2 ms·

So your argument is that "bad things are happening because the government wants them to happen, not because that is just the way of the world" is not more comfo

So your argument is that "bad things are happening because the government wants them to happen, not because that is just the way of the world" is not more comforting? In the former case you have an intentioned actor, in which case all that is needed to stop the bad things is to stop the actor, which is possible. In the latter case there exists the possibility of no control (no way to stop it), a frightening proposition to most people. Your position against the science vs pseudo-science statement seems to support that very statement.

Alex3917 17y ago
So your argument is that "bad things are happening because the government wants them to happen, not because that is just the way of the world" That's not my argument. I'm just saying that if you trust what they say about health, you are seriously uneducated. Take a moment to consider Buck v. Bell, the test vets, MKULTRA, the air at ground zero, the drug war, farm subsidies, private insurance monopolies, legalized rape (KBR), abstinence only education, etc.