. Many theories consist of so many variants of the one theory that in many cases will contradict each other. Its like reading the horoscopes scribed in several daily publications on the same day. Each of them wish to convey your future but they differ slightly or considerably. Conspiracy theorists will argue that their skeptical counterparts fall prey to various government disinformations (i.e. false flag attacks, aliens etc.)

In light of this I would like to review the following statements. Many depict how disinformation is seen as a necessary tool (highlighted in red):

“Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing - are not sustainable.” - Maurice Strong, Rio Earth Summit

“We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” - Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports

“Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.” - Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC

“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” - Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace

“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” - Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation

“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” - Christine Stewart, fmr Canadian Minister of the Environment

“The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.” - emeritus professor Daniel Botkin

“We require a central organizing principle - one agreed to voluntarily. Minor shifts in policy, moderate improvement in laws and regulations, rhetoric offered in lieu of genuine change - these are all forms of appeasement, designed to satisfy the public’s desire to believe that sacrifice, struggle and a wrenching transformation of society will not be necessary.” - Al Gore, Earth in the Balance

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?” - Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme

“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.” - Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies

“The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.” - Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund

“Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.” - Professor Maurice King

“Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.” - Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute

“The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.” - Jeremy Rifkin, Greenhouse Crisis Foundation

“Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.” - Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University

“The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil.” – Sir James Lovelock, BBC Interview

“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.” -Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!

“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.” - Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor

“… the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million but less than one billion.” - Club of Rome, Goals for Mankind

“If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.” - Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, patron of the World Wildlife Fund

“I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.” - John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal
“The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing.” - Christopher Manes, Earth First!

“Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.” - David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club

Other quotes elude to population control. I find these to be similar to the suspicians maintained by conspiracy theorists in relation to Agenda 21 and The Wildlands Project.

On a sidenote the above quotations were compiled in this infowars article that focuses on the following ABC broadcast:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pcZuSDq2SE

King Mob · 09-06-2009 12:43pm

ilivetolearn wrote: »

Hi All,

Conspiracy theorists so often fall prey to existing disinformations or complete and utter fabrications.

Well how do you know they are not disinformation and not a case of a CTer getting something wrong and people believing him?
Not exactly a stretch of the imagination.

ilivetolearn wrote: »

Many theories consist of so many variants of the one theory that in many cases will contradict each other. Its like reading the horoscopes scribed in several daily publications on the same day. Each of them wish to convey your future but they differ slightly or considerably. Conspiracy theorists will argue that their skeptical counterparts fall prey to various government disinformations (i.e. false flag attacks, aliens etc.)

Again why assume that it's a government conspiracy when people can believe untrue things all on their own?

ilivetolearn wrote: »

In light of this I would like to review the following statements. Many depict how disinformation is seen as a necessary tool (highlighted in red):

A lot of them are taken out of context. ANd personall i think you're reading too much into them.

Let have a look at some.

“We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” - Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports

And this is because many of the reports aren't startling to laypeople. And by simplifying stuff it tries to show the impact it could have.
Not exactly disinfo.

“Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.” - Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC

Yep so you can conclude that they are creating natural disasters and spreading false information from one sentance.
Or the more likely explanation is that he is simply pointing out the public is generally apathetic to climate change.

“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” - Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace

Well Greenpeace aren't a government body. And are also kinda dicks. So I'm not going to defend this one.:pac:

“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” - Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation

“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” - Christine Stewart, fmr Canadian Minister of the Environment

Both these people are clearly saying is that even if there isn't global warming (and they aren't saying there isn't) the changes being made are good for everyone regardless.

“The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.” - emeritus professor Daniel Botkin

Yea again this looks very out of context. And just because this guy said it doesn't mean they are doing it.

“We require a central organizing principle - one agreed to voluntarily. Minor shifts in policy, moderate improvement in laws and regulations, rhetoric offered in lieu of genuine change - these are all forms of appeasement, designed to satisfy the public’s desire to believe that sacrifice, struggle and a wrenching transformation of society will not be necessary.” - Al Gore, Earth in the Balance

Again out of context. Could you put this one in context?

bonkey · 09-06-2009 2:34pm

King Mob wrote: »

Well how do you know they are not disinformation and not a case of a CTer getting something wrong and people believing him?
...

Again why assume that it's a government conspiracy when people can believe untrue things all on their own?

In fairness to the OP, the thread title was put as a question, and the post suggested that we review the statements.

It seems a bit premature to suggest that there is an assumption / knowledge of disinformation, rather than the suggestion that there might be.

This implicitly allows the option that they might not be. Hence the notion of review.

Should your post should be read as an argument why these statements are not indicative of disinformation, or as an argument as to why they might not be. In the latter case, there seems to be no disagreement. In the former case, I believe that your post would be as open to claims of assumption as you have claimed the OP's to be.

King Mob · 09-06-2009 3:10pm

bonkey wrote: »

In fairness to the OP, the thread title was put as a question, and the post suggested that we review the statements.

It seems a bit premature to suggest that there is an assumption / knowledge of disinformation, rather than the suggestion that there might be.

This implicitly allows the option that they might not be. Hence the notion of review.

Should your post should be read as an argument why these statements are not indicative of disinformation, or as an argument as to why they might not be. In the latter case, there seems to be no disagreement. In the former case, I believe that your post would be as open to claims of assumption as you have claimed the OP's to be.

A bit of both to be honest.

The reviews of the quotes show how they might not be disinformation.
While the first part shows how such quote probably aren't indicative of disinformation.

ilivetolearn · 09-06-2009 3:48pm

Well how do you know they are not disinformation and not a case of a CTer getting something wrong and people believing him?
Not exactly a stretch of the imagination.

Would it be a stretch of the imagination for you to actually read the OP? I clearly accounted for this scenario by mentioning ‘or complete and utter fabrications’.

In the past members have had issues with your posts (I’m addressing your posts and not you because it is applicable to this scenario) where you preemptively dismiss external references that offer supporting evidence to their claims simply because you disagree with their claims in the first place. I don’t think it’s really fair game to impart the same attitude towards OP’s. Just take the time to read it through before impulsively reacting.

Again why assume that it's a government conspiracy when people can believe untrue things all on their own?

I just don’t follow your response here either. No-one said that it’s limited to government disinformation. It was simply presented as an example in the preceding excerpt.

A lot of them are taken out of context. ANd personall i think you're reading too much into them.

What are you even talking about? There’s little room for error; disinformation is clearly being justified here for what these lads perceive to be a greater good. If you’re working off the assumption that I’m inferring something other than what’s explicitly being said in plain sight in the quotations then that’s your discrepancy and not mine.

And this is because many of the reports aren't startling to laypeople. And by simplifying stuff it tries to show the impact it could have.
Not exactly disinfo.

Making “little mention of any doubt” is a vehicle for disinformation. Your post is making less and less sense here.

Your next few comments appear to be of an interpretive opinion which won’t require my reverting back to you (unless you specifically want me to in which case I will later this evening).

In terms of the contextual misplacements you’ve inferred I can’t really help you out. I’ve provided you with the direct link to the article on infowars where I sourced the compilation of quotations and simply submitted them here for each of your review. I never said they were in context. If you’re trying to corroborate the fact that they are out of context then I believe the onus is on you in terms of additional research since the claim (i.e. your contesting of the quotations contextual accuracy) is being made you.

Thanks for the input though.

King Mob · 09-06-2009 4:12pm

ilivetolearn wrote: »

Would it be a stretch of the imagination for you to actually read the OP? I clearly accounted for this scenario by mentioning ‘or complete and utter fabrications’.

I did read it.
I thought that referred to deliberate fabrications rather than unintentional ones.

ilivetolearn wrote: »

In the past members have had issues with your posts (I’m addressing your posts and not you because it is applicable to this scenario) where you preemptively dismiss external references that offer supporting evidence to their claims simply because you disagree with their claims in the first place. I don’t think it’s really fair game to impart the same attitude towards OP’s. Just take the time to read it through before impulsively reacting.

But why assume malice when stupidity will suffice.
Given the fact some people jump to the conclusion of a conspiracy with the slightest amount of evidence, I think a bit more evidence than out of context quotes is need to prove it.

ilivetolearn wrote: »

I just don’t follow your response here either. No-one said that it’s limited to government disinformation. It was simply presented as an example in the preceding excerpt.
What are you even talking about? There’s little room for error; disinformation is clearly being justified here for what these lads perceive to be a greater good. If you’re working off the assumption that I’m inferring something other than what’s explicitlybeing said in plain sight in the quotations then that’s your discrepancy and not mine.

Well you are assuming that's what they mean.
Is it not possible that these quote were cherry picked by CTers because when taken out of context is appears to be supporting disinformation?

ilivetolearn wrote: »

Making “little mention of any doubt” is a vehicle for disinformation. Your post is making less and less sense here.

Well wouldn't disinformation say there was no doubt? Maybe if there was some kind of context that would clarify.

ilivetolearn wrote: »

Your next few comments appear to be of an interpretive opinion which won’t require my reverting back to you (unless you specifically want me to in which case I will later this evening).

Just as the original article does.

ilivetolearn wrote: »

In terms of the contextual misplacements you’ve inferred I can’t really help you out. I’ve provided you with the direct link to the article on infowars where I sourced the compilation of quotations and simply submitted them here for each of your review. I never said they were in context. If you’re trying to corroborate the fact that they are out of context then I believe the onus is on you in terms of additional research since the claim (i.e. your contesting of the quotations contextual accuracy) is being made you.

But the article doesn't offer any more context than you do.

bonkey · 09-06-2009 7:24pm

ilivetolearn wrote: »

There’s little room for error; disinformation is clearly being justified here for what these lads perceive to be a greater good.

Not necessarily.

In at least some of the cases, the wording suggests that the context the comment was made in was to the tune that if it turns out that AGW theory is incorrect, then so what...we've still taken the better choice.

In terms of the whole debate regarding AGW and our response to it, this is a theme that has raised its head more than once...that even with our current consensus and so forth, we could still be wrong. Of course it could turn out that our current "best guess" is wrong...that holds true of anything.

When taken in this context, then the comments are not suggesting disinformation at all. They're saying that it doesn't matter whether what we hold true today turns out to be true or false...our best course of action regardless is to behave as though it were true.

Admittedly, there are also critics who believe that the whole theory is false...but still agree with the actions being proposed. Its hard to accuse such people of disinformation when they make it clear that their position is exactly that....supporting the action, whilst disagreeing with the reason.

ilivetolearn · 09-06-2009 8:40pm

Originally Posted by ilivetolearn
In the past members have had issues with your posts (I’m addressing your posts and not you because it is applicable to this scenario) where you preemptively dismiss external references that offer supporting evidence to their claims simply because you disagree with their claims in the first place. I don’t think it’s really fair game to impart the same attitude towards OP’s. Just take the time to read it through before impulsively reacting.

Originally Posted by King Mob
But why assume malice when stupidity will suffice.
Given the fact some people jump to the conclusion of a conspiracy with the slightest amount of evidence, I think a bit more evidence than out of context quotes is need to prove it.

I have no idea how this section of your post is supposed to relate to the preceding quotation.

Originally Posted by ilivetolearn
I just don’t follow your response here either. No-one said that it’s limited to government disinformation. It was simply presented as an example in the preceding excerpt.

What are you even talking about? There’s little room for error; disinformation is clearly being justified here for what these lads perceive to be a greater good. If you’re working off the assumption that I’m inferring something other than what’s explicitlybeing said in plain sight in the quotations then that’s your discrepancy and not mine.

Originally Posted by King Mob
Well you are assuming that's what they mean.

I assuming what is what they mean? Can you please be a little more coherent when combining quotations in bulk? There is zero clarity in your statement.

Originally Posted by King Mob
Is it not possible that these quote were cherry picked by CTers because when taken out of context is appears to be supporting disinformation?

Is it not equally possible that these quotes were selectively picked by CT’ers because when taken in context it is supporting evidence of disinformation?

I’m not saying that this is the case. Its provided as a contrasting possibility. It’s not rhetorical. I’m looking for a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ on this one which in should no way be taxing for you.

Originally Posted by King Mob
Well wouldn't disinformation say there was no doubt?

Again this sentence is complete jargon to me.

In reference to the quotation by Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology you said verbatim ‘Not exactly disinfo’. I referred you to an exact section of the very same quotation that says they (i.e. whoever Schneider is referring to when he says ‘we’) need to “capture the public’s imagination” with “little mention of any doubt”. Furthermore I pointed out that this is blatant and explicit disinformation. It couldn’t be more elementary in its verity. Further again I provided you with a link to the online Miriam Webster Dictionary definition for the word ‘disinformation’. As much as your posts have a tendency to shun any evidence external to the forum that supports the points of any submissions you contest I still suggest that you click the link and review the definition. It correlates. The “false information deliberately … spread … in order to influence public opinion …” really rings a bell don’t you think? You then ask “Well wouldn't disinformation say there was no doubt?”. I’m completely confounded by this question. I presume and to paraphrase, you meant to ask “Would dis-informants not mention little doubts in relation to the scary scenarios that are offered up to the public’s imagination to get some broad based support?” The answer to this question is yes and is exactly what I have already iterated. If you’re not unintentionally parroting my posts then please explicate this further.

Originally Posted by King Mob
Maybe if there was some kind of context that would clarify.

Please refer to the following submission to jog your memory:

Originally Posted by ilivetolearn
In terms of the contextual misplacements you’ve inferred I can’t really help you out. I’ve provided you with the direct link to the article on infowars where I sourced the compilation of quotations and simply submitted them here for each of your review. I never said they were in context. If you’re trying to corroborate the fact that they are out of context then I believe the onus is on you in terms of additional research since the claim (i.e. your contesting of the quotations contextual accuracy) is being made by you.

A few questions for you:

How much further are you willing to persist in selectively ignoring how I elucidated (above) what you propose to be contextual misplacement? Why are you ignoring my previous vindication (above) on this matter? Was I in any way cryptic when I pointed you in direction of your own additional research to appease your wishes to corroborate your claim that the quotations are contextually misplaced?

Originally Posted by King Mob
But the article doesn't offer any more context than you do.

There you go again. Please refer to my response above.

bonkey · 09-06-2009 9:02pm

ilivetolearn wrote: »

How much further are you willing to persist in

For someone who refused to engage with a poster the other day because they made a comment about "you" rather than "your argument", I'd expect you to live by the standard you held others to.

The two of you need to calm down and stop trying to pick a fight with each other.

ilivetolearn · 09-06-2009 9:54pm

bonkey wrote: »

For someone who refused to engage with a poster the other day because they made a comment about "you" rather than "your argument", I'd expect you to live by the standard you held others to.

Partially understood. What is the correct way to ask someone why they are overlooking sections of your previous responses?

bonkey wrote: »

The two of you need to calm down and stop trying to pick a fight with each other.

Noted.

*buys King Mob a pint and a pack of bacon fries*

@King Mob: At the end of the day I accept your opinion on whether or not this is disinformation. I do apreciate your point of view in terms of how the quotations may very well be benign.

Does anyone else on the forum have an opinion on this matter?

King Mob · 09-06-2009 10:10pm

ilivetolearn wrote: »

I have no idea how this section of your post is supposed to relate to the preceding quotation.

It's the summation of my arguement.
These quote are simply is not enough evidence to conclude that the are disinformation.

ilivetolearn wrote: »

I assuming what is what they mean? Can you please be a little more coherent when combining quotations in bulk? There is zero clarity in your statement.

That he is trying to justify disinformation.
There isn't enough to conclude that from the quote.

ilivetolearn wrote: »

Is it not equally possible that these quotes were selectively picked by CT’ers because when taken in context it is supporting evidence of disinformation?

I’m not saying that this is the case. Its provided as a contrasting possibility. It’s not rhetorical. I’m looking for a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ on this one which in should no way be taxing for you.

Not equally no. Because if I was actively involved in government disinformation I wouldn't let that fact slip so why would they?

The only way to verify either way is to analyse the quotes in context.

ilivetolearn wrote: »

Again this sentence is complete jargon to me.

If they were actually involved in disinformation with the goal of convincing people of global warming why would they ever mention there was doubt?
And why would they say they are actively silencing it.

ilivetolearn wrote: »

In reference to the quotation by Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology you said verbatim ‘Not exactly disinfo’. I referred you to an exact section of the very same quotation that says they (i.e. whoever Schneider is referring to when he says ‘we’) need to “capture the public’s imagination” with “little mention of any doubt”. Furthermore I pointed out that this is blatant and explicit disinformation. It couldn’t be more elementary in its verity. Further again I provided you with a link to the online Miriam Webster Dictionary definition for the word ‘disinformation’.

Well what disinfo is he spreading exactly?
The quote offers no facts to verify.

And what context is it in? Is he referring to reporting it in the media? Or convincing people to invest?
The medium is which it was put forward and the people it was directed at have alot to do with the meaning of the quote.

What leads you to believe this is an admition of spreading disinformation?

ilivetolearn wrote: »

As much as your posts have a tendency to shun any evidence external to the forum that supports the points of any submissions you contest I still suggest that you click the link and review the definition. It correlates. The “false information deliberately … spread … in order to influence public opinion …” really rings a bell don’t you think?

I did and still don't see how the quote refers to disinfo?
At a stretch it could refer to suppression of information.

ilivetolearn wrote: »

Please refer to the following submission to jog your memory:

And I looked at the article. It does not put any of the quotes in any context.

ilivetolearn wrote: »

A few questions for you:

How much further are you willing to persist in selectively ignoring how I elucidated (above) what you propose to be contextual misplacement? Why are you ignoring my previous vindication (above) on this matter? Was I in any way cryptic when I pointed you in direction of your own additional research to appease your wishes to corroborate your claim that the quotations are contextually misplaced?

There you go again. Please refer to my response above.

I'm suggesting that they are out of context.
Do you believe they are not?
Can you put them into context?

If you believe they are not how did you reach that conclusion without actually finding the context?

6th · 10-06-2009 12:09am

King Mob wrote: »

It's the summation of my arguement.
These quote are simply is not enough evidence to conclude that the are disinformation.

King Mob wrote: »

That he is trying to justify disinformation.
There isn't enough to conclude that from the quote.

Just taking these 2 bits on their own for a second. There may not be enough to conclude anything but there is enough to show its a possibility and therefore worthy of discussion as a Conspiracy Theory.

King Mob · 10-06-2009 1:38am

6th wrote: »

Just taking these 2 bits on their own for a second. There may not be enough to conclude anything but there is enough to show its a possibility and therefore worthy of discussion as a Conspiracy Theory.

Well no (Technically. Not discouraging discussion but that in my opinion it's not a conspiracy.)
That's the other part of my argument that some people take quotes like this out of context all the time, so nothing new or amazing here.
And the fact that if these people where part of a disinfo operation it'd be pretty stupid of them to let let slip in quotes like these.

ilivetolearn · 10-06-2009 8:02pm

I'm suggesting that they are out of context.
Do you believe they are not?
Can you put them into context?

If you believe they are not how did you reach that conclusion without actually finding the context?

I'm not going to waste too much time on this one if you can't appreciate where the befallen onus lies especially when you've just asked a member of the proposition (me) of the debate at hand to corroborate your claim. Your post's just seem to be cyclic and argumentative for the sake of argument alone rather than conclusion.

espinolman · 10-06-2009 8:33pm

ilivetolearn wrote: »

Hi All,

Conspiracy theorists so often fall prey to existing disinformations or complete and utter fabrications.

Could you give some examples.

ilivetolearn wrote: »

Many theories consist of so many variants of the one theory that in many cases will contradict each other. Its like reading the horoscopes scribed in several daily publications on the same day. Each of them wish to convey your future but they differ slightly or considerably.

So you are associating conspiracy theories with horoscopes , i don't see any similarity myself !

ilivetolearn wrote: »

Conspiracy theorists will argue that their skeptical counterparts fall prey to various government disinformations (i.e. false flag attacks, aliens etc.)

Are you saying that 'aliens' are government disinformation , if you are i don't agree with you .
You seem to be into infowars and alex jones , well i would have to question if infowars is a conspiracy theory site , i seems to be more of a news service to me and alex jones is not into conspiracy theories , so i think the problem is you are identifying the views of all conspiracy theororists with the views of infowars and alex jones , am i right ?

ilivetolearn · 10-06-2009 11:30pm

I think overall that you might be misinterpreting my stance on conspiracy theories but you have raised some interesting and valid points that I will be glad to respond to. I’m not attempting to disparage conspiracy theorists in anyway.

Originally Posted by espinolman
Could you give some examples.

Yes, both hypothetically and personally.

Hypothetical: Let’s look at the Zeitgeist films for the purposes of a rudimentary examination. Firstly we have conspiracy theorists who believe that the films are liberating, altruistic, anti-NWO and most importantly honest. Secondly we have conspiracy theorists who believe that the Zeitgeist films are deliberate and dishonest NWO propaganda/disinformation.
In my opinion it’s highly unlikely that each of these scenarios are simultaneously correct ergo one of the scenarios must be false. Conclusively one of these conspiracy theorists have fallen prey to disinformation or fabrication.

You’ll find that many theory’s are replete with conflicting variations of the same theory. Surely they can’t all be true, right?

Personally: I’ve always had a tough time understanding the nature of my existence. Am I the product of the randomness, alien creation/intervention, a divine creator or a virtual simulation. Each of these possibilities (aside from randomness) are topics of conspiracy theory and each of these apart from conflicting with each other will conflict with themselves individually (e.g. did I willingly enter the virtual simulation or was I born into it, am I flesh interacting with machine or am I simply software and so forth.)
In this scenario, I, as a conspiracy theorist have likely fallen prey to either disinformation or fabrication since not all of these theories are likely to be simultaneously true.

Originally Posted by espinolman
So you are associating conspiracy theories with horoscopes

That I am. It’s as accurate a correlation as it is astute.

Originally Posted by espinolman
i don't see any similarity myself !

Horoscopes will offer varying accounts of the one alleged future for a selected person.
Conspiracy theories will offer varying accounts of the one alleged future for a selected matter.

How don’t you see the similarity? As an exercise you should try flicking through the horoscope sections of two broadsheets and two tabloids tomorrow and let me know whether or not they offered varying accounts of the one alleged future. Thereafter jump onto Google and search for the keyword ‘2012’ and let me know whether or not the results offer varying accounts of the one alleged future.

You’re four papers and four digits away from discovering the similarity.

Originally Posted by espinolman
Are you saying that 'aliens' are government disinformation , if you are i don't agree with you .

Nope, that’s not even remotely what I said. Some conspiracy theorists will argue that skeptics are susceptible to government disinformations. The examples I offered were the beliefs that governments cover up the existence of aliens or false flag attacks.

Originally Posted by espinolman
You seem to be into infowars and alex jones , well i would have to question if infowars is a conspiracy theory site , i seems to be more of a news service to me and alex jones is not into conspiracy theories , so i think the problem is you are identifying the views of all conspiracy theororists with the views of infowars and alex jones , am i right ?

No. You’re completely off the radar my friend. I’m of the opinion that Alex Jones is a paleoconservative talk radio host. Furthermore I approve of the guy enough to donate to his moneybomb scheme which occurs tomorrow in support of his studio and office expansion. I think of infowars as alternative news outlet rather than a conspiracy theory compendium.

King Mob · 11-06-2009 12:31am

ilivetolearn wrote: »

I'm not going to waste too much time on this one if you can't appreciate where the befallen onus lies especially when you've just asked a member of the proposition (me) of the debate at hand to corroborate your claim. Your post's just seem to be cyclic and argumentative for the sake of argument alone rather than conclusion.

Well you're the one that presented these quotes as possible disinformation.
You have offered absolutely nothing to support this.

I have suggested an alternative explanation for the quotes.
If you are convinced of them why not explain why this is and explain whyyou think my explanation is wrong?

Have you actually seen these quotes in context?
If not, how can you conclude they mean what you think they mean?

espinolman · 11-06-2009 12:42am

ilivetolearn wrote: »

Conspiracy theories will offer varying accounts of the one alleged future for a selected matter.

I think conspiracy theories offer an account of a future intended by malevolent forces , with the intention of preventing such a future .

You see if exposing a plan , prevents it from occuring in the future , then it was still intended but prevented by exposing it.

ilivetolearn wrote: »

Nope, that’s not even remotely what I said. Some conspiracy theorists will argue that skeptics are susceptible to government disinformations. The examples I offered were the beliefs that governments cover up the existence of aliens or false flag attacks.

Ok i misunderstood the OP .

ilivetolearn · 11-06-2009 1:37am

King Mob wrote: »

Well you're the one that presented these quotes as possible disinformation.
You have offered absolutely nothing to support this.

This is because I am under no requirement to do so since it was never my intention to do so in the first place. Take this up with moderators if you genuinely don't understand me on this.

King Mob wrote: »

Have you actually seen these quotes in context?
If not, how can you conclude they mean what you think they mean?

I'm not concluding anything in lieu of evidence. I can however offer you my opinion on the manner (in fact, I already have). I don't understand why you seem to think that an opinion requires evidence:

o·pin·ion:
A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof

The arguments of your posts seem to be on the offense each time and directed at the beliefs of a forum member rather than subject/source itself. Try relaxing in your posts and redirecting your posts to allow for a more constructive debate.

King Mob · 11-06-2009 2:33am

ilivetolearn wrote: »

This is because I am under no requirement to do so since it was never my intention to do so in the first place. Take this up with moderators if you genuinely don't understand me on this.

I'm not concluding anything in lieu of evidence. I can however offer you my opinion on the manner (in fact, I already have). I don't understand why you seem to think that an opinion requires evidence:

o·pin·ion:
A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof

The arguments of your posts seem to be on the offense each time and directed at the beliefs of a forum member rather than subject/source itself. Try relaxing in your posts and redirecting your posts to allow for a more constructive debate.

So then why not explain why you disagree with my opinion that these quote are taken out of context?
And why do you insist that I back up my opinion but then say that you don't have to back up yours?

ilivetolearn · 11-06-2009 3:45am

King Mob wrote: »

So then why not explain why you disagree with my opinion that these quote are taken out of context?

Perhaps first it might be helpful if you would highlight the specific parts of my posts in which you feel I was disagreeing with you.

King Mob wrote: »

And why do you insist that I back up my opinion but then say that you don't have to back up yours?

This section of your post blatantly misconstrues what was said and is shaped to better suit an argument that's becoming decreasingly viable.

You imparted that the quotations are contextually misplaced.
Bizarrely and for whatever intelligible reason you might have had for doing so you then ask me to prove whether or not the quotations are misplaced on your behalf.
I said no and to go do your own homework.

Your subsequent posts loop this process in an erratic manner.

@espinolman: What were your thoughts on the quotations?

King Mob · 11-06-2009 4:15am

ilivetolearn wrote: »

Perhaps first it might be helpful if you would highlight the specific parts of my posts in which you feel I was disagreeing with you.

This section of your post blatantly misconstrues what was said and is shaped to better suit an argument that's becoming decreasingly viable.
You imparted that the quotations are contextually misplaced.

Bizarrely and for whatever intelligible reason you might have had for doing so you then ask me to prove whether or not the quotations are misplaced on your behalf.

I said no and to go do your own homework.

Your subsequent posts loop this process in an erratic manner.

@espinolman: What were your thoughts on the quotations?

What do you call it when you are given a quote without being told when and where it was said, what medium is it published or spoken in, who it was directed at and without knowing the rest of the statement?

I would call that an out of context quote. Would you?

Is this not what the article did?

Is it unreasonable for me to conclude that quotes supplied with no context are out of context?

I asked you if you could put these quotes into context. You said to look at the article. The article offered no more context than you.

So do you believe these quotes are in context or not?

bonkey · 11-06-2009 8:30am

ilivetolearn wrote: »

Hypothetical: Let’s look at the Zeitgeist films for the purposes of a rudimentary examination. Firstly we have conspiracy theorists who believe that the films are liberating, altruistic, anti-NWO and most importantly honest. Secondly we have conspiracy theorists who believe that the Zeitgeist films are deliberate and dishonest NWO propaganda/disinformation.
In my opinion it’s highly unlikely that each of these scenarios are simultaneously correct ergo one of the scenarios must be false. Conclusively one of these conspiracy theorists have fallen prey to disinformation or fabrication.

There's a flaw in your logic there...or perhaps an omission that I believe should not be omitted...

You conclude that one of the scenarios must be false, rather than that at least one of the scenarios must be false. Its entirely possible that both are (at least partly) false ...that it is neither liberating altruistic material, nor deliberate NWO propaganda/disinformation.

This may seem like a subtle point, but its one that is worth mentioning as I believe it ties back to the original post quite well.

There is a possibility, for example, that the authors of Zeitgeist believe their content, but that it is wrong due to, say, poor research or unconscious bias introduced during the research. Thus, while it is altruistic, it would be incorrect to suggest it is liberating.
There is the possibility that its deliberately engineered to appeal to a market, in order to make profit...that it is deliberate disinformation, but purely and solely for the point of appealing to a market-segment, in order to gain fame/fortune.
There are any number of other possibilities...I'm not trying to suggest that there are only these additional two. I'm merely pointing out that its not correct to associate "altruistim" with "truth", nor "disinformation" with "NWO".

Going back to the original post...its entirely possible to have people in positions of power who do not believe in Global Warming, but who believe that the reactions pushed by it are worthwhile. Its also possible to have people in those positions who are uncertain of the truth of the matter and believe that the correct response in the face of uncertainty is to react as though it were true. It is also possible that there are those who believe its true but who accept that they could be wrong. There could be those who believe its true, do not accept that they could be wrong, but are quite happy to give the press easy answers such as "its the right thing to do, even if the underlying reasons are wrong" as they know these will sell more readily to a wider audience than trying to get into (endless) arguments about whether or not it is true.

There are, as with the Zeitgeist example, countless other possibilities.

My tendency would be to suggest that we have a mix of such mindsets in positions of power. I would go further and say that its not even a simple matter that any given politiican takes a stance based on a single factor. They will mix personal belief, the political value of a stance, and a number of other factors.

The end result is that we don't have something I believe can be readily "shoeboxed" with nice-fitting labels such as truth or disinformation. The only thing we can be reasonably certain of is that regardless of the individual politician's beliefs in the truth (or lack thereof), they will certainly be asking themselves "how can I turn this to my best advantage".

Finally, I would suggest that politicians are no more a good yardstick by which to measure the accuracy of a theory like Global Warming than the mass media or public opinion is.

espinolman · 12-06-2009 10:58pm

ilivetolearn wrote: »

@espinolman: What were your thoughts on the quotations?

I would not allow quotes to influence my judgement in any way, because i have seen a certain authors' works been trawled through and quotes been taken from their work and used completely out of context to paint a completely false picture and used in black propaganda all over the internet to create animosity towards a certain group .
I think that future generations will view this generation today like we view the germans in the 30s and 40s today and wonday how they could have been brought to be so hateful and gullible .

I

espinolman · 13-06-2009 10:16am

King Mob wrote: »

What do you call it when you are given a quote without being told when and where it was said, what medium is it published or spoken in, who it was directed at and without knowing the rest of the statement?

Answer : Propaganda

Is disinformation being used as a tool in this instance?

Comments