Hawk Hart
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Sold his organs.
The Best There Is, the Best There Was, and the Best That There Ever Will Be
Posts: 15,296
|
Post by Hawk Hart on Apr 26, 2013 20:18:48 GMT -5
The questions are inspired by the possibility of a large-scale conspiracy. And yes, I study history quite a lot, hence my skepticism. It depends on what the scale of a "large-scale" conspiracy is. There's a limit of plausibility in terms of how big something can be, and there's plenty of small-scale sleight of hand for which strong evidence exists. But the "conspiracy theorist" term exists for those really broad ones, or the ones for which evidence is apocryphal at best, and for the people who subscribe to those. Conspiracies happen, but they're nowhere near elaborate as they're given credit. That's why the skeptic term is more appropriate for those within the bounds of rationality. Haha, I can dig it. Thanks for actually discussing this with me instead of the way it could've been.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2013 20:31:11 GMT -5
It depends on what the scale of a "large-scale" conspiracy is. There's a limit of plausibility in terms of how big something can be, and there's plenty of small-scale sleight of hand for which strong evidence exists. But the "conspiracy theorist" term exists for those really broad ones, or the ones for which evidence is apocryphal at best, and for the people who subscribe to those. Conspiracies happen, but they're nowhere near elaborate as they're given credit. That's why the skeptic term is more appropriate for those within the bounds of rationality. Haha, I can dig it. Thanks for actually discussing this with me instead of the way it could've been. Hahaha, sure. I myself am 99 percent confident that Sasquatch is an actual animal, which gets dismissed by some as silly make-believe just because a couple guys came out and said "I WAS THE GUY IN THE MONKEY SUIT" at varying points, so I'm in the same skeptical camp most of the time too.
|
|
|
Post by Wolf Hawkfield no1 NZ poster on Apr 26, 2013 20:59:49 GMT -5
The Conspiracy nuts are going to have a field day with this. I know I was posting against a large portion of conspiracy theorists but to label them as "nuts" completely undermines a lot of really valid questions about a lot of world events. Problem is most conspiracy theorists I've come across seem far more interested in tying to give off the impression that they are smarter than everyone else without actually do anything to prove it than uncovering any sort of truth.
|
|
Mochi Lone Wolf
Fry's dog Seymour
Development through Destruction.
Posts: 24,038
|
Post by Mochi Lone Wolf on Apr 26, 2013 21:13:12 GMT -5
My thoughts on conspiracy theorists are this: Are they out of line most of the time? Absolutly. However, they do serve a purpose in that they allow us to look at things and not blindly believe whatever we're told.
Yes, conspiracy theorists gave us 9/11 truth, Sandy Hook conspiracies and Boston Marathon bombing conspiracies which are all untrue and are void of reason, logic, and facts. However, conspiracy theorists in history have also uncovered Watergate,COINTELPRO ,Iran-Contra, The Manhattan Project, The BCCI Scandal of the 90s, and even smaller things such as the Black Sox of 1919.
So yeah, I'm pretty much with everything Hawk has said in this thread. Don't let some people who espouse untrue conspiracy theories prevent you from questioning things.
|
|
Hawk Hart
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Sold his organs.
The Best There Is, the Best There Was, and the Best That There Ever Will Be
Posts: 15,296
|
Post by Hawk Hart on Apr 26, 2013 21:16:51 GMT -5
I know I was posting against a large portion of conspiracy theorists but to label them as "nuts" completely undermines a lot of really valid questions about a lot of world events. Problem is most conspiracy theorists I've come across seem far more interested in tying to give off the impression that they are smarter than everyone else without actually do anything to prove it than uncovering any sort of truth. I entirely agree on that. As I said in the Boston conspiracy thread that chazraps posted and in this thread, I've had some issue around the /r/conspiracy board because I try to introduce science and reason into the conversation. Apparently, my opinions and the facts I use mean less because I haven't been a Reddit member for years and thus, I am a shill.
|
|
Glitch
King Koopa
Not Going To Die; Childs, we're goin' out to give Blair the test. If he tries to make it back here and we're not with him... burn him.
Watching you.
Posts: 12,717
|
Post by Glitch on Apr 26, 2013 21:47:20 GMT -5
Conspiracy theroist is a name suited for the nuts jobs. I prefer to call the people with actual evidence "smart".
|
|
mizerable
Fry's dog Seymour
You're the lowest on the totem pole here, Alva. The lowest.
Posts: 23,475
|
Post by mizerable on Apr 27, 2013 0:42:27 GMT -5
...what? That makes no sense seeing as at least 99% of the the people that question the official story of 9/11 believe that planes were in fact involved in New York. I see what you were getting at but no. Just no. Depends on who you ask. I've heard people who said there was no plane and it was a controlled demolition. There was even one guy who I believe was a former White House worker in the news who said the planes were holography. There's been others as well...I'd hardly say it's just 1%. Besides, no matter how much evidence you will stack for someone, it will never be enough for some people.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Apr 27, 2013 2:45:45 GMT -5
9/11 conspiracy theorists exist because it's more comforting to believe that an omnipresent monolithic state force arranged such a massive blow against the world's most powerful country, because the idea that 19 guys armed with mace and small knives could cause such incredible devestation and make Americans question their ingrained invincibility is far more scary.
As I've said before, the people who fear oppressive government the most, are the same people who take comfort in the idea that it exists.
|
|
|
Post by SsnakeBite, the No1 Frenchman on Apr 27, 2013 3:28:58 GMT -5
I enjoy reading conspiracy theories, and some do indeed present valid questions, but a great deal of conspiracy theorists out there do come across as more than a little nuts.So then we label them all as nuts in some sort of broad generalization? I'm sorry if I'm misreading you but as someone that could possibly be labeled a nut just because I have a few questions regarding a few things and I don't want my opinion or belief disregarded, despite how based in fact and logic they are just because of other people with some of the same ideas that I have are a bit off. No-one's questioning "Having a few questions", I have quite a few questions on many things too, the problem is when people start adamantly defending a theory that has no base in real life and no evidence to back it up, treat speculations ans personal interpretations as facts, start judging entire communities based on their assumptions and outright dismiss or even insult people who do bring up actual facts, and sometimes even insult victims of tragedies and/or their families because they're convinced they're part of the conspiracy, that is not rational behaviour. It is very important to question what you're told, but it's equally important to make the distinction between scepticism and paranoia. Of course, the things is, many people are nuts in some ways while being perfectly sane in other ways.
|
|