With many arguments for example the argument about Chem-Trails: if chem-trails are so fake and they are simply normal con-trails then how does one explain the lack of social context of “hey the con trails made the sky dimmer today” or “oh boy those con trails really lined up the sky today” How come there is no existence in our social context a reference to what are allegedly normal effects of these “Chem Trails” if they are so normal certainly such things would have been adopted in to the modern social context so one can only assume that the problem is that they are not normal, they must be a relatively new “phenomena” otherwise if they again are they same con trails which have always existed where the fuck are they in the human social context hmm?
It is just frozen watervapor.
Chemtrails is just one of those conspiracy theories again. You can believe what you want, you will not get an indisputable answer anyway. Your government will deny that they are chemically bombing people with whatever substance. Why would they do that anyway? Furthermore, they would also bomb themselves, since they cannot predict where the wind will bring these chemicals (at least not for 100%).
You forget one thing – the burden of proof lies with the conspiracy theorists. Einstein never came up with a theory and then said to other people, “Hey, prove this isn’t true.”
Instead, he came up with a theory and then he proved it himself. That’s what you don’t understand. The burden of proof lies with you. It is not up to everyone else to disprove your theory. It’s up to you to prove it.
I’m familiar with a lot of conspiracy theories. Heck, some of them are even plausible. But this one is just flat out stupid.
@chodebalm, I have not asked you to disprove anything i simply asked a question I am not insinuating that it exist simply because you cannot prove something I am insinuating it exist because something doesnt exist now if you wanted to prove that the alleged social context does exist or that the connections are fallacious then you would prove me wrong. It is not concrete either for me to say that because the social context doesnt exist ect it is simply a matter of probability as Einstein would learn almost everything is.
Also to assume that they by disposition would be not harmful is faulty for the reason that the entity makes them is in the business of prvide=ing a monopoly of harm namely the government. See if by disposition the government is a violent institution and it does something then the burden of proof to prove that its actions are not actually another form of violence or deception would rest with you. By nature governments are ethically contradicting in that they violate natural exitential laws called rights for example that which is living possesses life. If they are in constant violation then the burden of proving that in this instance they are not violating the natural premises of human law by harming people would rest with you?
@epiphanyaddict, Because there was nothing to respond to here. If you really want to learn about them, go educate yourself on them, then bring back evidence besides their lacking presence in everyday conversation. If you are trying to start a conversation about them you need to bring more to the table than the paranoid approach of, OH MY GOD! THERE ARE LINES IN THE SKY, DUDE I READ ON THE INTERNET THAT THOSE ARE CHEMICALS BEING SPRAYED OUT OF THE BACK OF PLANES!!! Like what @chodebalm, said, ” the burden of proof lies with the conspiracy theorists. Einstein never came up with a theory and then said to other people, “Hey, prove this isn’t true.”
Also one more thing, in response to How none of us addressed your proposal. I don’t feel like i understood what you are actually trying to talk about. It seems mostly like you’re just pointing out they exist and nobody talks about them. Give us a good reason to talk about them and maybe we will.
Everyone seems so connotatively attached to the outcome of this post that none of have realized that I am actually asking a question in the post not making a statement. The citation of an insinuation of the existence of one thing or another is hypothetical. So if you asked me a question such as if people are good then why do they need government? I can there is no burden of proof on the asker beyond definition of terms and or that it is an accurate dichotomy. I do not have to provide evidence that people do not need government as that would be an answer to the question namely the answer would be they dont now this is Purely I hypothetical and I am not expressing opinions here but everyone seems to be so emotionally attached to the out come of the question that they didnt notice it was a question which is very telling in it self
So in conclusion then question of “why is there no evidence of the existence of chem-trails and their effects on the weather in the human social context?” is not a question but something I bear the burden of proof of. lol this is just priceless.
@quinsabe, quin this is what frustrates me its these false egoic based analogies unicorns have not been proven to exist we know that the subject of the discussion does exist just not atleast i dont know whether or not they are con trails or chem trails I really would like you to consider your post more carefully as the time and resources spent correcting false analogies is astronomical
I think I’m beginning to see what you’re trying to ask. It’s nothing to do with whether the cloud formations are chemtrails or contrails, but more of what is the effect of the cloud formations described by those terms? It’s probably no different than any other cloud formation. http://www.livescience.com/13462-contrails-climate-change-global-warming-clouds-air-travel.html
@quinsabe, If I had been trying to make a point I would have been liable under the burden of proof criticism,
@tine, I could be or I could be detached entirely it doesnt have anything to do with any of the postulates unless you wish to help remedy what you see as hatred but no one has so far evidenced any care beyond an egoic stand point, asserting that I am seething hatred is kind of ad homonym irrelevant so thats like some one saying the sky is falling an me saying purple shoes. Why do you feel compelled to vindicate your point of view if it hurts us? (seething sadist lol jk )
I see your question for what it really is.
I think they do exist in social context. People just think that they are the contrails that come out the back of planes. Whether they are chemtrails or contrails, most people dont give it a second thought. If something looks like something else that already exist and is already very familiar, it will always be talked about as if it were the original thing that existed, even if its not. Because of this, its very difficult to prove or even talk about and suggest that the “copy” is different from the original.
Lastly, why did you name this thread the way you did? Its a little misleading. I was thinking that you were proposing something so ludicris that I would instantaneously hate you for it. Instead your talking about chemtrails. “Why aren’t chemtrails in social context?” woulda been a much better title for this thread.
Overall, descent post.
@monkeyzazu, Thank you Zazu for the honest consideration I was really hoping to receive assistance in deciphering this, and you nailed it so i must have communicated some what efficiently haha.
My point is exactly “They” do exist and if they had always been the one thing con trails then the existence of them would be casually included in conversations about the weather and other common social dialogues but it is never spoken of and it can make a day go from bright to slightly gray. can you imagine going up to someone those planes sure made the sky gray today. Idk maybe it doesnt prove anything. But planes changing the weather in age of modern environmental awareness, how come we can talk about it in conversation with out preconotative atmospheres if its just normal you would have to take it out of context for it to be abnormal and if you reply that it is abnormal to talk about these things then that would prove my point.
I have never seen this (I don’t think so anyway) and never had people mention anything about this in my life. Maybe this is another conspiracy Americans dreamed up again?
So let me get it straight. These clouds you think are blowing some gas or mind controlling substance?