Exceptions, yes, but unfortunately there are many exceptions.
Was just watching the daily news and as usual the later part of the show was at least 50% commercials, and the common big pharma {drug company} commercials were going strong; showing as they usually do people having 'fun' taking their drugs while quietly saying in the background there may be side effects, including heart failure and/or death - Reminded me of the old TV cigarette commercials {are you old enough to remember them?}, people partying and having fun while smoking - Of course back then they did not have to say cigarettes may cause cancer, etc. - Otherwise the drug company commercials were similar to the cigarette company commercials. A few years ago I read only the United States and New Zealand allow drug companies to advertises on TV. - In America money talks! Why do I bring this up - Do I have a conspiracy concept up my sleeve? Yes I do - Have you ever thought about the billions, maybe trillions of dollars to be made on vaccines and cures for Covid19? - Would this same big pharma go out of their way to disprove any and all palliative things that they can not
profit off of - They have done so in the past. In a World where money talks and corruption is rampant - Conspiracies are a natural response even if many prove to be invalid
Sorry, but that doesn't sound like a conspiracy to me. We have solid proof that C-19 was born in the wild, not in a lab. Labs can show that it is a natural evolution from viruses in the wild, and not cut and pasted in CRISPR. If someone can make money from producing a vaccine, perhaps they need to be paid to do it? No money for the vaccine, no roll-out of the vaccine. I can't think of a better place to spend our tax dollars frankly. I doubt there are trillions to be made from vaccine "sales" as the governments are going to want to get the vaccine produced and passed out to the population in order to get the global economy moving again. THAT is where the real money is to be made; restarting the economy safely.
As to smoking, that habit has its origins with the Native Americans, and the first European Settlers, not with US Big Tobacco. There was a time when medical science couldn't verify that tobacco was bad for you, and the habit became commonplace, and well loved. Then the statistical info that it was bad began to be collected and it mounted up until now we have health warnings. Now the question is, do you think we should take away an addict's right to buy cigarettes, and thereby create a black market, allowing organized crime to perpetuate itself in our institutions on the back of bribe money paid for on the backs of addiction?
As stated advertising has not given up at all and is using its same old tricks as cigarette advertisers of the past have done.
Wrong. Advertising Execs have been candidly interviewed and they have admitted that TV ad revenue is falling sharply, and their ability to penetrate the internet meaningfully has failed. Despite their efforts, Ad execs are not bringing in the sales revenue the way they used to. This is a new paradigm and they don't understand it. They can't deal with ad blockers.
And as for the origin of conspiracies - who knows, I suppose if I searched hard
enough I could find conspiracies on why Cain slew Able.
I hope you mean that metaphorically, because I don't accept that Cain and Abel every actually existed as people. Also, a conspiracy of one is no conspiracy, that's just a crime.
And in fact I used to have a friend obsessed with the old conspiracy theory about the Illuminati and Freemasons controlling the World. A book on the subject "Proof of a Conspiracy" dates back to the 1700s
Yeah, I have studied the history of the
Know Nothing Party, and I have also read the classic
The Paranoid Style in American Politics by Richard Hofstadter. I also know an awful lot about Freemasonry and its history in the USA, and about the Ancient Illuminated Seers of Bavaria. The Feemasonic movement back in the 1700 fought hard to take power away from the corrupt European Aristocrats and from the creepy moribund Catholic Church. The Freemasons created an environment where men of all classes were treated as intellectual equals and could meet without having their thinking censored by a stupid class of inbreds with money, or by a bunch of pedophile witchdoctors with a penchant for seeing people burn if they disagreed with them. Frankly, the Freemasons were the good guys, and however bad you may think things are, they are a hell of a lot better today than they were in the 1700s. No Freemasons= no liberty, no free trade, no free speech, no US constitution, no Bill of Rights.
AlchoPwn replied: This is an unnecessarily critical view of humanity. The fact is that you can fool some of the people all of the time. These people are the problem, as they make themselves tools for psychopaths."
“Psychopaths [make] the world go around...society [is] an expression of that particular sort of madness...I've always believed society to be a fundamentally rational thing, but what if it isn't? What if it is built on insanity?”
― Jon Ronson,
The Psychopath Test: A Journey Through the Madness Industry
“It strikes me profoundly that the world is more often than not a bad and cruel place.”
― Bret Easton Ellis,
American Psycho
“A.I. is the perfect psychopath.”
― R.A. Delmonico
The point is, not everyone who is in power is a psychopath. We should all actively be working to ensure that psychopaths are diagnosed and withdrawn from ALL positions of responsibility imo. I am also deeply concerned that psychopathy is grossly underdiagnosed amongst women. I say this because psychopathy is presently underdiagnosed in men imo, and I have known a lot more women who behave far worse than men ever do in my experience.
Untrue - I simply post alternative views for interest and consideration- not because they have been proven true - And feel mainstream conventional views and science, especially now, should show better evidence for their actions,
especially since their actions are far from solving the Covid 19 problem. And always the skeptic, must consider if they are not in fact making it worse???
When a "skeptic" puts forwards a case without evidence, they are not being a skeptic, but a superstitious peasant. Skepticism is only valuable when it is supported by an actual foundation of evidence. If that evidence is faulty, the skeptic has a duty to withdraw their argument, not double down on their error for the sake of pride.
“People with a psychological need to believe in marvels are no more prejudiced and gullible than people with a psychological need not to believe in marvels.”
― Charles Fort
I disagree with Fort on this one. Those who have an inbuilt need to be fooled, will be fooled more often than those who are looking for the man behind the curtain. Now, I enjoy a stage magician as much as the next guy, and I am prepared to pay for the entertainment they provide, because I admire the skill they bring to the stage. Gullibility isn't a virtue. I am also not a fan of people who think that if the answer isn't in the textbook, it doesn't exist, as those guys have normally only know a single discipline. That is ultimately dogmatism, and it leads nowhere. The only way forwards is to properly and honestly apply the scientific method, without shortcuts, bias, or egotism, in the hopes of producing objective proof. With enough data and experimentation, there will be a critical mass reached where the answers will appear out of human insight.
"The Earth is a farm. We are someone else's property."- Charles Fort
Did Fort crib that from Karl Marx?