Taken from Science magazine:Theories and facts are differant.
Yes some conspiracies happen but for fuck sake there already robin williams illuminati theories.
this shits gonna drive goat rider over tge edge.
But that's just it: people HAVE talked, but the propaganda machine can also use that same "information superhighway" for disinformation.Taken from Science magazine:
And scientists are beginning to understand the types of personalities that buy into more extreme and unlikely theories. Research reveals that conspiracy theorists tend to share a core set of traits, regardless of their conspiracy of choice. Low self-esteem, for example, may characterize both those who believe that Paul McCartney died in 1966 and those who think that Britain’s royal family consists of reptilian aliens.
I am not saying to just accept everything at face value, but I suscibe to the Occam's Razor approach. (the simplest answer is most likely correct)
Besides, especially now with all the access everyone has to instant information and the fact that we're all linked by technology, makes all the secrecy hard to fathom. Someone will always have a big mouth and talk. Roswell, JFK, etc. NO way there would be absolute secrecy. People, SOMEONE would talk.
Like hell they aint.wait a minnit.....the british royals aren't alien lizards?????
Not at all. There's a difference between the gov not telling the truth and a conspiracy. The problem with conspiracy theorists is they think they know WHY the gov is lying, when there is usually ZERO evidence to support their claims. Lack of evidence is not evidence, e.g. saying "No one is allowed in Area 51, therefore it must be where they keep aliens" is not a valid argument.But you can't say "conspiracy theorists are bad," because that would mean you believe everything the government tells you is true.
Eh? What is this supposed to mean? All X's are good, all Y's are bad, no all X's are Y's? I don't follow the logical structure of this statement.Some conspiracy theorists are quite skilled at discovering and disseminating disturbing truths meant to remain hidden.
Bad x is bad. Good x is good.
Not all X are Y.
I'd argue that believing anything without evidence is bad. Let's look at 9/11;However, i agree: spreading "conspiracism," or disinformation, is bad, regardless of which "side" is doing it.
Not at all, IMO. Conspiracy theorists believe a LOT of shit from uncredited sources, and often believe things at face value without doing their own research. You watched a 2 hour propaganda film on 9/11 or GMO's and now you're an expert? Right......I would argue that "conspiracy theorists" actually are held to a much higher and more stringent information standard.
From what I've seen, conspiracy theorists don't 'miss' facts. They take holes and unknowns and turn them into 'facts', or at least what they call facts....The government lies constantly, and blatantly. Even when the majority of the populace knows the gov't is lying, they'll do it anyway, and act like "only crazy people would think otherwise." A conspiracy theorist misses ONE fact, or makes ONE mistake, and everyone calls them a "tinfoil hat nut job."
Why do you think the gov lies about everything? What evidence do you have to support this stance? This is exactly what I'm talking about.The difference: the "conspiracy theorist" is at least trying to tell the truth (without initially knowing it); the government is the exact opposite. They start off knowing, and will try as hard as they can to never reveal it
Anyone who propagates false information.So who's the real danger?
Occam's razor is a great guidline for determining which phenomenon are likely true. While it's not a 100% guarantee, for extraordinary claims it works as designed.But that's just it: people HAVE talked, but the propaganda machine can also use that same "information superhighway" for disinformation.
As for Occam's Razor... i think it's even more important to Disregard "Hanlon's Razor," which far too many people apparently take seriously: "Never attribute to malice, that which can be adequately explained by incompetence."
The point isn't that incompetent people would feign malevolence, it's that incompetent people come across as malevolent due to their incompetence.I've explained this numerous times in various places. The incompetent would never have reason or motivation, or perhaps even capacity to feign malice; the malicious would almost always have motive and capacity to feign incompetence (i.e. "play dumb," and "plausible deniability").
We already know who designed the net, and why. lol Common knowledge, my man.Edit: after all, who do you think built that information superhighway? Could the internet itself be the result of a huge conspiracy to facilitate propaganda?
Nope.snip
Yep.Nope.
The incompetent may not FEIGN malice, but ime it is the incompetent that are the most genuinely malicious: The dogmatically religious, conspiracy theorists, pseudo-science advocates, the laymen and luddites who have contempt for the scientific method, critical thinking and reason in general. These are the groups from which I consistently view the most hate filled speeches and sentiments...I've explained this numerous times in various places. The incompetent would never have reason or motivation, or perhaps even capacity to feign malice; the malicious would almost always have motive and capacity to feign incompetence (i.e. "play dumb," and "plausible deniability").
The internet originated for the purpose of scientists to share data sets at major universities. Of course, like most large projects, it is the government who facilitated and sponsored its growth far beyond this purpose. The Web is a vast tool that consists of both credible information, and perhaps much more often, unbelievable misinformation (just like the world before the internet). It is up to individuals to be able to train themselves in critical thinking to be able to discern the difference between the two and educate themselves accordingly...Edit: after all, who do you think built that information superhighway? Could the internet itself be the result of a huge conspiracy to facilitate propaganda?
Nah, have to disagree with you on that last point Tyler. Everyone knows the internet was invented by ninja spies...The incompetent may not FEIGN malice, but ime it is the incompetent that are the most genuinely malicious: The dogmatically religious, conspiracy theorists, pseudo-science advocates, the laymen and luddites who have contempt for the scientific method, critical thinking and reason in general. These are the groups from which I consistently view the most hate filled speeches and sentiments…
ABSOLUTELY!
The internet originated for the purpose of scientists to share data sets at major universities. Of course, like most large projects, it is the government who facilitated and sponsored its growth far beyond this purpose. The Web is a vast tool that consists of both credible information, and perhaps much more often, unbelievable misinformation (just like the world before the internet). It is up to individuals to be able to train themselves in critical thinking to be able to discern the difference between the two and educate themselves accordingly...
Nope!Yep.
What specific evidence for which specific 'theory' are you referring to? This will help in determining if it's actual evidence.Nope!
You're doing exactly what i posted to caution against: generalizing "all conspiracy theorists" as if people are literally just inventing stories; because you disregard evidence, does not mean it doesn't exist.
I'd say they're borderline retarded, but lets go with incorrect.Regarding lizard people and faked moon-landings: while i can't know for certain, i tend to think these types of "theories" (more like hypotheses, actually) are quite incorrect.
Not according to the majority of experts. So, that 'slice' doesn't point towards 'an inside job'. I've already invalidated your first premise, lets continue.However, 9/11 was absolutely "an inside job," no matter which way you slice it.
Impossible? Hardly. On what grounds are you claiming it's impossible? In order to prove something impossible, you would need to repeat the 'event' for infinity. Seeing as how there's only been one 9/11, this premise is false.In fact, it would have been impossible for the official story to occur as it is officially stated, without "inside help."
See above.The only thing really in question is, to what degree was it "an inside job."
I've seen a lot of circumstantial evidence about 9/11, but nothing solid. Shady shit? Yes. But just because weird or shady things surround the event does not mean it was in inside job. Even if the government is hiding something about 9/11, to feign certainty about what they're withholding (when you can't prove they're even withholding information in the first place) is intellectually dishonest, IMO.But to insist that there "is no evidence," is clearly blatant disregard of the facts. Evidence and Proof, are not the same thing.
"You people", in the context you're using it, is referring to the vast majority of people in the world that don't prescribe to conspiracy theories.Further, to lump that in with "lizard people" and the like, is as bad, if not worse than, any false conspiracy theory.
I've argued with far too many conspiracy deniers about it, and i'm frankly tired of trying. If "you people" want to believe something ridiculous, go ahead. But i will remind you that not only is our government shown to be repeatedly, repeatably and reliably involved in various atrocities, they are certainly quite capable of many kinds and methods of highly advanced activities, involving a large number of people. They are anything but "incompetent." They are merely maliciously playing dumb.
Dude i'm not going to argue with you, especially with you fragmenting my comments like that.What specific evidence for which specific 'theory' are you referring to? This will help in determining if it's actual evidence.
I'd say they're borderline retarded, but lets go with incorrect.
Not according to the majority of experts. So, that 'slice' doesn't point towards 'an inside job'. I've already invalidated your first premise, lets continue.
Impossible? Hardly. On what grounds are you claiming it's impossible? In order to prove something impossible, you would need to repeat the 'event' for infinity. Seeing as how there's only been one 9/11, this premise is false.
See above.
I've seen a lot of circumstantial evidence about 9/11, but nothing solid. Shady shit? Yes. But just because weird or shady things surround the event does not mean it was in inside job. Even if the government is hiding something about 9/11, to feign certainty about what they're withholding (when you can't prove they're even withholding information in the first place) is intellectually dishonest, IMO.
"You people", in the context you're using it, is referring to the vast majority of people in the world that don't prescribe to conspiracy theories.
Even if the government is lying about some "atrocities", that's not proof or evidence that they're lying about other specific events. 'Falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus'; 'wrong in one wrong in all'. A common logical fallacy.
It's called responding to your statements. It makes it easier to see what I'm replying to, and the fact that you're using that as a cop-out so you don't have to explain is uber weak.Dude i'm not going to argue with you, especially with you fragmenting my comments like that.
All you're really doing is obstructing and impeding the progression of natural discourse. I've seen your tactic used far too many times, and i'm tired of dealing with it.
If you prefer to deny reality, that's your prerogative.
None of my statements require explanation.It's called responding to your statements. It makes it easier to see what I'm replying to, and the fact that you're using that as a cop-out so you don't have to explain is uber weak.