|
Popular Thug Drink posted:there's no conspiracy to explain conspiracy theories There is the one about some government agencies like the CIA encouraging certain conspiracies as a smoke screen for other activities. If I remember correctly, that one has been admitted to in a few cases.
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2015 02:05
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 11:56 |
|
|
I had something of a conspiracy theorist thing going on for a while as I was voracious reader and watching stuff like the X-files and all those screwed up History channel style documentaries got me into books on similar stuff. I never listened to any of the radio shows at the time, but I read and took in a lot of the more grounded stuff, you know the JFK assassination, 9/11Truth, Holy Blood/ Holy Grail, Area 51, The Gulf of Tonkin false flag, religion as recycled opiate of the masses, stuff like that. But I was still a voracious reader, and though I got to the debunking books late, I did get to them, and it read smarter and more consistently than all the conspiracy stuff. So, I changed my mind. Still feel embarrassed about some of the conversations I had when I was still into that stuff. It fulfills that curiosity, that want to learn more about the world, and if all you have on these subjects is the story told in high school mixed with a heavy reader's understanding that it isn't the whole story, you can easily get sucked into this stuff, especially given the right books and confident sounding narrators in documentaries. When I read "Holy Blood Holy Grail", I was still really into this stuff, by the time I read it's sequel, "The Messianic Legacy", I was just doing it for the sake of completeness and entertainment.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2015 06:28
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:
Unfortunately, All that will do is feed into the paranoia and persecution complex that sells this poo poo. "Look at how far the government is in the pockets of the pharmaceutical companies, now they are trying to stop you from getting the natural help you need." remusclaw fucked around with this message at 05:27 on Nov 21, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2015 05:15
|
|
|
What they should be forced to do is list the values of the whole of the container rather than that of the individual servings. Listing both would be fine, but they really should have to list the whole calorie count of a bag of chips when we all know your average customer is eating the whole god drat bag.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Coincidentally, the serving size of a coke is one can, according to the nutrition label. For that matter, most of what I eat has pretty realistic serving sizes printed on them (I don't eat pop-tarts I guess) You interested me enough to look up the serving size of 2 liter bottles, and they don't match up with the cans. The bottles say 100 cal per serving with 8 servings and the cans say 140 at 1 with 1 serving. Interesting that they feel can is too much for you yet is do not list the can as more than one serving. Fake edit: And now I find bottles saying 140 a serving with 6 servings which makes more sense, so obviously I am getting my info from different times or places. I quit soda years ago so have none on hand for a modern look.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2015 03:42
|
|
|
Thing is though, the serving sizes issue is not a conspiracy, it's the groups concerned, legally lobbying, maneuvering, and politicking to keep the rules favorable to them. If there is an issue with sugar separate from carbs the conspiracy would not be in obfuscating the daily value of sugar as separated from carbs on the packaging, it would be in some kind of dedicated campaign to keep the negative health effects from being public, like what the cigarette companies did for so long. Is there a dedicated sugar is good for you campaign?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 11:56 |
|
|
Nothing ruins a good conspiracy theory as much as actual proof of conspiracy.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2018 13:52
|
|