Register ICMag Forum Menu Features Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
You are viewing our:
in:
Forums > Talk About It! > Toker's Den > Conspiracy Thread, feel free to contribute or debunk

Thread Title Search
Post Reply
Conspiracy Thread, feel free to contribute or debunk Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11-22-2018, 12:35 AM #1
larry badiner
Member

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: queens, ny
Posts: 478
larry badiner is a jewel in the roughlarry badiner is a jewel in the roughlarry badiner is a jewel in the roughlarry badiner is a jewel in the roughlarry badiner is a jewel in the roughlarry badiner is a jewel in the rough
Conspiracy Thread, feel free to contribute or debunk

Since the inception of modern genetical research, there is a chance that "people" (foreign governments, domestic governments) are tainting the gene pool with undesirable traits in cannabis

Intelligence Agencies keep a library of Cannabis genetics

These same Intelligence Agencies keep a library of plants that are secret, and/or hard to obtain, with effects that are extraordinary

These are just theories, I have no actual proof


Anyone else have any conspiracy theories?
__________________


my best advice to impatient growers is get medicaid, score anti anxiety pills, or get a pell grant and buy a qp
sponsored by diazapam


remember to apply the scientific method to your grows!
https://www.sciencebuddies.org/scien...entific-method

Last edited by larry badiner; 11-22-2018 at 01:25 AM.. Reason: clarification of first theory
larry badiner is offline Quote


1 members found this post helpful.
Old 11-22-2018, 12:49 AM #2
CosmicGiggle
Senior Member

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Billy Graham Training Center
Posts: 2,589
CosmicGiggle is a survivorCosmicGiggle is a survivorCosmicGiggle is a survivorCosmicGiggle is a survivorCosmicGiggle is a survivorCosmicGiggle is a survivorCosmicGiggle is a survivorCosmicGiggle is a survivorCosmicGiggle is a survivorCosmicGiggle is a survivorCosmicGiggle is a survivor
Wink

No, but thanks for asking
CosmicGiggle is online now Quote


1 members found this post helpful.
Old 11-22-2018, 12:56 AM #3
Rocky Mtn Squid
EL CID SQUID

Rocky Mtn Squid's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Very High....in the Rockies
Posts: 1,880
Rocky Mtn Squid is a survivorRocky Mtn Squid is a survivorRocky Mtn Squid is a survivorRocky Mtn Squid is a survivorRocky Mtn Squid is a survivorRocky Mtn Squid is a survivorRocky Mtn Squid is a survivorRocky Mtn Squid is a survivorRocky Mtn Squid is a survivorRocky Mtn Squid is a survivorRocky Mtn Squid is a survivor
Lightbulb



RMS

Rocky Mtn Squid is offline Quote


6 members found this post helpful.
Old 11-22-2018, 01:45 AM #4
St. Phatty
Senior Member

Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 3,679
St. Phatty is a survivorSt. Phatty is a survivorSt. Phatty is a survivorSt. Phatty is a survivorSt. Phatty is a survivorSt. Phatty is a survivorSt. Phatty is a survivorSt. Phatty is a survivorSt. Phatty is a survivorSt. Phatty is a survivorSt. Phatty is a survivor
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocky Mtn Squid View Post
That's why I don't like Alex Jones. In a lot of his webcasts around 2007 to 2011, he tended to over-state a lot of things. Scare people, get them hyper-ventilating.


Only the facts & the uncertainty that goes with some of them, that's plenty of news.


Why spend one brain cycle thinking about conspiracy theory when there are so many conspiracy Facts to sort out ?

Of course it's not like the US gov will explain all the pieces of the puzzle. That means learning to be comfortable with conspiracy facts, and pieces of the History iceberg remaining underwater.


As an example of theory, I don't think Rudolf Diesel killed himself. The evidence is 100 years old and has been eaten by fish, and crapped out, then eaten by crabs, so many times, it's safe to say it has no evidentiary value.
__________________
The Nice Part about Running a Temperature ~

A 30 Degree day feels like a 40 Degree Day

(Degrees F)
St. Phatty is offline Quote


1 members found this post helpful.
Old 11-22-2018, 01:10 PM #5
Water-
Member

Water-'s Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 931
Water- has much to be proud ofWater- has much to be proud ofWater- has much to be proud ofWater- has much to be proud ofWater- has much to be proud ofWater- has much to be proud ofWater- has much to be proud ofWater- has much to be proud ofWater- has much to be proud ofWater- has much to be proud ofWater- has much to be proud of
Hypothesis vs. Theory.

A hypothesis is either a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon, or a reasoned prediction of a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena.

In science, a theory is a tested, well-substantiated, unifying explanation for a set of verified, proven factors.
Water- is online now Quote


1 members found this post helpful.
Old 11-22-2018, 01:28 PM #6
Ibechillin
Member

Ibechillin's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Tacoma, Washington 47n
Posts: 619
Ibechillin is a name known to allIbechillin is a name known to allIbechillin is a name known to allIbechillin is a name known to allIbechillin is a name known to allIbechillin is a name known to allIbechillin is a name known to allIbechillin is a name known to allIbechillin is a name known to allIbechillin is a name known to allIbechillin is a name known to all
Science and history are manipulated by a higher ruling, be it monetary or political. Plenty of researchers in the world with more greed (or fear) than integrity.
Ibechillin is offline Quote


Old 11-22-2018, 01:54 PM #7
Stoner4Life
Medicinal Advocate


Stoner4Life's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: wandering further down the path less travelled
Posts: 27,008
Stoner4Life is a survivorStoner4Life is a survivorStoner4Life is a survivorStoner4Life is a survivorStoner4Life is a survivorStoner4Life is a survivorStoner4Life is a survivorStoner4Life is a survivorStoner4Life is a survivorStoner4Life is a survivorStoner4Life is a survivor



conspiracy theories = bullshit.

not happy with some part of life, blame others en masse.

Stoner4Life is online now Quote


3 members found this post helpful.
Old 11-22-2018, 02:16 PM #8
Gypsy Nirvana
Free'd P.O.W.

Gypsy Nirvana's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Back in Blighty!
Posts: 8,892
Gypsy Nirvana is a survivorGypsy Nirvana is a survivorGypsy Nirvana is a survivorGypsy Nirvana is a survivorGypsy Nirvana is a survivorGypsy Nirvana is a survivorGypsy Nirvana is a survivorGypsy Nirvana is a survivorGypsy Nirvana is a survivorGypsy Nirvana is a survivorGypsy Nirvana is a survivor
Out on a salvage mission on these here intrawebs - I came across this article of interest to this thread about the origins of 'Conspiracy Theorist'.

Nope, It Was Always Already Wrong
The Conspiracy Guy
Robert Blaskiewicz
August 8, 2013

Recently, the claim that the phrase “conspiracy theory” was popularized in the 1960s by the CIA to discredit those who dared to question the Warren Commission has been popping up in the conspiracy-o-sphere. From the original PsyOp, so the story goes, the application of the phrase spread to encompass all sorts of nefarious doings, and now people reflexively think that all conspiracy theorists are crazy. The first version that I heard, in fact, was the claim that the term was actually invented in the 1960s, and that grabbed my attention. Really? Never appeared before the 1960s?

An infuriating feature of conspiracy theory is its propensity to take the standard of evidence that skeptics value so highly and turn it on its head: extraordinary claims no longer require extraordinary evidence; rather an extraordinary lack of evidence is thought to validate the extraordinariness of the conspiracy. It is thinking just gone wrong. Worse still, disconfirming evidence becomes evidence in favor of the conspiracy. I strongly suspect that the “the phrase ‘conspiracy theory’ was invented by the CIA” gambit is a fairly radical extension of this tendency, that the mere fact that so many people recognize that conspiracy theorizing is a futile and intellectually unproductive exercise is only more proof to the conspiracy theorists that they are really onto something.

As evidence of this deliberate manipulation of language, theorists offer up a 1967 document released in 1976 via a FOIA request, Dispatch 1035-960. In short, the CIA document outlines arguments that field operatives can use to counter conspiracy theorizing abroad and advises where those arguments might have the largest effect. The document was released to the New York Times, but conspiracy theorists’ seizure of this notion, that what they do has been deliberately stigmatized by nefarious outside agents rather than by the internal flaws of their arguments, ignores both linguistic and historical reality in order to flatter their delusions.

While the notion that the phrase “conspiracy theory” was weaponized has been around since at least 1997, it recently received a boost by the Lance deHaven-Smith’s 2013 Conspiracy Theory in America, published by the University of Texas Press. So, with this stamp of apparent academic legitimacy (I have my own opinion about that, and this is not the venue to elaborate), conspiracy theorists have begun citing this work as an authority.

Take for example the recent article by Kevin Barrett, “New studies: ‘Conspiracy theorists’ sane; government dupes crazy, hostile,” which was republished at Before It’s News as “CIA Invention of the Phrase, ‘Conspiracy Theory’ to Block Questions on JFK’s Assassination, is ‘One of the Most Successful Propaganda Initiatives of All Time.’” Barrett’s arguments were well and truly destroyed by the rogues on the July 27 Skeptics Guide to the Universe, so I will not rehash the staggering lapses in critical thinking they employ. But Barrett also leans very hard on deHaven-Smith’s work:

Both of these findings are amplified in the new book Conspiracy Theory in America by political scientist Lance deHaven-Smith, published earlier this year by the University of Texas Press. Professor deHaven-Smith explains why people don’t like being called “conspiracy theorists”: The term was invented and put into wide circulation by the CIA to smear and defame people questioning the JFK assassination! “The CIA’s campaign to popularize the term ‘conspiracy theory’ and make conspiracy belief a target of ridicule and hostility must be credited, unfortunately, with being one of the most successful propaganda initiatives of all time.” [emphasis added]

Well, we have a claim of fact about the origins of the term “conspiracy theorist.” This is certainly something we can check up on. I will not ascribe this claim to deHaven-Smith. I don’t recall him making the claim that it was invented by the CIA, only that it was deliberately deployed by the CIA.

A quick search of the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) finds that the phrase had been used in May 1964:

New Statesman 1 May 694/2 Conspiracy theorists will be disappointed by the absence of a dogmatic introduction.

This is two years before Dispatch 1035-960 appeared. If you go to the magazine, you will find that this sentence appears in an unsigned editorial, “Separateness,” about the London Magazine’s recent transition from being an exclusively literary publication to a more interdisciplinary review of the arts.

So, no. The CIA did not invent the word “conspiracy theorist.” But this made me wonder how far back I could push the use of a term like “conspiracy theory.” Using the OED to date vocabulary is a dodgy proposition. The oldest example you are likely to find in an OED definition is unlikely to be the first time the word was used. It might not even be the first time that the word was written down. It just happens to be the oldest example that the dictionary’s lexicographers have found. Nonetheless, we’ll use the OED as a starting point and just be confident that the word has to be at least as old as the first example found there.

The earliest appearance of “conspiracy theory’ in the OED goes as far back as 1909 to an article from the American Historical Review:

Amer. Hist. Rev. 14 836 The claim that Atchison was the originator of the repeal may be termed a recrudescence of the conspiracy theory first asserted by Colonel John A. Parker of Virginia in 1880.

This sentence appears in Allen Johnson’s review of P. Ormon Ray’s The Repeal of the Missouri Compromise: Its Origin and Authorship. The sentence that follows it makes quite clear that the phrase is being used in the modern sense: “No new manuscript material has been found to support the theory, but the available bits of evidence have been collated carefully in this volume” (836).

While the OED is generally considered to be a standard reference work, you can actually push the date back even farther using a more recently developed tool, Google Books. Conspiracy theory is by far the older term. In May 1890, a theosophical journal called The Path dismissed the 1885 exposure of Helena Blavatsky by the Society for Psychical Research, in which it was discovered that Blavatsky relied on an elaborate system of informants for her “psychic” insights, as a “conspiracy theory.” In 1881, the phrase appears in Rhodes’ Journal of Banking: “As evidence of a conspiracy this showing is pitiful, and in any view, the charge is ridiculous, as no conspiracy theory is needed to account for the facts.” It seems that finance has always been dogged by conspiracy theories.

An even older reference to “conspiracy theory” can be found in the medical literature of 1870, during a public debate about the growth of asylums and the treatment of inmates in the UK. At issue were bruises and broken ribs that patients acquired in the asylums; were these the result of accidental self-injury, perhaps a byproduct of methods of restraint, or were these punitive measures or even preventive measures meant to force compliance? It’s not clear what the result of that debate was, but according to research by Ian A. Burney, it pitted the Lancet against The Journal of Mental Science. Novelist and prison/asylum reform activist Charles Reade wrote to the editors of the Pall Mall Gazette about the methods of control used in asylums in January 1870, which he came upon researching a novel about private asylums, Hard Cash. Reade claimed his evidence was a “[...] higher class of evidence than the official inquirers permit themselves to hear. They rely too much on medical attendants and other servants of an asylum, whose interest it is to veil ugly truths and sprinkle hells with rose-water.” (19) This evidence was the testimony of former patients and former keepers:

The ex-keepers were all agreed in this—that the keepers know how to break a patient’s bones without bruising the skin; and the doctors have been duped again and again by them. To put it in my own words, the bent knees, big bluntish bones, and clothed, can be applied with terrible force, yet not leave their mark upon the skin of the victim. The refractory patient is thrown down and the keeper walks up and down him on his knees, and even jumps on his body, knees downwards, until he is completely cowed. Should a bone or two be broken in this process, it does not much matter to the keeper: a lunatic complaining of internal injury is not listen to. (19)

The Journal of Mental Science, replied to these allegations the following month:

It must, I think, be admitted that the difficulties have been real, or surely they would not have evoked such an extreme hypothesis as that advanced in the Pall Mall Gazette, by a well-known novelist—an hypothesis which seems to involve every element of the sensational novel. (139)

In a comparison of Reade’s hypothesis to another one, the journal remarked:

The theory of Dr. Sankey as to the manner in which these injuries to the chest occurred in asylums deserved our careful attention. It was at least more plausible that [sic] the conspiracy theory of Mr. Charles Reade [...]. (141)

This use of conspiracy theory, I think, is recognizable with our contemporary understanding.

What is clear is that “conspiracy theory” has always been a disparaging term. While proponents of alternative knowledge are correct in asserting that it is possible to unfairly discredit someone by calling them a “conspiracy theorist,” they must also remember that just because you are called a conspiracy theorist doesn’t mean you aren’t one.

Robert Blaskiewicz
Bob Blaskiewicz is Assistant Professor of Critical Thinking and First Year Studies at Stockton University, where he specializes in and teaches about World War II veterans’ writings, science and pseudoscience, extraordinary/paranormal claims and conspiracy theory. He is the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry’s “Conspiracy Guy” web columnist, a blogger at skepticalhumanities.com, a regular panelist on the live weekly web show The Virtual Skeptics (Wed 8PM Eastern), and contributes a monthly essay to the Skepticality podcast. He also works with an elite cadre of skeptical superheros on The OTHER Burzynski Patient Group website, The Houston Cancer Quack page, and the Skeptics for the Protection of Cancer Patients Facebook group.

https://www.csicop.org/specialarticl..._already_wrong
__________________
'It can all start from a seed'
Gypsy Nirvana is online now Quote


2 members found this post helpful.
Old 11-22-2018, 03:16 PM #9
MJPassion
Observer

MJPassion's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: uni-verse
Posts: 6,699
MJPassion has a reputation beyond reputeMJPassion has a reputation beyond reputeMJPassion has a reputation beyond reputeMJPassion has a reputation beyond reputeMJPassion has a reputation beyond reputeMJPassion has a reputation beyond reputeMJPassion has a reputation beyond reputeMJPassion has a reputation beyond reputeMJPassion has a reputation beyond reputeMJPassion has a reputation beyond reputeMJPassion has a reputation beyond repute
Quote:
Originally Posted by Water- View Post
Hypothesis vs. Theory.

A hypothesis is either a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon, or a reasoned prediction of a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena.

In science, a theory is a tested, well-substantiated, unifying explanation for a set of verified, proven factors.



When was the last time you picked up a dictionary?


Theory has NOTHING to do with proven facts!
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory
MJPassion is offline Quote


Old 11-22-2018, 04:26 PM #10
beta
Senior Member

beta's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,188
beta has much to be proud ofbeta has much to be proud ofbeta has much to be proud ofbeta has much to be proud ofbeta has much to be proud ofbeta has much to be proud ofbeta has much to be proud ofbeta has much to be proud ofbeta has much to be proud ofbeta has much to be proud ofbeta has much to be proud of
Here's my contribution: If it's a 'conspiracy theory' it is not supported by evidence BY DEFINITION.

Because of this, conspiracy theories are indistinguishable from pure fiction.
beta is offline Quote


1 members found this post helpful.

Post Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 09:09 PM.




This site is for educational and entertainment purposes only.
You must be of legal age to view ICmag and participate here.
All postings are the responsibility of their authors.
Powered by: vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.