You are hardly helping the cause of truth with this kind of ill-informed nonsense. HIV most certainly does exist, and anyone who denies it needs their head examined.
'Conspiraloons' in the ascendancy?
- Thread starter treelover
- Start date
- Status
You are hardly helping the cause of truth with this kind of ill-informed nonsense. HIV most certainly does exist, and anyone who denies it needs their head examined.
On what grounds do you think that? Because I call it nonsense of the first water.
claphamboy
The wheels on the bus go round and round....
Well considering scientists have only very recently been able to make viruses, i.e. within the last 10 years, and HIV was found in a blood sample dating back to the 50s, perhaps you can explain how the CIA could have developed it, oh wise one.
* time travel as a theory on this is disallowed.
i'm not a scientist but it's more plausable than green monkeys spreading it. gays and intravenus drug users are the main ones dying from it (and the odd promiscuous hetero) all of which would suit the right wing republicans down to the ground.
Mind you i can't really be bothered to read thru the hundreds of books on the subject.
claphamboy
The wheels on the bus go round and round....
Yeah, fuck the molecular biologists that tracked the origin after decades of painstaking work and all that analysing the genetic code stuff, far better to form a view based on sweet FA.
Yeah, let's ignore all those babies born with it, all those people that got it by blood transfusion in the early days – oh, wait it must have been a plot by the Jehovah Witnesses.
Translation - "I am an ignorance twat and happy to stay that way."
If anyone really wanted to carry out a population cull--which they don't--there are far easier ways of doing it. A fake vaccine for example (not that I believe that either).
I do believe that hard drugs were and are being introduced to the ghettos of the USA in a conscious attempt to damage the social fabric. I think the heroin epidemic of the 60s was the CIA's retort to the civil rights movement: "see how many civil rights you want after this." But that's not the same as a population cull.
Beanburger
Deep Fried
And while you're at it, if you could prove that life can be manufactured in a lab, then that would help dispel any lingering suspicions that the world was created in six days and nights by a bearded old bloke sitting on a cloud.
Seriously, what the fuck? The burden of proof falls upon the proponent of a theory. Especially when it's as ridiculous as the "cull" theory. Fuck's sake, if H1N1 is the best stab TPTB can take at wiping us all out, they need to go back to the fucking lab.
Beanburger
Deep Fried
And excuse me if I'm missing something here, but doesn't capitalism kinda depend on growing populations in order to increase GDP? Last time I checked, Scotland was actually encouraging immigration for this very reason. Why would you cull the source of your income?
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Downhill thread goes further downhill.
8den
No I'm pretty sure that was 8ball...
really?
editor
hiraethified
Exactly. And if people repeatedly post up wild, lunatic theories sourced from barking UFO-naut sites supported by zero credible research, zero credible science and zero credible evidence then they have every right to be classified as a conspiraloon. It's just about the dictionary definition of the word.
However, accusing posters of being mentally ill just because they don't subscribe to dwyer's personal set of evidence-free beliefs is way off the mark.
maybe ya knew someone that fucked a green monkey?
claphamboy
The wheels on the bus go round and round....
Christ, you're a moron.
How about the fair more logical theory about eating monkeys as "bushmeat"?
Christ, you're a moron.
How about the fair more logical theory about eating monkeys as "bushmeat"?
oh right, maybe you're right then, unlikely for you lot to do poorly with propaganda
fogbat
The Talibum
An acquaintance of my mum's said that AIDS came from monkeys and came about because in Africa the women get so horny when their husbands are away that "they just find a monkey and have sex with that"
Closing time at London Zoo. You've still not pulled...
We've all been there
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
An acquaintance of my mum's said that AIDS came from monkeys and came about because in Africa the women get so horny when their husbands are away that "they just find a monkey and have sex with that"
You think thats bad? my uncle once came up with the idea of genetically enginering aN AIDS- sicle cell hybrid
An acquaintance of my mum's said that AIDS came from monkeys and came about because in Africa the women get so horny when their husbands are away that "they just find a monkey and have sex with that"
ha ha, like i said above, a rare case of propaganda fail - i had heard of green monkeys but never actually HOW it was supposed to be spread until now, and had very bleak mental images of the very desperate!
claphamboy
The wheels on the bus go round and round....
An acquaintance of my mum's said that AIDS came from monkeys and came about because in Africa the women get so horny when their husbands are away that "they just find a monkey and have sex with that"
This acquaintance, it's not trev's mum/dad by any chance?
This acquaintance, it's not trev's mum/dad by any chance?
it would have to be via a medium
Paul Marsh
NeitherWashingtonNorMecca
Which is precisely what most 'truth' activists ignore.
Their standard position is that the US/UK/Israeli governments have to prove -to them- that they did not carry out 9/11, 7/7 or whatever. They therefore can keep going back to the issue ad infinitum, as most governments usually have no such desire to waste their time.
If you listen to some of the more rational 'truth' activists (such as Ian Henshall) they rather cleverly set for others the burden of proof required upon the Crown, but for themselves only the burden of proving reasonable doubt.
Its a lot easier game when you set those type of rules...............
Beanburger
Deep Fried
That in itself is a disingenuous assertion. Just because someone doesn't believe that the security services conspired to demolish the twin towers, it doesn't mean that they have faith in the security services. It's this kind of logic that makes conspiraloonacy look so ridiculous. "You're either with us, or you're one of them" (and funnily enough, I've actually been told exactly that in the past
)
claphamboy
The wheels on the bus go round and round....
Do you realise that with every post you make on this thread you come across as even more ridiculous?
That in itself is a disingenuous assertion. Just because someone doesn't believe that the security services conspired to demolish the twin towers, it doesn't mean that they have faith in the security services. It's this kind of logic that makes conspiraloonacy look so ridiculous. "You're either with us, or you're one of them" (and funnily enough, I've actually been told exactly that in the past
wasn't specifically on about the twin towers, i have no idea if anything dodgy was involved there. I was just saying there needs to be accountability where foul play is suspected (i wasn't actually thinking of the US/CIA who are a law unto themselves anyway)
claphamboy
The wheels on the bus go round and round....
Jusr re-read Beanburger's post replacing 'demolish the twin towers' with 'kill Diana' and the point remains valued.
Beanburger said:
Bolded bit : or, if their claims are wilder, only the burden of raising doubt -- of any kind.
Spot on to both posts, anyway.
trevhagl said:
That in itself is a disingenuous assertion. Just because someone doesn't believe that the security services conspired to demolish the twin towers, it doesn't mean that they have faith in the security services. It's this kind of logic that makes conspiraloonacy look so ridiculous. "You're either with us, or you're one of them" (and funnily enough, I've actually been told exactly that in the past
Got to agree with Beanburger here trev.
How many times in this thread has it been repeated that just because you have lots of doubts about conspiracy theories, doesn't make you 'have faith' in the authorities!
Saying this just makes you look illogical, to be honest.
Jazzz said:
As somebody said earlier, you're missing the point. Completely. Editor's comments were addressed at dwyer specifically.
Suggest you go back and reread dwyer's contributions to this thread (including the personal attacks on me and others but also much more importantly the general intent and tone). Read them in the round as an overall contribution.
If you've got even half an ounce of perceptiveness you'll stop thinking he's been posting 'from the other side of the debate' (ie yours).
For his real motives, here's one possible view -- one you'd do yourself a favour not to ignore, because nothing he's posting is giving your 'side of the debate' any genuine help at all.
On the other hand, if you'd rather take the mischiefmaking of a complete and proven troll ** as supportive to your position, that's up to you I guess.
ETA ** As if any further proof of the bit I've bolded were needed, see bin (just seen that binned thread
x 1000 )- Status
Similar threads
