Father, Bishop, ArchBishop
Doctor, Reader, Professor,
Hmm, you started well.Is it necessary to insult and ridicule people who have different beliefs to yourself? Does doing so make your argument more valid?
Of course, there's an alternative to conspiracy theories.
- Everything is precisely as it seems.
- The history books were not written by the winners and instead represent an objective record of what really happened in the past.
- Everything we were taught in school was true.
- Media moguls use their transglobal empires to broadcast a true reflection of current affairs and provide balanced debate about key issues. Everything you read in the papers or watch on the TV news is true, or as close to that as can be realistically achieved.
- Warfare is a chivalric art form used to liberate oppressed peoples across the globe if conducted by ourselves or our allies. Warfare is evil expansionism if conducted by anyone else.
- Corporate power structures have no interest in influencing the democratic process other than by legal means.
- The vast budgets of the NSA, CIA, FSB, Mossad, MI5, MI6 and GCHQ is mostly expended dreaming up new recipes for yummy desserts.
if that (either you believe in conspiracy theories or you are a gullible idiot) isnt an attempt to ridicule people who dont see things your way, I dont know what is?
That's the other thing with conspiracy theorists, aside from preaching paranoid tripe, they always seem to miss the irony.
I constructed a logical argument to illustrate the fact that it is highly unlikely that the world works the way which we are all told it works. It's a solid argument. .
Its also true that the vast majority of conspiracy theorists are hopeless misfits who cannot operate in the world as is and are desperately seeking to believe that the reason for this is not just their own inadequacy
No way. Are you serious can you buy marmite flavoured chocolate.
The "accpted word of truth"
...
You can indeed and it is really, really good
You used the phrase "gullible idiot", not me. I constructed a logical argument to illustrate the fact that it is highly unlikely that the world works the way which we are all told it works. It's a solid argument. You then finished with more ad hominem insults about "preaching paranoid tripe"- you have a very poor debating technique.
Or are you claiming that the scientific method is flawed? If so, do explain, I'm all ears.