Welcome to PatsFans.com

Why Conspiracy Theories Suck

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Wildo7, May 19, 2009.

  1. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,851
    Likes Received:
    34
    Ratings:
    +39 / 2 / -0

    This is a really great article that sums up exactly why I can't stand conspiracy theories, specifically the 9/11 nonsense:

    3 Good Reasons (and 1 Bad One) Why I Don't Buy Into Your Conspiracy Theories | Media and Technology | AlterNet

  2. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,851
    Likes Received:
    34
    Ratings:
    +39 / 2 / -0

    1)

    2)

    3)

    4)

  3. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,800
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

  4. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,851
    Likes Received:
    34
    Ratings:
    +39 / 2 / -0

    Yes, an actual conspiracy involving actual suspects, evidence and facts (along with Occam's razor), not a wild and silly conspiracy theory cooked up after the fact in an attempt to validate somebody's fantasy

    Semantics anyway.
    Last edited: May 19, 2009
  5. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,800
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    I would consider myself a skeptic, who doesn't discount any thoery, as long as the conclusion to the mystery is still up for debate.

    having said that, I think this person and most take liberties with the term "Conspiracy Theory" and pervert it.


    I'm very litteral when it comes to such things, a conspiracy theory, in my book, is the exact definition of the two words together...nothing more....nothing less.


    a Theory (Hypothesis yet to be proven , but open for debate) that one or more people CONSPIRED a specific event.

    who conspired to do what is the debate. So anyone who discounts a theory as being bogus without debate on the topic, is an idiot.




    you know...according to the old testament, the sun revolves around the Earth. Poeple who theorised that it was the other way around were told their theory was BOGUS. today we would call those people conspiracy theorists. Galileo Galilei...that kooky-dude!
    Last edited: May 19, 2009
  6. apple strudel

    apple strudel Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    Messages:
    5,894
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    Such things are not useful because they are generally not convincing or well-argued. Conspiracy theorists put the conclusions before the facts.
  7. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,851
    Likes Received:
    34
    Ratings:
    +39 / 2 / -0

    Well, I think you clearly understand the distinction, but if you'd like to substitute "vast, government conspiracy theory held by a minority of the population" for "conspiracy theory" then be my guest. You're harping on a very wide-ranging definition of the term in order to undermine what the author is talking about because you are a fan of conspiracy theories.

    And if there was anything worthwhile in "debating" such dumb fantasies then I'd be glad to talk about them, But there isn't, and the author articulates exactly why they are deleterious to the national discourse on substantive issues.

    No offense, HD, but people who think 9/11 was an inside job are going to believe that no matter what evidence they are shown, because they want to believe it. The second it happened they decided that that's what they were going to believe and selected small snippets of "evidence" in order to confirm their entertaining story.



    No, we'd call them scientists because they discovered something about our planet through careful observation and a proponderance of evidence. And we'd call the people who denied it ignorant, because they didn't know. Regardless, that analogy doesn't strain common sense to the lengths that 9/11 "truthers" do.
  8. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,851
    Likes Received:
    34
    Ratings:
    +39 / 2 / -0

    They're a lot like religion in that regard.
  9. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,800
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

  10. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    no surprise here, but I'll be chiming in on this in more detail when my work duties are finished...

    i respect your views, Wildo, and I will keep this cordial... but i have three questions for you, Wildo, before I pontificate:

    1) do you believe the only official investigation into 9/11 was legit and uncompromising?

    2) do you recognize the profound difference between made it happen on purpose theory, and let it happen on purpose theory?

    3) was precedent not set long ago (in terms of sinister ambition and capacity) considering events like Tuskeegee, Northwoods, Tonkin, the Maine, and a number of other historicals?
    Last edited: May 19, 2009
  11. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you there. The "theories" I subscribe to arrive at a conclusion long after sorting out facts.
  12. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    19,985
    Likes Received:
    178
    Ratings:
    +282 / 5 / -8

    If you've never seen the full episode, I highly recommend it :)

    Plug These Leaks - Clips - South Park Studios


    Holy Diver: the burden of proof is on the theorist, full stop. You don't say "witches and goblins cast an evil spell, you can't prove otherwise," and expect it to be taken seriously. Similarly, you don't posit a wild-azz theory and tell people that until they can disprove it, it stands as fact.

    PFnV
  13. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    True...

    But you also don't absorb factual evidence in exhibits A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y and Z that shows a new, uncompromised investigation (with subpoenas this time) is warranted, yet then just keep parroting "i'm not convinced!! show me more, show me more!!!" ... At least, you can't do so without appearing profoundly obtuse.
    Last edited: May 19, 2009
  14. Leave No Doubt

    Leave No Doubt PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    May 10, 2008
    Messages:
    5,609
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0

    Exactly. And sometimes it takes a long time for these facts to emerge and be backed up by some evidence. Plus history itself will often back up at least the fact that world leaders don't always have the agenda we'd like them to have.

    Just the word conspiracy has such a negative connotation in and of itself; I don't consider alternate 9/11 thinkers to be conspiratorial anymore anyway, varying degrees of that thinking is way too prevalent now.


    There was a time when people who thought the govt was watching them or listening to them or trying to poison them were considered insane. Now maybe not so much:confused2:
  15. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    19,985
    Likes Received:
    178
    Ratings:
    +282 / 5 / -8

    I would have no problem with the "9/11 truthers" getting another bite at the commission apple, except that it dignifies a lot of pretty specious speculation with a response. I mean, a variety of "9/11 truther" points have been publicly and pretty convincingly debunked. So we could raise debunking to the visibility level of the original commission, but that simply perpetuates the bunk. You won't like that report either, rinse, repeat.

    If, for instance, one is convinced that the twin towers could only vertically pancake with a controlled demolition, despite a perfectly plausible "theory", publicly available via thousands of hours of footage from news networks, personal videos, etc., that said towers were hit by freaking passenger jets, and has no desire to believe otherwise despite quite public explanations, what is the point of demanding that government sources convene a commission and issue more quite public explanations coming to pretty much the same conclusion?

    I think the point of demanding "do-overs" is that people want to believe 9/11 was a "false flag" operation, and it will be more likely that others will believe this, if another commission is convened to do the same thing the first one did. To the conspiracy theorists, it will mean "ooooh there's enough evidence that they had to open up another commission... where there's smoke, there's not just fire, there's government-planted explosives etc etc etc."

    Me, I'm moving on.

    PFnV
  16. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    You seem to be conflating Loose Change "inside job" theory with "let it happen" theory. The latter is the honest truth movement. Unfortunately, the irrational side of 9/11 Truth has effectively muddied the waters.

    What we want is full subpoena power, with Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld questioned separately and under oath. We want NORAD to be asked the relevant questions of who was in charge that day and how common it is for simultaneous war game simulations to be effect in one morning, leaving the entire northeast sector unguarded. We want a commission directed by someone OTHER than a Bush WH policy writer for the Iraq occupation. We also don't want commissioners fired who demand those questions be asked (Cleeland).

    I don't believe that is too much to ask, and any uncorrupted investigation would have answered those questions the first time. It also wouldn't have made a book deal and narrative out of the report, hoping to pin it all on Bill Clinton.
    Last edited: May 19, 2009
  17. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    19,985
    Likes Received:
    178
    Ratings:
    +282 / 5 / -8

    Eh, "let it happeners" would be fine, but really --once again -- they have only questions, and again, there will be answers the "Let it happeners" won't like. It would end up being an exercise in declaring "Ha ha Neocons, you lost, now you have to look uncomfortable on TV."

    I really don't think you'll turn up a smoking gun e-mail or memo saying "What the hell, let's let these guys through. It would be cool to get a patriotic blank check of that size."

    And of course, the wacky "inside jobbers" will be along for the ride -- or, the "inside jobbers" will label the "let it happeners" as "in on it," per the OP... and we'll need Commission Number 3.

    Just seems like an incredibly distracting dead-end.

    PFnV
  18. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    37,692
    Likes Received:
    256
    Ratings:
    +475 / 2 / -10

    #87 Jersey

  19. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0

    .


    Huh, who'd a thunk: I always thought it was 'cause conspiracy theorists sucked. ;)



    As you were.

    :singing:

    //
  20. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    If they were capable of planting enough explosives in each tower and rigging them and wiring them etc, why weren't they able to plant some WMD's in Iraq? I don't know anything about shooting buildings besides what I've seen on TV; but TV presents the process as days or even weeks long and very obvious to anyone walking through the building, while I have to assume burying some bombs in the desert would be much easier to keep secret. I can't see how they'd be capable of the first act without being capable of the second.
    Last edited: May 20, 2009

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>