I hate conspiracy theories do you?

Your statement - (which is stand alone clear and self explanatory), which I said was thoughtless...indeed was - protestations to the contrary and attempted attacks and diversions don't change that. If you can find fault with my reasoning as to it's faults - which are explicit and completely obvious - then do so - and actually argue on the basis of your own statement, and how the example I provided didn't show it to be thoughtless. If you wish to change your statement to something that has actual substance, then that is fine...as I've already said. But the original statement was indeed thoughtless.


I've provided numerous examples of a number of things - you would have to quote which ones you are refering to.

Interesting perception of motive. There are many examples that suit many scenario's - some a clearer than others, and some only allude indirectly to concepts. I'm not certain what you are referring to when you say I 'pulled a swift one'. I'm guessing that you are referring to the fact that, If one angle doesn't explain well - then people think perhaps another one does? But the specific problem with interpretation of motive is yours alone.

Don't start whining about attacks and diversions--you're the one who put that "thoughtless" **** into the discussion. This is what you originally wrote:



Now you're attempting to make a quibble between not getting caught and no one knowing. If they hadn't gotten caught, how would anyone have known? Where would your source for a conspiracy theory arise? You're just trying to backpeddle from a stupid thesis, and accusing me of being thoughtless while doing so, and to top it off, now you're whining about attacks. You're not worth the time of day.

Some conspiracy theories are just big piles of bs. Others may be true.
I am no nutcase, but I really don't think that in this world where honesty and morality are held in such high esteem, everything is what it seems to be. I have no doubt that some people do anything they can get away with, and there are people who get off on being inhumane bastards. It gives them a kick.

I don't dispute what you say. There is a definitional issue in this thread, however. In current English usage, conspiracy theory is usually applied to an idea advanced by someone who disputes the accept explanation of an event in favor of a theory of a conspiracy which had been preserved by silence on the part of those who "know what really happened." The problem i have with such types of conspiracy theory is that they almost always involve a great many people keeping a secret for decades, and right to the grave. That stretches credulity. There is often a political motive involved, too. People who advance the Pearl Harbor conspiracy theory do so because they hated FDR, and because they cherished racist attitudes toward the Japanese. People who advance September 11th conspiracy theories do so because they hate G. W. Bush. In other words, they start with the premise and then attempt to shoehorn the available evidence into their theory.

Official secrets are not the same as conspiracies. Certain information is kept secret for a certain length of time. Oliver Stone is thinks we should all make a big fuss when we get to 2013, regarding any Kennedy stuff that will be declassified.

Therein lies a gold mine for the conspiracy theory exploiter. Write a book full of tendentious crap (Can we really believe that Oswald acted alone?), and 30 years down the line, you've already taken it to the bank, and it doesn't matter if the records blow your bullshit out of the water.

I DONT HATE AREA 51.

Much better, but this is a failure in logic on a couple of fronts :

- You can not get caught at an event and still be a suspect - police often face this problem, being unable to charge someone they strongly suspect of committing a crime (when not enough evidence)...suspecting them either because of motive, present ability, or surrounding circumstances, or a combination of any.

- You say conspiracy theories are about conspiracies that are alleged (ie the conspirators either don't exist, or are suspected but haven't been caught), yet say if they haven't been caught there can't be a conspiracy theory.

There is also a failure of comprehension, though no doubt some of that is to do with the a lack of initial clarity on my part of the point I was making.

- In the event itself, in the case of my example that you quoted - a coup - this requires a conspiracy. I brought in up in relation to an example I gave of the CIA coup in Iran...which was opennly known to have been run by the CIA, and comments subsequently made about that. The point of the quoted example was tied to that previous example - and I have repeatedly mentioned that my examples were to do with where the line exists between conspiracy and conspiracy theory...which should give you some clue as to the context and intent of the paragraph. It was to point out that it's very unlikely that all coups have been 'opennly known' to have been run by 'this organisation' or 'that organisation'...yet that would not stop conspiracy theories about those coups.

As a last note - your perception that I whine about attempts at diversion is rather your own issue. That you attempt to divert is pure statement. Would you like me to provide quoted examples?

Oh, do I ever! You may not know this because mainstream history books are covering it up, but it's a historical fact that conspiracy theories were put out there by The Man. His idea was to make people paranoid about Jews, Communists, fake moonlandings and such, diverting attention from The Man Himself. I mean, how often do you hear anyone talk about The Man these days? I rest my case. That's how effectively conspiracy theories work. I hate them!

The Protocols of Zion stands as a very effective conspiracy theory. Even today. some people still believe it's genuine, despite being proven as a Czarist Russian forgery.

I will add to that 'or the conspiracy does not exist' (even if it is close to 'the conspirators do not exist')

Thanks I learned that from the original video that I shared, "that is why I included another reference!

I also learned this as well! Can you confirm that this is true?

Perhaps it is as you say. It seems likely..
I guess there is a difference between a conspiracy theory and an alternative interpretation of facts. Unfortunately, such alternative explanations often get dismissed simply because they are embraced by the same people who advertise the more ridiculous theories...

Good, you're back. Are there any conspiracy theories brewing regarding the atrocity in your town last week?

Good, you're back. Are there any conspiracy theories brewing regarding the atrocity in your town last week?

I am not sitting all the way through that. If anyone can spend two minutes quibbling over the date of the Declaration of Independence, needs to learn about brevity. If you're asking whether or not we still own America, well what do you think? If there is some obscure document that says we do, so what? Look at the realpolitik. American troops are stationed on British soil, not the other way round.

I was only asking you if what she was saying was true or false! I could care less about the date! If you do not have time to help a retard like myself I do understand!

She's a fuckin' idiot . . . does that help you out?

Share the facts!

I think he did already.