Quote:
Originally Posted by TheUsed2lguy
That's very vague to say, 'stuff like this,' stuff like what? Quantum Physics, Conspiracy Theories, what?
You're prepared to make a complete generalization about every person who has a conspiracy theory, and not hear them out.
Dave, we are a very intelligent people, and just because we are more advanced now than at any previous time, doesn't mean we are in a Utopian society. Should Copernicus have stayed silent about the sun being the center of our solar system, and begrudgingly accepted the fixed Earth theory. I'm not saying I'm Copernicus, or any one of the thousands of other people who have written about what I'm mentioning.
So, give me a pat on the head, and I'll be sure to look up every source on this matter that I've read from, and even those I haven't yet heard from, and pat them on the head, too. This is far from an original idea. Empiricism has it's place in science but, honestly, I don't understand the people who go around shunning every conspiracy theory, before they even hear what it is.
Some people read the facts and make their mind up from there. Some will say, 'Oh, here we go, another conspiracy theory,' and completely ignore it. That's fine. However, some people blindly attack the conspiracy theory, and actually spend more time arguing against it than they did learning about it in the first place. This makes no sense to me.
Please, Mr. Dave be objective, but when you dismiss some idea just because it doesn't quite fit into your view of the world so far, it comes across as very elitist, like, 'we already know everything in the universe, why is this character thinking outside the lines of what we already know to be true?'
|
i didn't shun anything, i made a generalization based on the theorists i've dealt with directly. they ALL act the same way (you included), thank god for youtube 'proof'...
my view of the world actually encapsulates ALL the conspiracy theories i've ever heard (it's summed up nicely in my sig). i'm not dismissing anything, i'm just not giving credibility to something that only exists as a 'what if?' launched from a prior 'what if?'. i have
my own answer to
my why.... i just don't see why
my answer should apply to anyone else or vice versa.
i don't have ANY problems with unorthodox theories about anything that have at least one connection to something resembling accepted logic. it just seems to me that more often than not the really 'out there' theorists refuse to allow any sort of accepted logic into their theories because it's something widely recognized as 'sane' by the NWO or the illumianti or the stone masons or whatever flavour of the week big brother organization that's keeping us all in line.
overall my entire take on time can be summed up in a 3 minute song (a kick ass one at that).
YouTube - Queens of the Stone Age - 18 A.D.
your comment about enlightenment is also a common theme i get tossed my way by my tin foil hat connection quite a bit, yet i've never gotten a direct answer as to what enlightenment is really supposed to be. to me it sounds like clearing yourself of burden (sin?), to exist beyond your body and to become light. unfortunately that requires the courage to leave your physical body behind, and that is just an unacceptable consideration to make for the paranoid.