Conspiracy theorist Kevin Purfield arrested for harassing Aurora victims' families

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
If ever there was proof that the conspiracy theorists are right... you 'paranoid debunkers' are it. Living proof. You should look at yourselves seriously.

'Oh what if someone does this or what if someone says that', ' according to you lot, just because you are on medication, everyone must be force medicated in the water, supervised, inquisitioned, inspected and taken out of circulation 'in case they do something'. Tanks on every corner and drones and riot police every few yards... but not to worry, you got loads of money to fund it all, those nice bankers will make sure there is enough for that.

What are you proposing next, castration for all males 'in case they rape someone'. You would all apparently love a world where everyone is drugged, chipped, surveilled and 'helped' by being dragged off the streets at the slightest infraction of 'normality'.

You claim to debunk to stop people from being frightened by bunk and then push for the very things that conspiracy theorists are saying is already happening.

Well you can edit away on the grounds of 'politeness' if you will but I find you people the very epitome of what conspiracy theorists are complaining about.

You may be allegedly 'frightened', (lol F4 jock, flying around dealing death is frightened by a facebook page), but your brave new world is what should be frightening the shit out of normal people and yes they should rise up against it if it comes to that.

Keep taking the pills.

Nice rant. Been saving that up for a while?
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.

Attachments

  • funniesthinginthewordl.jpg
    funniesthinginthewordl.jpg
    99.1 KB · Views: 310

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
I think I understand - conspiracy ideas are your pastime, as videogames (+ laziness, isolation and bitterness) are mine, hence you are sensitive to suggestions your pastime is dangerous in any way.
Did you subscribe to the theories around the Aurora shooting?
I never got the impression you did, so maybe this is just an ethical stance. I salute your spirit, but I think it's fervour applied to this case is a little misguided or heavy-handed.
Maybe you're right.


...
Because it raises questions on the effects of conspiracy theories on the mentally ill. Did the conspiracy theories cause him to harass people? Could anything have been done about it?
and now we get to the really good stuff. Conspiracy theories might have an insidious influence on the mentally ill. What can we do about it...? I'm curious after any suggestions.

Do you disagree with this? To me it seems a relatively uncontroversial statement.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
I think I understand - conspiracy ideas are your pastime, as videogames are mine, hence you are sensitive to suggestions your pastime is dangerous in any way.
No. I'm sensitive to the stigma attached to mental illness, and I don't like seeing that stigma promoted, not to mention a person singled out for that purpose. That he's a CT'er, and that this thread is seemingly all about marrying that stigma to Conspiracy Theorists in general, is somewhat beside the point for me. It's insulting to a very limited extent, but then I'm no stranger to having my mental health questioned rather more directly on this forum.
Did you subscribe to the theories around the Aurora shooting?
no.
I salute your spirit, but I think it's fervour applied to this case is a little misguided or heavy-handed.
I've only stated I find this thread offensive, and explained why.


Do you disagree with this? To me it seems a relatively uncontroversial statement.
I disagree with the notion conspiracy theories 'caused' him to do what he did. They were certainly a determining factor, but they were no more the 'cause' of his actions than celebrities are the the 'cause' of the people who develop unhealthy obsessions with them, or J.D Salinger was the 'cause' of John Lennon's death. What I wonder about is what one would propose to do about these 'potentially dangerous' conspiracy theories that wouldn't start sounding rather creepy rather quickly.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
...What I wonder about is what one would propose to do about these 'potentially dangerous' conspiracy theories that wouldn't start sounding rather creepy rather quickly.

I never imagine anything other than skilfully engaging any individual's ability to rationally investigate and learn for oneself, and the joy and confidence that gives. i.e., education.
Sure, if you say it as 're-education' it sounds sinister.

(also, a slight edit to my above that you responded to, but not of much consequence other than self-deprecation.)
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
When that Norwegian piece of shit who murdered the 70+ kids said World of Warcraft was his training vehicle, which allowed him assume the necessary mindset, did anyone in their right minds blame the game?

Perhaps they should have. I've never seen that game, but someone posted a clip from a game on FB where the object was to storm an airport lobby with automatic weapons and shoot down as many innocent people as possible. I really don't understand the point of some games.

Take Christ for example. In some circles, he's the man in who's name hot meals are gifted to the poor. In others, he's the man in who's name bombs are dropped on cities brimming with innocents.

Are you thinking of God/Allah? Because I don't know of any people who drop bombs (or crash planes into buildings?) in Christ's name.''

The root of it. "He's crazy. He's a CT'er. Thus, CT'ers are more likely to be crazy folk. And crazy folk are crazy." That's been the whole object of this thread, with a bit of tap-dancing around it. At least you came right out and said it.

I know you're paraphrasing, since no one said "he's crazy". It's a fact Grieves, no matter how close to home it hits: he has a mental illness and conspiracy theories were involved in his actions. Would you agree that some degrees of mental illnesses are more dangerous than others. Mental illness + conspiracy theory is not a good recipe.

What can we do about it...? I'm curious after any suggestions.

A health care system that treats mental illness as the disease that it is would help. Unfortunately, as a friend of mine who was a psychiatrist told me when he switched jobs, the field is very frustrating as it has a low level of compliance. And I saw it personally when someone I knew would go off his meds because his illness told him he "didn't need them any more".
 

Grieves

Senior Member
but someone posted a clip from a game on FB where the object was to storm an airport lobby with automatic weapons and shoot down as many innocent people as possible. I really don't understand the point of some games.
I believe that was either part of the Tom Clancy or the Call Of Duty series of video-games, of which there have been several dozen by now all together, and in the last decade have mostly revolved around killing many, many terrorists... though sometimes involve 'fictional' future conflicts with other countries as well. A whole lot of these games feature the CIA as the protagonist force, and are most certainly a mechanism through which war is glorified and normalized. World of Warcraft, though embracing this concept of war-as-norm as many video-games do, is a relatively cheesy, plotless romp through a cartoony world slaying monsters, demons and enemies all in an endless quest for 'leet gear', basically amounting to a rather complex dress-up game. Both these sorts of games have some insidious elements. One is evident propaganda, the other is a shameless time-sink finding ever more clever ways to keep people playing as long as possible. That doesn't mean they 'cause' school shootings, any more than Marylin Manson videos or the devil's Rock'n'Roll.

Are you thinking of God/Allah? Because I don't know of any people who drop bombs (or crash planes into buildings?) in Christ's name.''

Skip to 14:00 if you don't want to watch the whole thing, but it's a VERY interesting little doc. In any event, this guy's rhetoric isn't at all unique. I think there are several quotes of then President Bush making similar comments.

I know you're paraphrasing, since no one said "he's crazy". It's a fact Grieves, no matter how close to home it hits: he has a mental illness and conspiracy theories were involved in his actions. Would you agree that some degrees of mental illnesses are more dangerous than others. Mental illness + conspiracy theory is not a good recipe.
but then I'm no stranger to having my mental health questioned rather more directly on this forum.
See what I mean? :p
Tell me JR, in which'recipe' is mental illness a good 'ingredient'? What you just said could be said about almost anything under the sun. Mental illness + heavy machinery isn't 'a good recipe'. Does every operator of such equipment with a mental illness not deserve their job? Should every mentally ill young person who prefers Saturday night in front of a violent video-game to Saturday night at a bar have those video games taken away? Should every parent with a mental illness lose custody of their children? No? Then what exactly are we even talking about here?

A health care system that treats mental illness as the disease that it is would help.
Meaning what? Medicate and quarantine? I'd personally think a society that got over the hump of seeing the mentally ill as diseased would be far more helpful. Health care systems have classically treated mental illness as a disease, and it almost universally led to horrors most of us don't even want to think about. Trying to understand and accept the mentally ill for who they are and allowing them to take part in everyday society is a relatively recent trend in our culture, and is damn slow-going. You may not realize you're embracing a harmful stigma, but you are.

Unfortunately, as a friend of mine who was a psychiatrist told me when he switched jobs, the field is very frustrating as it has a low level of compliance. And I saw it personally when someone I knew would go off his meds because his illness told him he "didn't need them any more".
No doubt, it's hard to make a person do anything they don't want to do when they have the freedom to choose not to do it. My aunt is a diabetic, and a recent crushing series of related conditions have put her life at serious risk, but she continually refused to obey doctors orders, and that coupled with touch-and-go hospital care only increased her danger. The family eventually had to ask her to go to a nursing home, a thing which, once it was brought up, she was surprisingly at peace with. It's highly unfortunate my aunt didn't follow the instructions of her physicians. That didn't give any of us the right to strap her down and force it on her. That your friend having the authority to do so to his patients might have alleviated his frustration and even benefited some of his patients doesn't change the fact that there's an extremely good reason he didn't have that authority.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Perhaps they should have. I've never seen that game, but someone posted a clip from a game on FB where the object was to storm an airport lobby with automatic weapons and shoot down as many innocent people as possible. I really don't understand the point of some games.

I believe that was either part of the Tom Clancy or the Call Of Duty series of video-games, of which there have been several dozen by now all together, and in the last few decades have mostly revolved around killing many, many terrorists... though sometimes involve 'fictional' future conflicts with other countries as well. A whole lot of these games feature the CIA as the protagonist force, and are most certainly a mechanism through which war is glorified and normalized. World of Warcraft, though embracing this concept of war-as-norm as many video-games do, is a relatively cheesy, plotless romp through a cartoony world slaying monsters, demons and enemies all in an endless quest for 'leet gear', basically amounting to a rather complex dress-up game. Both these sorts of games have some insidious elements. One is evident propaganda, the other is a shameless time-sink finding ever more clever ways to keep people playing as long as possible. That doesn't mean they 'cause' school shootings, any more than Marylin Manson videos or the devil's Rock'n'Roll.

It was Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. The point was that you were in "deep cover" as a terrorist. You did not have to shoot anyone, but you could if you wanted to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_Call_of_Duty:_Modern_Warfare_2
My old company, Neversoft, works on COD games now.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
My old company, Neversoft, works on COD games now.
I've never been a fan of this series and those like it, not so much because I find the semi real-world scenarios distasteful (which I do), but more because I find the style of play dull and abrupt... not a whole lot of strategy involved in shooting the other guy in the face before he shoots you in the face. I wonder Mick, were you working there at any point while these games were in dev.? Are you aware of any coordination/consultation with the Pentagon in making them? I've heard some rumors about their media-outreach programs having a somewhat heavy hand in CoD.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I've never been a fan of this series and those like it, not so much because I find the semi real-world scenarios distasteful (which I do), but more because I find the style of play dull and abrupt... not a whole lot of strategy involved in shooting the other guy in the face before he shoots you in the face. I wonder Mick, were you working there at any point while these games were in dev.? Are you aware of any coordination/consultation with the Pentagon in making them? I've heard some rumors about their media-outreach programs having a somewhat heavy hand in CoD.

No, I left well before they started on CoD. I've not heard of any military involvement though. I'd not be too surprised it it was at the very least offered - the Pentagon PR department likes to paint things in a good light. Seems more common in movies though.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
Grieves, it seems to me that you are taking this discussion very personally.

Obviously this is a free country and everyone is free to take or not take their medication if they choose. You seem offended that people are singled out as maybe being dangerous to others they stalk others, or because of their paranoia think they are being stalked, or they think planes should be shot down cause they think the planes are spraying them with chemicals, or become so obsessed with nutty conspiracy theories like the Sandy Hook Hoax theories, that they harass the families. It seems OK with you that they do that, but pointing out that these people might be dangerous is NOT ok with you. Have I got that right?
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
I don't think that conspiracy theories are good for people with mental illness. Those people need to stick with real things and stay away from too much fantasy.

CT aren't very good for people with less than a full grasp on reality, those who are specially gullible, or who don't have the critical thinking skills to understand
the fallacies.

I was lookin around the other day and ran across this person who found that his mental problems were made worse by CT's, it took him years to get over it.
http://www.psychforums.com/bipolar/topic110931.html

Don't forget this sad set of pages:
http://www.wellsphere.com/schizophr...iracy-theories-a-sign-of-schizophrenia/897991
 

RolandD

Active Member
Actually, bringing up Salinger/Lennon and Norway/WoW are misleading and not really relevant. Catcher in the Rye and World of Warcraft might have influenced them into acting out, but it didn't give them a target. Conspiracy Theories not only inspire acts, but provide targets to act out against.

If you can't see the difference between reading Catcher in the Rye, and killing John Lennon to impress Jodie Foster, and bringing down an airplane with a laser pointer because you 'believe' chemtrails are making you sick, then you are probably too far down the rabbit hole already.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
The comments on the second link is interesting and one person posted a link to research study that showed a link between heavy pot smoking and brain changes that could increase paranoia.

I would like to see more proof of that. It is interesting.

We have noted that many of the 'activists' and CTs about the oil spill, seem to be VERY pro hemp and some are admitted pot smokers.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Grieves, it seems to me that you are taking this discussion very personally.

Obviously this is a free country and everyone is free to take or not take their medication if they choose.
Not if they put it in the water or if they are force medicated and then cannot get off it or damage is done. There seems substantial support and defense on this forum for this type of compulsion, in particular Cairenn. See Mark Taylor conspiracy thread.
You seem offended that people are singled out as maybe being dangerous to others they stalk others, or because of their paranoia think they are being stalked, or they think planes should be shot down cause they think the planes are spraying them with chemicals, or become so obsessed with nutty conspiracy theories like the Sandy Hook Hoax theories, that they harass the families. It seems OK with you that they do that, but pointing out that these people might be dangerous is NOT ok with you. Have I got that right?

Personally, I object to the none too subtle inference in previous posts that being a conspiracy theorist is a sign of mental illness and therefore they need to be medicated or evaluated. Perhaps there are some studies which underpin this?

Not wishing to appear paranoid but there does appear to be infant steps in attempting to 'gag' conspiracy theorists in the same way that holocaust revisionists have been largely gagged.

It is quite simple, if someone breaks the law of the land they should be treated under the law as an individual with all the appropriate checks and balances used. Simply because someone is a mentally ill or guilty of a criminal action, there individual actions should not be extrapolated to cover others, (who have similar interests), who are not the same.

It seems to me that animal rights activists are a reasonable simile. The majority fall into the camps of either having legitimate, vocal, moral objections, some are politically active to varying degrees but a small minority take the law into their own hands. They cannot all be 'lumped together'.

Also some debunkers are not entirely devoid of some responsibility either because they quite often suggest conspiracy theorists should talk to 'relevantly involved people', to get their facts straight.
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
Not wishing to appear paranoid but there does appear to be infant steps in attempting to 'gag' conspiracy theorists in the same way that holocaust revisionists have been largely gagged.

Anyone who denies the holocaust does not belong in polite society. While I don't support the European tendency to outlaw speech, if one of my friends denied the holocaust they would cease to be my friend. If I were at a table and this was said I would leave with disgust.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Anyone who denies the holocaust does not belong in polite society. While I don't support the European tendency to outlaw speech, if one of my friends denied the holocaust they would cease to be my friend. If I were at a table and this was said I would leave with disgust.

There should not be any taboo subjects at all. If there is no merit in claims that it was exaggerated for political reasons, let it be discussed openly instead of locking people up for questioning history.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
I would like you to POINT where me or ANY one else here has EVER advocated putting Psycho active drugs in the water or food supply.

WE HAVEN'T. The fact that you seem to THINK we have is wrong and it does not reflect well on you.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
I never imagine anything other than skilfully engaging any individual's ability to rationally investigate and learn for oneself, and the joy and confidence that gives. i.e., education.
Sure, if you say it as 're-education' it sounds sinister.
I'm all for that, but if this thread is meant to say anything more than 'Look! This CTer is a loon!', I don't think that's it.

Grieves, it seems to me that you are taking this discussion very personally.
You're insistent on the notion I'm speaking in defense of myself. This isn't the case. You've got to get over that preconception and the assumptions you're drawing from it if you're going to see my point.

It seems OK with you that they do that, but pointing out that these people might be dangerous is NOT ok with you. Have I got that right?
No. As I repeatedly stated, law enforcement was well in its right to act as a buffer between this man and the people he intended to harass. If he pushed the issue, they'd be well within their right to take him into custody, even hospitalize/institutionalize him if it was found to be absolutely necessary by (hopefully) a court of law. Obviously, if someone's immersion in conspiracy theories becomes a source of unhealthy obsession leading to an inclination for harassment/assault, they should be prevented, where possible, from harassing or assaulting people. Just as if someone's immersion in celebrity/pop culture becomes a source of unhealthy obsession leading to an inclination for harassment/assault, they should be prevented, where possible, from harassing or assaulting people. It still makes absolutely no solid sense to blame celebrity/pop culture for that unhealthy obsession, just as it makes absolutely no solid sense to blame conspiracy theories for that unhealthy obsession. Sure, both are contributing factors. Sure, both are cultural influences which could debatably be said to hold a great deal of sway over people, but that has absolutely nothing to do with how an individual reacts to those influences.

I was lookin around the other day and ran across this person who found that his mental problems were made worse by CT's, it took him years to get over it.
That his symptoms first manifested within the anxiety he experienced while researching conspiracy theories doesn't put conspiracy theories in the blame for his mental illness. Kudos to him for seemingly overcoming, or at least learning to manage his condition.

I don't think that conspiracy theories are good for people with mental illness. Those people need to stick with real things and stay away from too much fantasy.
Who exactly are 'those people'? Something like one in four Americans, isn't it? One in four Americans need to stick with real things and stay away from fantasy? Seems a bleak notion.
CT aren't very good for people with less than a full grasp on reality, those who are specially gullible, or who don't have the critical thinking skills to understand
the fallacies.
and so? In what capacity and to what extent should we limit the access the mentally ill have to information? Who judges what constitutes a 'less than full grasp on reality'? Who determines whether a person has the critical thinking skills necessary to read a conspiracy theory and not do something crazy? Should we compile a database of every citizen who is or might be mentally ill? Work in concert with ISP's to limit the internet access of individuals on this list? Instead of 'Parental Controls', we could call them 'cognitive capacity controls', filtering out anything that might incite a little too much abstract thought. Sounds like a pretty stupid, crazy, oppressive idea to me... but then of course that's not the sort of thing anyone on this forum is suggesting, is it?

If not, I again ask, What are we even talking about here? What IS being suggested? What SHOULD be done about these wild conspiracy theories, and those who compose them? If no one's got an answer, what's the purpose of this thread beside singling out a mentally ill person and criticizing his less than pleasant life as some kind of 'example'?

I would like you to POINT where me or ANY one else here has EVER advocated putting Psycho active drugs in the water or food supply.

WE HAVEN'T. The fact that you seem to THINK we have is wrong and it does not reflect well on you.
I never suggested any of you had said any such thing at any point. I actually stated that, as far as I recalled, you thought such an idea was ludicrous. I simply pointed out, as something of an aside, that neither one of us were aware at the time of that discussion, when I made that comment about Lithium in the water, that Fox News had essentially served as an advocate for that very idea as early as 2009. Do you understand the problem with statements like "The fact that you seem to THINK"?

Conspiracy Theories not only inspire acts, but provide targets to act out against.
Celebrity culture doesn't?
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
There should not be any taboo subjects at all. If there is no merit in claims that it was exaggerated for political reasons, let it be discussed openly instead of locking people up for questioning history.

There should be taboo subjects. The tagging of a particular race as inferior (usually to whites), the use of epithets both racial and gender should be taboo. Their proponents shouldn't be locked up but I will not suffer my existence by engaging with them. If that includes you so be it.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
There should be taboo subjects. The tagging of a particular race as inferior (usually to whites), the use of epithets both racial and gender should be taboo. Their proponents shouldn't be locked up but I will not suffer my existence by engaging with them. If that includes you so be it.

I actually like and respect what you are saying here but I still have to disagree in part.

I think you are misunderstanding what I said for some type of racism. It isn't.

It is law, and a law that I fully support, that racially inflammatory language such as calling people racially derogatory names or inciting race hate are illegal. Ergo, that is defacto taboo and people have been rightly punished for that, some with imprisonment. But it is not taboo to discuss race relations or strengths and weaknesses of a race or the history of a race or even the rights and wrongs of a 'nation's actions' at a certain time etc. Eg, The U.S in invading Iraq or Britain in it's imperialistic actions. To extrapolate those things into race hate would be wrong.

I fully respect your right not to engage in a discussion which offends you but some people are forced to engage in discussions which offend because they feel strongly that an argument needs to be repudiated and not ignored. Some people find it offensive that conspiracy theories are espoused about 9/11 etc and are well within their rights not to engage in discussing it. But it would be wrong (I think), if someone were to come on this site or similar, click on the conspiracy section and demand people stop espousing their theories under penalty of imprisonment.

Conversely, it would be wrong to press the conspiracy theory, (in a different arena) on someone who had made it plain they did not wish to discuss it. That would clearly be harassment which is what it appears to me, Kevin Purfield has been guilty of by seeking people out and expressing his views to those people who have made it clear they do not want anything to do with him.

Hopefully, I have clarified my position and I am pleased to note that you agree that proponents of a contentious issue should not 'under normal circumstance', be locked up.
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
I actually like and respect what you are saying here but I still have to disagree in part.

I think you are misunderstanding what I said for some type of racism. It isn't.

It is law, and a law that I fully support, that racially inflammatory language such as calling people racially derogatory names or inciting race hate are illegal. Ergo, that is defacto taboo and people have been rightly punished for that, some with imprisonment. But it is not taboo to discuss race relations or strengths and weaknesses of a race or the history of a race or even the rights and wrongs of a 'nation's actions' at a certain time etc. Eg, The U.S in invading Iraq or Britain in it's imperialistic actions. To extrapolate those things into race hate would be wrong.

I fully respect your right not to engage in a discussion which offends you but some people are forced to engage in discussions which offend because they feel strongly that an argument needs to be repudiated and not ignored. Some people find it offensive that conspiracy theories are espoused about 9/11 etc and are well within their rights not to engage in discussing it. But it would be wrong (I think), if someone were to come on this site or similar, click on the conspiracy section and demand people stop espousing their theories under penalty of imprisonment.

Conversely, it would be wrong to press the conspiracy theory, (in a different arena) on someone who had made it plain they did not wish to discuss it. That would clearly be harassment which is what it appears to me, Kevin Purfield has been guilty of by seeking people out and expressing his views to those people who have made it clear they do not want anything to do with him.

Hopefully, I have clarified my position and I am pleased to note that you agree that proponents of a contentious issue should not 'under normal circumstance', be locked up.

I do not equate debating 9/11 theories with holocaust denial. The latter is far worse than the former and I would ask Mick to remove the thread if one was started. If he didn't do it I would respect his decision but I would not participate. Holocaust denial is equivalent to antisemitism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial#Holocaust_denial_and_antisemitism

 

JRBids

Senior Member.
The comments on the second link is interesting and one person posted a link to research study that showed a link between heavy pot smoking and brain changes that could increase paranoia.

I would like to see more proof of that. It is interesting.

We have noted that many of the 'activists' and CTs about the oil spill, seem to be VERY pro hemp and some are admitted pot smokers.


I noticed that too, but I just chalk it up to the fact that many are old hippies, LOL! My friends and I were all pot smokers and none of us turned out paranoid.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
The MMP on line game that I play and 'work' for (volunteer--with a NDA contract) is based in Germany. Things like player names and village names MUST obey German law. An the Americans don't like it.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
Not if they put it in the water or if they are force medicated and then cannot get off it or damage is done. There seems substantial support and defense on this forum for this type of compulsion, in particular Cairenn.

I don't foresee anything being put in the water, it would medicate everyone, not just the people who need it.

Personally, I object to the none too subtle inference in previous posts that being a conspiracy theorist is a sign of mental illness

The inference is in your head. I have been going out of my way to explain that not every conspiracy theorist is mentally ill and don't think anyone has said that.


It is quite simple, if someone breaks the law of the land they should be treated under the law as an individual with all the appropriate checks and balances used. Simply because someone is a mentally ill or guilty of a criminal action, there individual actions should not be extrapolated to cover others, (who have similar interests), who are not the same.

Unfortunately that is all we can do. Wait till they kill people.

Also some debunkers are not entirely devoid of some responsibility either because they quite often suggest conspiracy theorists should talk to 'relevantly involved people', to get their facts straight.

I have no idea what a relevantly involved person is. Can you explain?
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
In the past, animal abuse by teens has often been dismissed as just 'bad behavior'. Now we are seeing that animal abuse, will often escalate in adulthood to hurting other people.

Not ALL teen animal abusers will, but some will. If the mental problems causing it can be treated, then there is a chance that they will not go ahead and do more serious crimes.

I need to find the talk I heard recently about brain scans of psychopaths or Sociopaths. I think it was a TED talk. The researcher was discussing the fact that he discovered that he had a brain scan that showed those tendencies.
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
Well folks, this man is just a plain ordinary sociopath, who is in fact quite well organized. When he starts ranting about the moon stuff, it's a ploy to hide behind.

So maybe he should just 'TELEPORT' out of the pokey :).
 

Grieves

Senior Member
I don't foresee anything being put in the water, it would medicate everyone, not just the people who need it.
Note that in the Fox News snippet, they keep repeating 'just like fluoride'. They're not wrong. It's the exact same premise, with the only difference(in theory) being an effect on the brain. I'm glad to see you arguing against forced medication, though.

Unfortunately that is all we can do. Wait till they kill people.
Yes... all you can do is wait....
The-Crazies-the-crazies-25463384-1600-1200.jpg

In the past, animal abuse by teens has often been dismissed as just 'bad behavior'. Now we are seeing that animal abuse, will often escalate in adulthood to hurting other people.
It's also largely against the law in most places now. Don't see what you're getting at here. Are conspiracy theories comparative to animal abuse?
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
First, what someone says on FOX has NOTHING to do with what I think or others here think. FOX often chooses folks for their far out views, so they can attract more viewers.

It is STUPID to compare it to fluoride, since most folks have teeth and most folks are NOT depressed. A straight anti depressive in a bi-polar person can trigger a manic episode.

The point I was making is that folks will often escalate their activities. The same is true of kids that set fires. Not ALL do, but some do and I was equating stalking more to animal abuse.

I thought that would be obvious, since we were discussing his stalking behavior.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
First, what someone says on FOX has NOTHING to do with what I think or others here think.
You thought the notion of Lithium in the water supply was ridiculous, something no one would consider. A major 'American' media outlet with millions of viewers suggested otherwise. I'm simply pointing that out.

It is STUPID to compare it to fluoride, since most folks have teeth and most folks are NOT depressed.
The comparison, frequently and correctly made in the news snippet, is that both would be administered for the purpose of medicating people and not water-treatment. Most folk have teeth. Most folk have brains. Most folk are not depressed, most folk don't need to ingest a topical tooth-whitener/decay deterrent. In one instance its OK to force the medication on people, because it (supposedly) only effects teeth.. in another instance its ridiculous to force the medication on people, because it would have an effect on the brain. That some studies suggest the former instance could very well have an effect on the brain, and that no truly conclusive study has EVER been conducted on the subject, is inconsequential to this?

The point I was making is that folks will often escalate their activities. The same is true of kids that set fires. Not ALL do, but some do and I was equating stalking more to animal abuse.
Alright.... but what does that have to do with the implication that conspiracy theories are somehow responsible for inciting the mentally ill to dangerous acts..? That's the topic of this thread, isn't it? When I asked what the topic actually was besides the judgmental critique of one ill man's behavior as a sort of 'example' of the average CT'er, that seemed to be the suggestion... or did I get it wrong?
I thought that would be obvious, since we were discussing his stalking behavior.
Again, for what purpose? Is there actually a grander point being made, or is it just "This guys a CTer, this guy is mentally ill, this guy did things that might make him dangerous, so CT'ers in general are probably mentally ill, and mentally ill people in general are probably dangerous".
I don't feel as strongly about the implication CT'ers are crazy, I'm used to that... but it really gets on my nerves to see people playing into the stigma of those 'dangerous' mentally ill, and what powder-kegs of mayhem they are, in order to make some convoluted point about CT's. The stigma is nonsense, and a forum devoted to separating the bunk from the facts should respect itself enough to recognize it as such.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Again, for what purpose? Is there actually a grander point being made, or is it just "This guys a CTer, this guy is mentally ill, this guy did things that might make him dangerous, so CT'ers in general are probably mentally ill, and mentally ill people in general are probably dangerous".

I don't feel as strongly about the implication CT'ers are crazy, I'm used to that... but it really gets on my nerves to see people playing into the stigma of those 'dangerous' mentally ill, and what powder-kegs of mayhem they are, in order to make some convoluted point about CT's. The stigma is nonsense, and a forum devoted to separating the bunk from the facts should respect itself enough to recognize it as such.

The point of discussing it is to learn more about it. It's a topic that I and other find interesting.

I think you are the only one here pushing the suggestion of all mentally ill people being dangerous (even though you are pushing against it).
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Did FOX suggest it? Or just allow an interview that did? NOT the same thing.

http://www.combatviolenceagainstwomen.org/stalking.html


His belief in CTs gave him a FOCUS for his stalking.
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
You thought the notion of Lithium in the water supply was ridiculous, something no one would consider. A major 'American' media outlet with millions of viewers suggested otherwise. I'm simply pointing that out.

If you are going point something out- please be accurate with the facts.

The report you refer and linked to was a LOCAL TV news station-a Fox affiliate in Minneapolis/St. Paul. It was a locally produced for the morning news show and viewed by thousands at most - not millions.

She (the Dr ) specifically said the Japanese researchers were not suggesting it- merely studying the correlation of low trace amounts if lithium already occurring in drinking water and low suicide rates.

Here is the actual paper:

http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/194/5/464.abstract
 

Grieves

Senior Member
I think you are the only one here pushing the suggestion of all mentally ill people being dangerous (even though you are pushing against it).
I don't think so. JR at least, though they may deny it, has pretty clearly exhibited they hold at least some stock in the stigma.

The point of discussing it is to learn more about it. It's a topic that I and other find interesting.

One more reason why debunking is a good thing. You are not going to stop ever incident like this, but by clearly debunking things we can at least hope to reduce it.
This was your initial post in the thread. Nothing wrong with it, aside from perhaps being in the wrong section, but a pretty simple sentiment requiring little elaboration, and featuring nothing but a link to a news article.
Then you posted his facebook page. Alright, whatever, lots of wild stuff on there you see some of on here, relatively pertinent... ok.
Then his videos start coming up. I didn't watch them. I got the general gist of what happened, I got the general gist of what Mick was trying to say, I don't need to watch this poor sob in his ramblings. Strikes me as tasteless. Still, whatever.
Then comments like this start coming with the videos,
He was detained on a medical hold while shopping for shoes? He never does say why they detained him. I wonder why?
Yeah, wonder why, eh...? Harhar. What's the point of this? I ask that very question. Your own response isn't unreasonable. Then there's this stuff.
Next we should cue the apologists so they can claim the psych eval violated his basic human rights.:rolleyes:
harhar, what a farce, authority figures violating the rights of the mentally ill? As if they don't deserve it...!
I find it interesting that we can't control guns, because the real problem is mental illness, but if we try to force help on those that are mentally ill, then it is some sort of a conspiracy/ mind control etc.
Mentally ill people = the REAL problem in society, not guns. How silly that we cant forcibly medicate them, to prevent them from behaving dangerously..!

Mr. Purfield not only has a history of mental problems dating back to his teenage years...he also has a history of harassment / stalking. Including a stay away he vioated in N.J. He lost parental rights to his only child and that daughter advertises "services" via the internet in the SF Bay area . This is not a poor guy just getting beat up on by the system.
No. It's a mentally ill man being dealt with by the system in the way the system is currently set up to deal with such people. Why the hell are we criticizing his life history, exactly? By what right are we making judgements about him on the basis of the loss of his child? Maybe deep down he's a nice guy, maybe through and through he's an insidious prick, but what purpose does sitting in judgement of him serve any conversation?
I guess it's good that people like this are broadcasting their illnesses to the world, but unfortunate that nothing can be done except to wait until they break the law.
Actually this possibility scares the hell out of me!
Those scary mentally Ill... one can only wait...! This sentiment gets a little more blatant, and perhaps a little more honest later on. But first...
Correct, conspiracy theories ATTRACT people who are paranoid, and many who are paranoid are mentally ill. They are no longer one here, one there, isolated, sitting in their rooms thinking dark thoughts.
The Paranoid and the Mentally Ill, sitting alone in their rooms, thinking dark thoughts. As opposed to, you know, going to work, spending time with friends family.., the stuff sane people do. No stigma here?
With the internet age these mentally ill paranoid people are able to connect with each other, and bolster each others' delusions. They are now a formidable front, egged on day after day until one cracks and does damage.
So mentally ill folk aren't your neighbors, mothers, brothers... they're a formidable front, like an army or something, taking 'orders' from conspiracy theorists until one of them snaps and hurts/kills someone. Nope. No stigma here.
So yes, we can "gawp" at them, which is harmless. With search engines they can find they are not alone, and rather than seek the help they need, their pathology is solidified and nourished. That makes them dangerous.
So the Mentally Ill are more likely to seek out conspiracy theories than they are to seek out help, making them dangerous. Mighty presumptuous, if not a clear example of the stigma in question.
You may not realize it, but this thread took a turn from your intent, and in a less than respectable direction. Failing to recognize the stigma only emphasizes its prevalence.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
So We don't treat the mentally ill, we let them run lose until they kill someone. We don't deny them guns, because that would be wrong.

Yes there is a STIGMA, but acting like ALL mental illness is the same is incorrect also. I believe that there are still diseases that one could be quarantined for.


http://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/AboutLawsRegulationsQuarantineIsolation.html


If you notice Infectious tuberculosis is on the list, but tuberculosis is NOT.

Mental illness needs to be treated like OTHER illnesses.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
So We don't treat the mentally ill, we let them run lose until they kill someone. We don't deny them guns, because that would be wrong.

Yes there is a STIGMA, but acting like ALL mental illness is the same is incorrect also. I believe that there are still diseases that one could be quarantined for.


http://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/AboutLawsRegulationsQuarantineIsolation.html


If you notice Infectious tuberculosis is on the list, but tuberculosis is NOT.

Mental illness needs to be treated like OTHER illnesses.

Thankfully, YOU are not in charge of running the world. How dangerous are YOU?
 

Grieves

Senior Member
So We don't treat the mentally ill, we let them run lose until they kill someone.
Proving my point, one post at a time.
We don't deny them guns, because that would be wrong.
I'm of the opinion MOST people should be 'denied' guns. Tools with the singular purpose of bringing rapid death shouldn't be readily available so far as I'm concerned.
Y
es there is a STIGMA, but acting like ALL mental illness is the same is incorrect also.
Yeah.... that's an aspect of the Stigma... treating or perceiving ALL mentally ill people as dangerous, or potentially dangerous. That some may well be is no excuse to label those who do as demonstrations of the likely actions and behaviors of others, nor should their treatment be a reflection of how those others should or deserve to be treated.

Mental illness needs to be treated like OTHER illnesses.
In many cases mental illnesses quite simply can't be treated like other illnesses... and in other cases shouldn't. PTSD is a pretty good example, and extremely prevalent among veterans. Some of the symptoms of PTSD can be treated by medication, but there's no pill nor treatment I'm aware of that can purge a person's system of past trauma... and if there was, I'd be exceedingly wary of it. Talk-therapy is one of the most potent tools in helping sufferers of PTSD overcome their condition. I'm not aware of any other branch of medicine in which positive social interactions can actually -cure- sicknesses. Treating mental illness like any other illness is what had doctors trying to 'cure' dementia/psychosis with things like water-boarding, or the manic episodes of women labeled as 'Hysteria' with the surgical removal of the uterus.
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
...PTSD is a pretty good example, and extremely prevalent among veterans. Some of the symptoms of PTSD can be treated by medication, but there's no pill nor treatment I'm aware of that can purge a person's system of past trauma... and if there was, I'd be exceedingly wary of it. Talk-therapy is one of the most potent tools in helping sufferers of PTSD overcome their condition. ...

When you say stuff like this it would be nice if you provided facts. 91% of US military jobs do not involve combat operations.

http://www.todaysmilitary.com/military-myth-versus-reality

To say PTSD is extremely prevalent among veterans labels is not factual and can lead to civilians jumping to conclusions based on the label veteran.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Mick West Kevin Trudeau - Diet Conspiracy Theorist - Found Guilty of Criminal Contempt Health and Quackery 138
deirdre Conspiracy Theorist Mark S. Mann claims of being a Ct. Police Officer and Firearms Industry Executiv Sandy Hook 4
AluminumTheory Alternative Thinker (PC term for Conspiracy Theorist) Practical Debunking 9
Mick West Alex Jones vs. BeforeItsNews.com - conspiracy theorist infighting Conspiracy Theories 39
Mick West MrMentalInertia: Confession of an Ex-Conspiracy Theorist Escaping The Rabbit Hole 19
Mick West Glenn Beck's Conspiracy Theory About People Calling him a Conspiracy Theorist Conspiracy Theories 155
Clock A Glossary of Conspiracy Theorist Words and Phrases Practical Debunking 1
George B Phillip Marshall, 9/11 Conspiracy Theorist, Apparent Suicide? Or What? Conspiracy Theories 423
Thomas Hughson Were the conspiracy theorist right about Fluoride? Conspiracy Theories 178
Clock 8 Ways to tell a Conspiracy Theorist is really a Fraud (or full of baloney) Practical Debunking 9
Rory TFTRH #50 - raised by conspiracy theorists Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 1
Mendel Poll Finds Many Believe QAnon And Other Conspiracy Theories General Discussion 13
Mick West Conspiracy Theories about Senator Kelly Loeffler's Campaign Staffer, 20, Killed in Car Crash. Election 2020 2
Mick West Burst Pipe Conspiracy Theories, Fulton County's State Farm Arena, Georgia Election 2020 20
Mick West Debunks: The Dominion-Venezuela-Smartmatic Vote Theft Conspiracy Theory Election 2020 4
JFDee New York Times: Talking to family members fallen for conspiracy beliefs Practical Debunking 5
T Is it less rational to believe in several conspiracy theories than only one? Conspiracy Theories 31
C Iran promotes anti-semetic conspiracy theories via American Herald Tribune Conspiracy Theories 0
GeorginaB Twitter is banning accounts linked to QAnon conspiracy Conspiracy Theories 0
Agent K Ghislaine Maxwell was arrested in New Hampshire Current Events 11
A Why 9/11 Truthers Are Wrong About The Facts | (Part 1 w/ Mick West) 9/11 1
Mick West Discussing 5G EMF Concerns, Theories, and Conspiracy Theories 5G and Other EMF Health Concerns 15
JFDee 9/11 Conspiracy Idea Slipped into Academic Course Material (France) 9/11 8
Mick West TFTRH #33 – Anthony Magnabosco: Street Epistemology and Conspiracy Theories Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 1
Mick West TFTRH #31: Professor Elizabeth Loftus – Memory and Conspiracy Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 6
Mick West TFTRH #15: Brad - Math vs. Conspiracy Theories Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 21
Mick West TFTRH #13: Professor David Keith – Geoengineering Research and the Chemtrails Conspiracy Theory Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 2
Marin B Facebook moderators believing in conspiracy theories Conspiracy Theories 4
Critical Thinker Russia's role in promoting conspiracy theories General Discussion 20
Rory The Conspiracy Theory Spectrum Practical Debunking 12
Mick West Conspiracy Theory or "Devil Theory" of Politics Conspiracy Theories 0
Mick West Alex Jones Deplatforming and Related Conspiracy Theories Current Events 49
Mick West Paper: How paranoid are conspiracy believers? Practical Debunking 21
Mick West Eruption of Kilauea Volcano in Hawaii – Conspiracies and Science Current Events 34
Mick West Perspective on the popularity of conspiracy theories. Practical Debunking 23
Leifer The Where's Waldo game, and the Conspiracy version. General Discussion 15
qed Roy Moore yearbook signature faked? Conspiracy Theories 111
M Bornong Can Belief in Chemtrails and/or other Conspiracy Theories Lead to Violence? Contrails and Chemtrails 4
G Applications of Game Theory to Assessing the Plausibility of Conspiracy Theories Practical Debunking 1
skephu Solar geoengineering and the chemtrails conspiracy on social media Contrails and Chemtrails 3
DannyBoy2k Are There Any Professional Groups Rebutting 9/11 Conspiracy Theories? 9/11 13
Mick West Explained: Unburned trees next to burned down structures as evidence of secret "energy weapons" Wildfires 122
Cube Radio What British Muslims think about 9/11 Conspiracy Theories 9/11 26
ZoomBubba Las Vegas Massacre - Surveillance Footage? Conspiracy Theories 115
Mick West Debunked: Hurricane Harvey, Project Stormfury, Conspiracy Theories Current Events 40
Mick West Dylan Avery - Director of the 9/11 Conspiracy Film "Loose Change" Escaping The Rabbit Hole 2
Mick West Hurricane Harvey. Cat 4. Major flooding. Conspiracy Theories. Current Events 10
Mick West Consensus Messaging vs. Message Targeting in Science Communication Practical Debunking 16
Mick West 2016 Berlin Truck Attack Conspiracy Theories Current Events 13
Mick West Current Events Forum Guidelines Current Events 0
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top