Skip to main content

Coincidence is nonexistent to conspiracists

To die-hard conspiracists, it seems that coincidence is nonexistent. Everything has to happen for a reason - everything has to have been planned by a person or group of people - probably a person or people of power.

From Hurricane Katrina to Hurricane Sandy to the Columbine school shooting to the Sandy Hook school shooting to Benghazi to Oklahoma City to global warming to President Obama being elected and beyond, I can all but guarantee there is at least one group of people who believes in some sort of conspiracy theory explaining these events.

I can understand conspiracy theorists to an extent. Most people want to understand the world's happenings and believe there's a reason to the madness. On that level, I see conspiracy theories as somewhat reminiscent of religious beliefs. While I myself am not religious, I can understand why many are. Many have the need to feel a sense of order to the world - to feel a purpose for their lives as well as others'. However, unlike with religious individuals, whom I can't prove are right or wrong, conspiracy theorists are debunked more times than A Christmas Story has been showcased on TBS during December 24th and 25th.

One of the joys in life, in my opinion, is to know how much we don't know, keep those figurative upstairs doors open, and through that, continually expand our knowledge. It's much more difficult to accept new bits of knowledge when we've closed those doors, wanting to believe we know more than we do through theories which have either been unproven or thoroughly debunked. Why deny ourselves knowledge due to a fear of not knowing?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"