The possible way that a odd belief grows

Ok let’s say that you are an Egyptologist and you, after examining the works of the pyramids, Sphinx, sacred river and so on, you come to the conclusion that the Egyptians weren’t all that when it came to riches and an empire. You could argue that they didn’t have a lot of cash- that the only actual finding of Egyptian riches could well have been placed there by Lord Canarvon and co. to get lots of ticket sales and summarily hoax the world. You would be unpopular and most likely an idiot. You can infer a great deal from a people whose architectural constructs still exist some 3000+ years on.

I digress. That’s ok I suppose. What is most important is there is challenges made to the field which again is totally fine- rigour in any discipline should be a welcomed tool. Then you get something like this which is frankly retarded. Body counts rarely lie, on a massive scale, neither do abandoned houses, or unaccountable losses. This happened by sixty years ago and somehow, someway, you have political partisans getting funny ideas in their head. Nonetheless, there is somewhat a reason to their madness as purporters to these claims basically want a better outlook for their views and a better outlook for who they admired.

You would think that history would be the only culprit as it is by definition sketchy with its evidence. Not so. I won’t go into creationism here (I’ll leave that one when my brain is more finely tuned) but what I will go into is these assholes. What do they possibly have to gain beyond killing thousands who believe in this crap? I would like to assess an argument for them but the sheer inanity of their position makes it useless. This is actually good for pseudoscience and religions crazies. The inability of the scientific community to address the issue is wholly dependant on the stupidity of their claims. Consider this possibility:

Let’s say that someone comes up to me and says I cannot type. I say that I can, and to prove it, I type on my laptop. I’m missing the point however- this person has already seen my typing ability and sets about to disagree with it. My argument and the assertions of whomever can see me typing makes the advocates of Antifreezetypists does two things. Firstly it pushes them closer into a group which establishes an ‘us’ and ‘them’ mentality as they are all ‘persecuted’ for their belief. Secondly, with support from the first concept, it makes their ideas steadfast and uncomprimising. Antifreezetypists want to be right, because it appeals to some quirk of their nature, political philosophy or beliefs (observe the above links and notice how they often stray from the task at hand to divulge in other associated focuses). They have made a fallacy that the desire for something to be right affects the actuality of something being right. Antifreezetypists, without the attention they feel they deserve become more radical in order to get it, and more impassioned to their cause if they feel they can get results. Ergo whenever freeze43 or any other witness to the lies that he can type actually meet with antifreezetypists feel bolstered by their consideration and any viewers into the meeting feel that antifreezetypists have a valid point if they are being at least considered by mainstream (for this reason scientists rarely involve themselves in debates with creationists).

So there you have it. If anyone has any information on why those crazy AIDS denialists do what they do, or if you are one and want to set the record straight or anything, please comment.


~ by freeze43 on September 23, 2008.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: