The difference is that you're using evidence to arrive at a conclusion, rather than having a conclusion and trying to find the reasoning behind it.
There isn't anything wrong with that, of course, but it requires a different mode of thinking.
Saying that "I don't understand why the US is allied with Israel" isn't really relevant, because it's concrete and verifiable fact that the US is allied with Israel. It is not, however, concrete fact that the global elite are using HAARP-like instruments to kill off large portions of the population, so you'd need to build a rather strong case for it in order to be taken seriously.
I'm also not sure if I really believe that the global elite think homogeneously. That link you just posted makes a lot of powerful claims, but doesn't really prove any of them - for example, if "biotech companies" are trying to develop corn that makes people sterile secretly, how does Leuren Moret know about it? How does Mexican corn being genetically modified (not that that's a good thing, just bear with me) prove that it's sterilizing? Also, why would the University of California Berkeley, one of the most liberal establishments in the country, be in kahoots with the global biotech industry? It quotes Henry Kissinger a lot, but Kissinger hasn't really had any political power since 'Nam. The article then goes on and on about what they call "Bio-Weapons Level 4 facility" - this is just blatant fearmongering, as such facilities already exist (the biggest one is USAMRIID, probably most well known for its involvement in the Ebola Reston scandal). Also, what the fuck is an "ethnic-specific bio-weapon"? That violates common logic. The article claims that an "excellent example" of population control policies is the use of depleted uranium in the middle east - you know, ignoring the fact that depleted uranium is about as harmful as lead, and has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to have real benefits in the penetration capabilities of a bullet. In fact, it's actually safer then a pure lead bullet, because if enough of those end up in your river basin, suddenly everyone who lives in that town gets brain cancer a decade later (this actually happened a lot pre-WWII, because they hadn't yet figured out that drinking lead causes problems). Finally, their sources are pretty shitty; one of them was written by the same author (why the fuck would you source yourself), and the two other ones are dead links.
So, yes, it's important to find a motive when determining something like this. People don't do things for no reason. There is no benefit to be gained by killing large amounts of working people, and there's a LOT of reasons why you'd want the opposite to happen.
view the rest of the comments →
Gamerdog6482 ago
The difference is that you're using evidence to arrive at a conclusion, rather than having a conclusion and trying to find the reasoning behind it.
There isn't anything wrong with that, of course, but it requires a different mode of thinking.
Saying that "I don't understand why the US is allied with Israel" isn't really relevant, because it's concrete and verifiable fact that the US is allied with Israel. It is not, however, concrete fact that the global elite are using HAARP-like instruments to kill off large portions of the population, so you'd need to build a rather strong case for it in order to be taken seriously.
I'm also not sure if I really believe that the global elite think homogeneously. That link you just posted makes a lot of powerful claims, but doesn't really prove any of them - for example, if "biotech companies" are trying to develop corn that makes people sterile secretly, how does Leuren Moret know about it? How does Mexican corn being genetically modified (not that that's a good thing, just bear with me) prove that it's sterilizing? Also, why would the University of California Berkeley, one of the most liberal establishments in the country, be in kahoots with the global biotech industry? It quotes Henry Kissinger a lot, but Kissinger hasn't really had any political power since 'Nam. The article then goes on and on about what they call "Bio-Weapons Level 4 facility" - this is just blatant fearmongering, as such facilities already exist (the biggest one is USAMRIID, probably most well known for its involvement in the Ebola Reston scandal). Also, what the fuck is an "ethnic-specific bio-weapon"? That violates common logic. The article claims that an "excellent example" of population control policies is the use of depleted uranium in the middle east - you know, ignoring the fact that depleted uranium is about as harmful as lead, and has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to have real benefits in the penetration capabilities of a bullet. In fact, it's actually safer then a pure lead bullet, because if enough of those end up in your river basin, suddenly everyone who lives in that town gets brain cancer a decade later (this actually happened a lot pre-WWII, because they hadn't yet figured out that drinking lead causes problems). Finally, their sources are pretty shitty; one of them was written by the same author (why the fuck would you source yourself), and the two other ones are dead links.
So, yes, it's important to find a motive when determining something like this. People don't do things for no reason. There is no benefit to be gained by killing large amounts of working people, and there's a LOT of reasons why you'd want the opposite to happen.