-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Winger" data-cid="572849" data-time="1460799501">
<div>
<p>I just look at the evidence regardless of where it leads. People like you just believe the stories. That you were told as a child and now just accept as a fact. And refuse to have them challenged. These stories now form a key part of your ego. The ruling elite maintain control in this way. Brainwash a child and they have the majority for life</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Ok Oliver, thats some superb bullshit right there.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p style="font-size:22px;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:'Noe Text', times, georgia, serif;">Meet Oliver. Like many of his friends, Oliver thinks he is an expert on 9/11. He spends much of his spare time looking at conspiracist websites and his research has convinced him that the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, DC, of 11 September 2001 were an inside job. The aircraft impacts and resulting fires couldn’t have caused the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center to collapse. The only viable explanation, he maintains, is that government agents planted explosives in advance. He realises, of course, that the government blames Al-Qaeda for 9/11 but his predictable response is pure Mandy Rice-Davies: they would say that, wouldn’t they?</p>
<p style="font-size:22px;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:'Noe Text', times, georgia, serif;">Polling evidence suggests that Oliver’s views about 9/11 are by no means unusual. Indeed, peculiar theories about all manner of things are now widespread. There are conspiracy theories about the spread of AIDS, the 1969 Moon landings, UFOs, and the assassination of JFK. Sometimes, conspiracy theories turn out to be right – Watergate really was a conspiracy – but mostly they are bunkum. They are in fact vivid illustrations of a striking truth about human beings: however intelligent and knowledgeable we might be in other ways, many of us still believe the strangest things. You can find people who believe they were abducted by aliens, that the Holocaust never happened, and that cancer can be cured by positive thinking. A 2009 Harris Poll found that between one‑fifth and one‑quarter of Americans believe in reincarnation, astrology and the existence of witches. You name it, and there is probably someone out there who believes it.</p>
<p style="font-size:22px;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:'Noe Text', times, georgia, serif;"><span>You realise, of course, that Oliver’s theory about 9/11 has little going for it, and this might make you wonder why he believes it. The question ‘Why does Oliver believe that 9/11 was an inside job?’ is just a version of a more general question posed by the US skeptic Michael Shermer: why do people believe weird things? The weirder the belief, the stranger it seems that someone can have it. Asking why people believe weird things isn’t like asking why they believe it’s raining as they look out of the window and see the rain pouring down. It’s obvious why people believe it’s raining when they have compelling evidence, but it’s far from obvious why Oliver believes that 9/11 was an inside job when he has access to compelling evidence that it </span><i>wasn’t</i><span> an inside job.</span></p>
<p style="font-size:22px;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:'Noe Text', times, georgia, serif;">I want to argue for something which is controversial, although I believe that it is also intuitive and commonsensical. My claim is this: Oliver believes what he does because that is the kind of <i>thinker</i> he is or, to put it more bluntly, <i>because there is something wrong with how he thinks</i>. The problem with conspiracy theorists is not, as the US legal scholar Cass Sunstein argues, that they have little relevant information. The key to what they end up believing is how they <i>interpret</i> and <i>respond to</i> the vast quantities of relevant information at their disposal. I want to suggest that this is fundamentally a question of the way they are. Oliver isn’t mad (or at least, he needn’t be). Nevertheless, his beliefs about 9/11 are the result of the peculiarities of his intellectual constitution – in a word, of his intellectual character.</p>
<p style="font-size:22px;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:'Noe Text', times, georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size:5em;;">U</span>sually, when philosophers try to explain why someone believes things (weird or otherwise), they focus on that person’s <i>reasons</i>rather than their character traits. On this view, the way to explain why Oliver believes that 9/11 was an inside job is to identify his reasons for believing this, and the person who is in the best position to tell you his reasons is Oliver. When you explain Oliver’s belief by giving his reasons, you are giving a ‘rationalising explanation’ of his belief.</p>
<p style="font-size:22px;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:'Noe Text', times, georgia, serif;">The problem with this is that rationalising explanations take you only so far. If you ask Oliver why he believes 9/11 was an inside job he will, of course, be only too pleased to give you his reasons: it had to be an inside job, he insists, because aircraft impacts couldn’t have brought down the towers. He is wrong about that, but at any rate that’s his story and he is sticking to it. What he has done, in effect, is to explain one of his questionable beliefs by reference to another no less questionable belief. Unfortunately, this doesn’t tell us why he has <i>any</i> of these beliefs. There is a clear sense in which we still don’t know what is really going on with him.</p>
<p style="font-size:22px;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:'Noe Text', times, georgia, serif;">Now let’s flesh out Oliver’s story a little: suppose it turns out that he believes lots of other conspiracy theories apart from the one about 9/11. He believes the Moon landings were faked, that Diana, Princess of Wales, was murdered by MI6, and that the Ebola virus is an escaped bioweapon. Those who know him well say that he is easily duped, and you have independent evidence that he is careless in his thinking, with little understanding of the difference between genuine evidence and unsubstantiated speculation. Suddenly it all begins to make sense, but only because the focus has shifted from Oliver’s <i>reasons</i> to his <i>character</i>. You can now see his views about 9/11 in the context of his intellectual conduct generally, and this opens up the possibility of a different and deeper explanation of his belief than the one he gives: he thinks that 9/11 was an inside job because he is gullible in a certain way. He has what social psychologists call a ‘conspiracy mentality’.</p>
<p style="font-size:22px;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:'Noe Text', times, georgia, serif;"><span style="margin-left:0px;font-style:italic;color:rgb(12,119,109);">The gullible rarely believe they are gullible and the closed-minded don’t believe they are closed-minded</span></p>
<p style="font-size:22px;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:'Noe Text', times, georgia, serif;">Notice that the proposed character explanation isn’t a rationalising explanation. After all, being gullible isn’t a reason for believing anything, though it might still be why Oliver believes 9/11 was an inside job. And while Oliver might be expected to know his reasons for believing that 9/11 was an inside job, he is the last person to recognise that he believes what he believes about 9/11 because he is gullible. It is in the nature of many intellectual character traits that you don’t realise you have them, and so aren’t aware of the true extent to which your thinking is influenced by them. The gullible rarely believe they are gullible and the closed-minded don’t believe they are closed-minded. The only hope of overcoming self-ignorance in such cases is to accept that other people – your co-workers, your spouse, your friends – probably know your intellectual character better than you do. But even that won’t necessarily help. After all, it might be that refusing to listen to what other people say about you <i>is</i> one of your intellectual character traits. Some defects are incurable.</p>
<p style="font-size:22px;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:'Noe Text', times, georgia, serif;">Gullibility, carelessness and closed-mindedness are examples of what the US philosopher Linda Zagzebski, in her book <i>Virtues of the Mind</i> (1996), has called ‘intellectual vices’. Others include negligence, idleness, rigidity, obtuseness, prejudice, lack of thoroughness, and insensitivity to detail. Intellectual character traits are habits or styles of thinking. To describe Oliver as gullible or careless is to say something about his intellectual style or mind-set – for example, about how he goes about trying to find out things about events such as 9/11. Intellectual character traits that aid effective and responsible enquiry are <i>intellectual virtues</i>, whereas<i>intellectual vices</i> are intellectual character traits that impede effective and responsible inquiry. Humility, caution and carefulness are among the intellectual virtues Oliver plainly lacks, and that is why his attempts to get to the bottom of 9/11 are so flawed.</p>
<p style="font-size:22px;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:'Noe Text', times, georgia, serif;">Oliver is fictional, but real-world examples of intellectual vices in action are not hard to find. Consider the case of the ‘underwear bomber’ Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who tried to blow up a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit in 2009. Abdulmutallab was born in Lagos, Nigeria, to affluent and educated parents, and graduated from University College London with a degree in mechanical engineering. He was radicalised by the online sermons of the Islamic militant Anwar al-Awlaki, who was subsequently killed by an American drone strike. It’s hard not to see the fact that Abdulmutallab was taken in by Awlaki’s sermons as at least partly a reflection of his intellectual character. If Abdulmutallab had the intellectual character not to be duped by Awlaki, then perhaps he wouldn’t have ended up on a transatlantic airliner with explosives in his underpants.</p> -
This is the thread that keeps on giving.
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jegga" data-cid="572912" data-time="1460837973">
<div>
<p>Ok Oliver, thats some superb bullshit right there.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>But admit it. You believe everything the ruling elite tell you. Regardless of how ridiculous it is. Including that a small increase in CO2 will almost destroy life on earth (unless we hand over money and keep on doing it)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>You are like a gullible child that believes everything their parents tell them. And lash out at the non believers. (Or post pointless articles that you think somehow support you viewpoint. Others do likewise with video's). Its captures all religious devotees too. Too stupid, scared or unable to think for themselves and to differentiate between stories and facts supported by real evidence.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Winger" data-cid="572967" data-time="1460869898">
<div>
<p>But admit it. You believe everything the ruling elite tell you. Regardless of how ridiculous it is. Including that a small increase in CO2 will almost destroy life on earth (unless we hand over money and keep on doing it)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>You are like a gullible child that believes everything their parents tell them. And lash out at the non believers. (Or post pointless articles that you think somehow support you viewpoint. Others do likewise with video's). Its captures all religious devotees too. Too stupid, scared or unable to think for themselves and to differentiate between stories and facts supported by real evidence.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Yeah Jegga !! And you got nits and you eat your bogies, I seen it in maths class, and your mum hates you! Beacause..</p>
<p> </p>
<p>She wanted a dog from the pound and she like, told your dad to go and get one</p>
<p> </p>
<p>And he like, went to the dog pound but it was like, being renervated and had to use the nearby like orphanage to store the dogs</p>
<p> </p>
<p>and like, your dad just picked the first one and like then he got home and your mum said</p>
<p> </p>
<p>"Like this isn't even a dog" and your dad said</p>
<p> </p>
<p>"yes it is" </p>
<p> </p>
<p>and your mum was all like "it isn't, it looks like a dog but it's a kid"</p>
<p> </p>
<p>and your dad's like "well we can't take it back because it was free"</p>
<p> </p>
<p>and your mum is like "jesus, and it's already eating it's own bogies"</p>
<p> </p>
<p>and you dad's like "and it's got nits...or ticks"</p>
<p> </p>
<p>and your mums like "well lets call it jegga and hope it runs away"</p>
<p> </p>
<p>and like like like that's your life innit?</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>oi leave my funny videos outta this !</p> -
<p><img src="https://tehresistance.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/602__image_091.jpg" alt="602__image_091.jpg"></p>
-
<br><br><blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Winger" data-cid="572967" data-time="1460869898"><p>But admit it. You believe everything the ruling elite tell you. Regardless of how ridiculous it is. Including that a small increase in CO2 will almost destroy life on earth (unless we hand over money and keep on doing it)<br><br>
You are like a gullible child that believes everything their parents tell them. And lash out at the non believers. (Or post pointless articles that you think somehow support you viewpoint. Others do likewise with video's). Its captures all religious devotees too. Too stupid, scared or unable to think for themselves and to differentiate between stories and facts supported by real evidence.</p></blockquote>
<br>
Winger must have typed out this exact post 100 times now in response to people completely exposing his "theories".<br><br>
I am in favour of a good robust debate and happy to hear other peoples POV but this is just tiresome bullshit that I don't really want to keep reading over and over and over. It adds nothing to the debate and detracts from otherwise good threads. -
Getting away from Wingers usual insanity and back to the sugar article I had to go to hospital today and it was an eye opener to see the huge people in the part I was in . The doctor was pretty honest about what it's like have a conveyer of fat people with heart problems and diabetes .
-
I'm watching a piece on fighting fat on Sunday right now. The constant bombardment of junk food advertising is definitely a contributing factor to increasing obesity rates, with many of the adverts directly aimed at kids 12 and under.<br><br>
A sugar tax is only a small part of the equation in all of this. The government saying "show me the evidence that a sugar tax decreases obesity" is too simplistic. It would help. But overall there needs to be a big cultural shift just like there has been with smoking where eating junk food is looked upon as, well, disgusting. Sugar tax, advertising campaigns, shock tactics like the pictures you see on cigarette packs, education programs in schools - there needs to be a full pronged attack on obesity led by the Government.<br><br>
There absolutely needs to be personal responsibility as you can't force people to change at the end of the day, but there also needs to be some collective responsibility to try and address this problem. -
I watched that too, we were talking about how hard it is to lose weight through exercise and those women talked about going to the gym for four years with no results.<br><br>
You're right the advertising etc is pervasive , I see the that company that makes Dolmio came out this week and said to eat their sauces no more than once a week . I think the pressure in the bigger overseas markets is starting to show .<br>
It'll be infesting to see if the Uk sugar tax has any effect , I can't see one being bought in here an time soon. -
<p>you can buy a 2L of full sugar Pepsi for $1.79, Coke for $2.29 or the store brands for even less (when not on special)...how much tax do you need to add onto them before it will actually make a difference?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>My guess is the sugar tax they are talking is maybe, 30-50%, so the 2L coke now costs $3.45, how many is that really going to stop buying, or will they then buy Pepsi for $2.69 or home brand for $1.99 or something?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Will sugar taxes impact the Zero/Max versions of Coke/Pepsi...?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Didnt they have a decrease in sales in Mexico after the tax increase but after about 6 months sales crept back to pre-sugar tax levels?</p> -
I think that's the real issue, someone mentioned before on another thread these companies are big enough to wear taxes too. The younger guys I work with think nothing of paying the same price as a 1.25 litre of Coke if not more for one of those god awful mother energy drinks.
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jegga" data-cid="573004" data-time="1460880257">
<div>
<p>I think that's the real issue, someone mentioned before on another thread these companies are big enough to wear taxes too. The younger guys I work with think nothing of paying the same price as a 1.25 litre of Coke if not more for one of those god awful mother energy drinks.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>There is no single answer, improvement will only come from a multifaceted approach. Education of new parents and of young kids is important in order to try and set dietary habits early. A sugar tax is fine, but it won't fix the problem, and the money raised from that tax must be spent in a way that helps the cause too. If we're talking obesity will there be a fatty food tax too?</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="canefan" data-cid="573020" data-time="1460882910"><p>
There is no single answer, improvement will only come from a multifaceted approach. Education of new parents and of young kids is important in order to try and set dietary habits early. A sugar tax is fine, but it won't fix the problem, and the money raised from that tax must be spent in a way that helps the cause too. If we're talking obesity will there be a fatty food tax too?</p></blockquote>
<br>
Agree education is probably going to be the answer , not sure a tax is going to be the answer. The tobacco tax is very high , I think the levels the uk has set it at probably aren't a huge deterrent . <br><br>
Winger please spare us any batshit theories about how sugar is actually good for you and big health is trying to destroy it. -
Imho a sugar tax is just a symbolic measure that has the added benefit to the gov of raising heaps of money. Adding an extra buck here and there won't do shit.<br><br>
What is terrifying is how little people actually know about nutrition. My son's friend was over and proudly stated that he didn't drink Coke and preferred Powerade. Powerade ffs! You get people gorging a meatball footlong from Subway and a massive smoothy who genuinely think they're eating healthy. I don't know what the answer is. What I do know is that it's a little unfair if I have to pay through the arse for the occasional treat because others can't help themselves. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="No Quarter" data-cid="572994" data-time="1460878357">
<div>
<p>I'm watching a piece on fighting fat on Sunday right now. The constant bombardment of junk food advertising is definitely a contributing factor to increasing obesity rates, with many of he adverts directly aimed at kids 12 and under.<br><br>
A sugar tax is only a small part of the equation in all of this. The government saying "show me the evidence that a sugar tax decreases obesity" is too simplistic. It would help. But overall there needs to be a big cultural shift just like there has been with smoking where eating junk food is looked upon as, well, disgusting. Sugar tax, advertising campaigns, shock tactics like the pictures you see on cigarette packs, education programs in schools - <strong>there needs to be a full pronged attack on obesity led by the Government.</strong><br><br>
There absolutely needs to be personal responsibility as you can't force people to change at the end of the day, but there also needs to be some collective responsibility to try and address this problem.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I'm betting that if they try the reaction will be an avalanche of offence taken by people who don't want to be judged for their size. Unfortunately there's very little political mileage in telling people that their choices are killing themselves and their kids so a Labour Party well behind in the polls isn't likely to do it and they'd put all the blame the manufacturers and retailers instead. National on the other hand, given the evidence of the organised opposition to a new flag based solely on Key's involvement, might expect to be attacked from the left regardless of principle, so I wouldn't hold my breath for them to do it either.</p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rancid Schnitzel" data-cid="573025" data-time="1460884018">
<div>
<p>Imho a sugar tax is just a symbolic measure that has the added benefit to the gov of raising heaps of money. Adding an extra buck here and there won't do shit.<br><br>
What is terrifying is how little people actually know about nutrition. My son's friend was over and proudly stated that he didn't drink Coke and preferred Powerade. Powerade ffs! <strong>You get people gorging a meatball footlong from Subway and a massive smoothy who genuinely think they're eating healthy</strong>. I don't know what the answer is. What I do know is that it's a little unfair if I have to pay through the arse for the occasional treat because others can't help themselves.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Some years ago at work we had one guy who was young, engaging and clever but who had managed to work himself up to 180kgs. Several times a week for lunch he'd walk across the road to the Bishopsgate KFC and get himself a bucket of chicken. And a Diet Coke.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>He'd have been about 40 now if he was alive.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="No Quarter" data-cid="572986" data-time="1460875081">
<div>
<p>Winger must have typed out this exact post 100 times now in response to people completely exposing his "theories".<br><br>
I am in favour of a good robust debate and happy to hear other peoples POV but this is just tiresome bullshit that I don't really want to keep reading over and over and over. It adds nothing to the debate and detracts from otherwise good threads.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I'm responding to a post that has been posted time and time again (even when it has no relevance to what I posted). With the same reply</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rancid Schnitzel" data-cid="573025" data-time="1460884018">
<div>
<p> You get people gorging a meatball footlong from Subway and a massive smoothy who genuinely think they're eating healthy. I don't know what the answer is. What I do know is that it's a little unfair if I have to pay through the arse for the occasional treat because others can't help themselves.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Agreed. It's like the proposed minimum alcohol unit price (in wholesalers etc) because some people can't stop themselves from drinking to excess or can't drink responsibly. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>The subway thing is always funny, when you get people ordering double meat and cheese and extra bacon then telling their friends how their diet is going really well and it's easy to stick to. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>It is unsurprising that poorer people eat shittier food though. The wife and I eat a lot of salads for dinners and it always amazes me how expensive it is to buy a bunch of salad ingredients from the supermarket to feed two people. Contrast that to how much food you can get in a $10 special pack of fish and chips from the local takeaway store and it's not hard to see why some people make unhealthier choices. It's the same with the 2 litre coke versus 2 litre bottle of skim milk argument.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Does taxing shitty food help anyone? Not really, people will still eat it. I'll still buy wholesale beers even if the price doubled. Removing GST from fruit and vegetables might be a better incentive to get people to eat healthier. I imagine the cost to the country in lost revenue makes it a fairly undesirable option. </p>
Your favourite conspiracy theories