Re: i wouldn't put it past Big Pharma to do this...
« Reply #61 on: November 30, 2016, 10:19:55 pm »
Quote from: [Buddie] on November 30, 2016, 04:39:48 pm
“theories” about chemtrails uniformly come from people with no background in either environmental science or the commercial airline industry. People with any significant experience in either of these venues have written long, detailed, reasonable and highly accurate essays about why the idea of the government/illuminati/NWO willfully distributing toxins surreptitiously through commercial airplanes is not possible. These “theories” persist because you cannot argue in good faith with reasonable facts against a viewpoint which itself has no good faith or factual support.
Sorry to be harsh, but, I think it’s toxic to have such discussions end with anything other than slightly arrogant dismissal; to a normal person who stumbles across a new website they are not familiar with, the mere mention of “chemtrails” is clear evidence they have landed on the lunatic fringe and should rightly distrust any and all information found there. Chemtrail conspiracy theory is not really any more grounded in reality than the idea that the earth is flat instead of round — something which likewise has support from the lunatic fringe.
Quote from: [Buddie]
it’s time to wake us all up here on Earth because it’s getting hard to breathe!
It is, and this has everything to do with 75 years of reckless industrial manipulation of the carbon molecule, leading to hundreds or thousands of new toxins being invented every year and released through bad, short-sighted waste practices. It’s also got everything to do with the American appetite for constant illumination and travel in gasoline vehicles, and the growing appetite amount developing nations for the same thing.
We do not need to jump to extraordinary claims about willful and explicit efforts to poison the environment; we are poisoning it just fine through casual indifference to questions like “if I drive to town today, is that in some small way helping insure that my great grandchildren won’t have a planet to live on?” The answer to this is a resounding yes if one looks at any reasonable climate model which goes out 50-100 years from today, but that’s a too uncomfortable realization for many people to accept.
We don’t need the NWO to poison the earth. If current trends continue, the earth is unlikely to sustain the current – let alone projected – human population for our own lifetimes. Unless something drastic is done, by 2060 there will have been mass die offs (millions of people) in Africa, arid regions will have become completely uninhabitable, and the social upheaval caused by mass migrations from death zones will cause tremendous strain on already weakened support and infrastructure in more developed areas. Stop worrying about chemtrails; reality is grim enough as it is.
I have tried my best to allow as much latitude as possible in what topics might be discussed at BB. However, it is becoming clear that across the Internet there are problems with 1) people who engage in systematic disinformation; and 2) an unhinged fringe who can now easy find each other and reinforce their own unfounded and delusional conspiracy theories, and so spread their ‘ideas’ (delusions) more systematically.
My original posting requirements for this board:
Quote from: Colin on June 01, 2010, 08:01:45 pm
Chewing the Fat is intended for all those benzodiazepine (and other drug) discussions that are not about “support”. There is a distinct lack of good research regarding benzodiazepine use and withdrawal, but at the same time there is much disinformation too. It is fine to use this board to discuss your pet theories to see if they float, but you should expect strong rebuttals if your ideas do not hold water. References and citations are very much encouraged when posting ideas and rebuttals.
You might also discuss what happened to you and how this might relate to existing research. Again, you might discuss your own ideas too.
Where possible, scientifically supported information should be referenced, but as “Chewing the Fat” implies, floating ideas, sound or fanciful, are also welcome.
Clearly, the above guidance is falling short. From now on, the posting of ‘conspiracy theories’ will not be allowed at BB. The line utilised to determine what constitutes a conspiracy theory will be the I know it when I see it test – at least until we have some more detailed/considered sticky guidance in place.
Here is a recent (completely insane) example of what is occurring more and more across the Internet:
Reddit has a carefully cultured reputation for free-speech principles (Rediit has closed down the ‘pizzagate’ subReddit). But enough is enough – right! I have also noticed that many other websites are taking a tougher stance with these kinds of materials. As […] wrote above, “to a normal person who stumbles across a new website they are not familiar with, the mere mention of “chemtrails” is clear evidence they have landed on the lunatic fringe and should rightly distrust any and all information found there.” This alone is reason enough for us to toughen policy in relation to such materials.
Throughout this thread, there has been a complete failure by those floating these fanciful theories to point to at least one credible source. In addition, they have failed to address any points made by their respondents attempting to inject some semblance of rationality to the discussion. The worst thing about this is the attempt to connect ‘chemtrail’ conspiracy theories to benzodiazepine withdrawal. This will not wash.
I’ve been very patient, but enough is enough. I’ll leave this topic open for a while for comment, but it will be locked in a few days time. There will be no more discussion of ‘chemtrails’ or similar conspiracy theories at BB. In future, we will be more strict about requiring members to post citations and references from reliable/legitimate/coherent sources for all threads created on the Chewing the Fat board.
Like […], I regret if my tone my seems a bit harsh to some members posting here. But as demonstrated in this thread, polite rebuttal does not work when beliefs are espoused with the kind of fervor usually reserved for extreme religious zealots.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2016, 11:37:02 pm by Colin »