Author Topic: So what do you see as reliable information?  (Read 312 times)

M Dogg™

  • Greatest of All Time
  • Made
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12111
  • Thanked: 13 times
  • Karma: 330
  • Feel the Power of the Darkside
So what do you see as reliable information?
« on: November 19, 2012, 10:53:47 AM »
Here is what I am trying to figure out. As I try to respond to people's post on what they feel is right and wrong, I come up against the sources of information I receive is tainted? Now I have tried to get sources that people respect, but even that is meet with it being "tainted" information. Now I come from an academic background, for me most "true" information has to be vetted by a group of people. I read academic journals and they provide facts and figures founded by people doing research. Of course most, if not all, of these journals cover anything to do with conspiracy theories except maybe a psychology article that might study why people believe in conspiracy theories.

So for the sake of posting on a board that I moderate, how do you find information and what makes it legit to you. If I asked this 4 years ago, I know the answer would have been Alex Jones, if I asked 8 years ago, I know the answer would be either Fox News or CNN. But it seems the longer this board exist, the more underground the answers. So what makes information legitimate to you? And what are "legit" sources of information that counters your opinion. I think the main problem people have is they find the source of information they like, and anything that counters that is then "tainted" or it's "biased".

Hopefully I can get a better understanding of what to read so I can try to understand. It seems every time I research sources you guys use, the bar changes and then everyone agrees to move on to another source. So where do I go to get this information?
 

Aladin

  • Muthafuckin' OG
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 488
  • Karma: 10
Re: So what do you see as reliable information?
« Reply #1 on: November 19, 2012, 11:42:04 AM »
Well it is indeed very difficult.
If it were that clear cut, this is false and that is true. It would be easy 2 differentiate.

But they mix truth with falsehood, that is much more difficult 2 decipher.

We are brought up now in soundbites, we dont want deep analyse or do research, we want clear cut answers. and that my friend is our weakness.

If they want 2 poison you (your mind) the mix 99 % honey with 1% poison.
And you wouldnt realise that your getting poison.
 

virtuoso

  • Shot Caller
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3048
  • Karma: 332
Re: So what do you see as reliable information?
« Reply #2 on: November 19, 2012, 01:02:25 PM »
MDogg so let's address what you just asked, firstly a lot of information which Alex Jones provide is well documented, but yes, then there will be a particular angle which is essentially unverified and comes across as bullshit!
What do I see as reliable? verifiable information with empirical evidence to support it, an acknowledgment that due to the way in the respective media camps operate I am going to hear truth about the one side from both outlets. A discernment to understand that the media when not attacking in a political sense will look to push a particular propaganda and that' the moment where I think wah! but wait, you are ignoring x and y, you are villifying these people whilst condoning it on your side. Discernment.....as soon as I hear the media use words like fringe, then I investigate this "fringe" I investigate the history of that particular notion, concept, fringe.

I do think that you must venture into both side of the equation and note for yourself the discrepancies, the contradictions, the motivations. I think you need to redress whenever you set yourself your own moral compass and then you see the political backdrop which you considered echoed these views then move away from it, but when your fall back position is then well...."the other side" is worse, sure, that simple reinforces the good cop/bad cop scenario. It's crazy just how many times I have heard something which on the face of it appears to be nuts but then you actually realise that this topic has been covered even in the mainstream media. The key thing is when the mainstream media do it, they drop it in as if it's not something to cause an issue, like the BBC article just casually dropping in that some bastard from the ruling israeli party had stated the goal of the bombing was to turn Gaza back to the stone ages. Since that comment....no follow up....no deeper analysis, no big deal.....headline later....
about some israeli who have been injured in a rocket attack and now the israeli government responds.

It's fucking surreal dude, it's almost like they know most people won't really absorb the first part, or almost like "and now back to a scheduled programme" where sometimes they venture off course but hey no big deal. I have spoken to people about fluoride before for instance after just having to learn that it was bad for you just simply because I became intrigued about what fluroride was. o when I venture into this subject I am met with deterrence from people on forums (and i suspect some of them on the bigger forums are shills) but I digress, anyway, you would think this is a fringe idea, baseless. Only to then research and realise that whoa! there are numerous pressure groups throughout the UK. However then you could say well yes they are basing it on irrelevant fears but further research reveals that there are many leading scientists who utterly oppose it and then you listen to why they utterly oppose it.

Then I guess on this one issue I was introduced to it at secondary school at the age of 13, a lad in our class had a brown coating on his teeth, he told us that the cause of the brown coating was due to Haleowen having a high concentration of fluoride in the water. So there is irony for you huh? fluoride is meant to protect the teeth and yet it severely damaged his. So at which point I wanted to understand the so called "justification" for this and the official line was we want to protect the nations teeth, something which of course is parroted by the dentists.

However you then conclude.....okay, so let's suppose that was true, then at the very least they are forcibly medicating people. Now such a conclusion gets met with notions of paranoia, when yet again this is one of those programmed responses which doesn't even address the very point i am making. The "paranoia" angle addresses or tries to smear the notion that it's bad for you, however it doesn't address the fact that you are being forcibly medicated which I was always led to believe was a violation of my human rights. However then I come across a former journalist who was so intrigued over this question that he investigated it at length and came out with a book and documentary called the fluoride deception which uncovers that there have been hundreds of studies which were ignored, studies which were carried out by leading universities

So at which point the counter argument is "science is not an art" and indeed it's not, so why have so many studies been ignored? the studies concluded that it severely damages iq, calcifies organs, fucks up the metabolism and yet officially "it's a fringe" so with respected figures voicing such deep concerns, I then ask, who benefits from this? there is no financial benefit for the many studies which have been shunned, there is certainly a benefit if you want to dumb down the populous, certainly a benefit if you want to damage people's health to keep them dependent on drugs and or kill them off.

Where is the empirical evidence for that? Obama's chief science advisor mulling the various ways in which the population could be controlled by poisoning the water to sterilise people. Where is the link to big pharma? as we know that if we take congress for instance for every 1 congressman there are 5 lobbyists, if I am part of that clique and I am a cold blooded bastard I want to deterioriate people's health to further my own goals. Where is the empirical evidence to suggest that they are cold blooded bastards? apart from the colossal multi billion dollar fines they cough up for malpractice, for bringing drugs out on the market, knowingly bringing drugs out the market which were extremely dangerous and then finding out the drug regulator has a verrrrry nice cosey relationship with the oligopoly.

Looking at issues like the "unforseen financial crisis" sold as unforseen, only you realise that the ones who did send out warnings were castigated, intimidated and forced from their jobs Brooksley Born for instance. When on camera she is asked what Alan Greenspan said to her (that is when she went up against Robert Rubin) and the scum from Wall Street she looks visibly haunted and refuses to say. Greenspan we learn told her that her job was not to prosecute fraud, that the "free market" would sort it out. He told her a head regulator that her job was not to regulate, essentially that she was not meant to do her job she was meant to sit idly by while they looted with impunity.

Who can forget Hank Paulson? his intimate ties to Wall Street, the tens of millions in parachute payments, the head of AIG in London who despite having crippled the company with a "debt" (an insurance payout) of 500 billion, he receives a 315 million severance package. Likewise the same at other leading banks, the bailouts are given and bonuses soar through the roof. At this point discernment comes in again and you say to yourself hmmmm no conditions for how this was money was to be used? no oversight on where this money was going? one could be led to deduce that that it's actually a reward for services rendered, that the entire goal is the destruction of the Bretton Woods financial system.

Of course a lot of people don't want to hear things like that, so they dismiss it as you know "greedy bankers" "incompetent government". Not wanting to critically assess the makeup of the government, who was it that called that made the agreement, what are there ties to these institutions, what it was being agreed, and let's suppose they are incompetent, bear in mind they have teams of legal advisors too. No, there is nothing stupid about them and the only reason that people repeat that nonsense is because it's more reassuring than contemplating what evil psychopaths we are really dealing with.

I would continue but I have some work to finish off, I am sure I will probably continue later.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2012, 03:30:50 PM by virtuoso »
 

The Overfiend

  • 'G'
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 139
  • Karma: 4
Re: So what do you see as reliable information?
« Reply #3 on: November 22, 2012, 12:35:42 AM »
I hardly believe anything.

For instance, I think that there are so many reports of such strange things like UFOs, aliens, ghosts, etc by so many various unconnected people across time I don't dismiss such stuff.

For the scientist though, that isn't enough, they want 'facts' if they are going to take anything like that seriously.

But what scientists seem to forget themselves is that science is incredibly limited. Science doesn't know how gravity works, its this mysterious force that operates throughout the universe that they don't know how, and dark matter which actually makes up most of the universe, and even reality and time itself. Physics reaches the point where it can only keep going with theory. String-theory says that multiple concurrent dimensions of reality are quite normal. So science is actually on my side and ghosts, aliens, ufos, etc are all quite plausible and to be expected. But scientist are a peer driven lot.

I know Stephen Hawking said he doubts the government would be able to cover-up alien contact like the conspiracy theorists believe, because if they are "then they are doing a better job at it than they have ever done with anything else", so he doesn't take alien UFO reports seriously.

People tend to think they know everything, scientists included. First of all, Hawking is an astrophysicist, not a historian or a political science professor. But even then, I've heard my political science university professors say similar things like ' 9/11 couldn't have been a false flag operation, nobody could've covered it up, somebody would have talked'.

I'm a lawyer now myself, and the approach to knowledge is different. Basically its 'You can't trust anybody, so don't trust anybody and remember the golden rule: cover your ass'. Any lawyer or intell person will tell you that the government can do a brilliant job of covering up things for decades without it ever being leaked. The recent movies 'Argo' and the Australian film 'Snowtown' for example (both films portray events that were kept classified for decades). It happens all the time, things get declassified after decades all the time and its nothing new. A report gets filed, only a few people read it, then it gets locked in a safe for a few years. Its not hard, its easier than people think.

I think its quite plausible that flouride in drinking water is working subliminally to make us all dumb in a particular way. I don't dismiss it. I brush my fuckin teeth with toothpaste, so why the fuck do I need it added to my drinking water all the fuckin time? A heap of scientists accept the idea, then the rest fall in line with their peers. Good thing about lawyers is that they are constantly arguing with each other and supposed to be independent of everybody except the court.

I hardly believe anything.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2012, 12:42:18 AM by The Overfiend »
 

virtuoso

  • Shot Caller
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3048
  • Karma: 332
Re: So what do you see as reliable information?
« Reply #4 on: November 22, 2012, 03:01:28 PM »

Good to know, you made it as a lawyer :), so you a lawyer, me an analyst.
So on that note to mdogg (since you will know more about it than me) please can you elaborate on the confidentiality agreements which are common place and STOP a lot of information from ever seeping out.

On that note.....too, if you ever wonder why "things don't change for the better" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invention_Secrecy_Act.

I read about that act in a fictional story about a guy who gets imprisoned after trying to sell a new super battery out onto the open market. He is blocked from doing so, appeals, is told his invention could harm national security and is told that you will be offered compensation IF you never disclose this in the public domain and if you break this ruling you will be jailed for 20 years.

As for you commenting on fluoride.....it was an australian news programme, which really took it to task, explaining that YES there is fluoride in your bodu, but that the fluoride found in drinking water etc is sodium fluoride which is essentially derived from fertilisers.
 

BiggBoogaBiff

  • Guest
Re: So what do you see as reliable information?
« Reply #5 on: November 23, 2012, 06:52:58 AM »
Reliable information for me comes from Everywhere.  Alotta people get it fucked up becuz Information usually comes with no Context or it comes with pure Spin or at the very least People who get it but dont quite understand it. 
 

The Overfiend

  • 'G'
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 139
  • Karma: 4
Re: So what do you see as reliable information?
« Reply #6 on: November 23, 2012, 07:15:39 AM »

Good to know, you made it as a lawyer :), so you a lawyer, me an analyst.
So on that note to mdogg (since you will know more about it than me) please can you elaborate on the confidentiality agreements which are common place and STOP a lot of information from ever seeping out.

On that note.....too, if you ever wonder why "things don't change for the better" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invention_Secrecy_Act.

I read about that act in a fictional story about a guy who gets imprisoned after trying to sell a new super battery out onto the open market. He is blocked from doing so, appeals, is told his invention could harm national security and is told that you will be offered compensation IF you never disclose this in the public domain and if you break this ruling you will be jailed for 20 years.

As for you commenting on fluoride.....it was an australian news programme, which really took it to task, explaining that YES there is fluoride in your bodu, but that the fluoride found in drinking water etc is sodium fluoride which is essentially derived from fertilisers.

Yep, I'm a lawyer now. Analyst, eh? Nice. Prestigious  moves. Wouldn't say I've made it yet, though. TOT will know when I've made it from the coked out posts sending shout outs to Satan and Arthur  Schopenhauer.

As for the US IP/inventions confidentiality stuff, you're as good an authority as me right now. I haven't read anything about that.  
« Last Edit: November 23, 2012, 08:03:34 AM by The Overfiend »