Conspiracy?

[kevbone]

What is conspiracy other than just a scary way of saying “alternative agenda”?

 

Skeptics are important in achieving an objective view of reality, however, skeptism is not the same as reinforcing the official storyline. In fact, a conspiracy theory can be argued as an alternative to the official or “mainstream” story of events. Therefore, when skeptics attempt to ridicule a conspiracy theory by using the official story as a means of proving the conspiracy wrong, in effect, they are just reinforcing the original “mainstream” view of history, and actually not being skeptical.

 

This is not skeptism, it is just a convenient way for the establishment view of things to be seen as the correct version, all the time, every time. In fact, it is common for “hit pieces” or “debunking articles” to pick extremely fringe and not very populated conspiracy theories. This in turn makes all conspiracies on a subject matter look crazy. Skeptics magazine and Popular Mechanics, among many others, did this with 9/11.

 

They referred to less than 10% of the many different conspiracy theories about 9/11 and picked the less popular ones, in fact, they picked the fringe, highly improbable points that only a few people make. This was used as the “final investigation” for looking into the conspiracy theories. Convenient, huh?

 

In fact, if one were to look into conspiracy theories, they will largely find that thinking about a conspiracy is associated with lunacy and paranoia. Some websites suggest it as an illness. It is also not surprising to see so many people on the internet writing about conspiracy theories in a condescending tone, usually with the words “kool-aid,” “crack pot,” or “nut job” in their articulation. This must be obvious to anyone that emotionally writing about such serious matter insults the reader more than the conspiracy theorist because there is no need to resort to this kind of behavior. It is employed often with an “expert” who will say something along the lines of, “for these conspiracies to be true, you would need hundreds if not thousands of people to be involved. It’s just not conceivable.”

 

 

One more thing to consider, have you noticed that if the conspiracy is involving powerful interests with the ability to bribe, threaten or manipulate major institutions (like the mafia, big corporations or government) then don’t you find it odd when people use one of those as the “credible” counter-argument? What I mean is, if you are discussing a conspiracy about the mafia, and someone hands you a debunking article that was written by the mafia, it doesn’t seem like it would take rocket science to look at that with serious criticism and credibility. This is the case with many conspiracies. In fact, I am handed debunking pieces all the time written in many cases by the conspirators in question. Doesn’t this seem odd to anybody else but me?

 

 

 

[kevbone]

Its all good....I am ready for all the nay sayers and their sarcasm. That is what makes spray so good.

[ivan]

What is conspiracy other than just a scary way of saying alternative agenda?

 

Skeptics are important in achieving an objective view of reality, however, skeptism is not the same as reinforcing the official storyline. In fact, a conspiracy theory can be argued as an alternative to the official or mainstream story of events. Therefore, when skeptics attempt to ridicule a conspiracy theory by using the official story as a means of proving the conspiracy wrong, in effect, they are just reinforcing the original mainstream view of history, and actually not being skeptical.

 

This is not skeptism, it is just a convenient way for the establishment view of things to be seen as the correct version, all the time, every time. In fact, it is common for hit pieces or debunking articles to pick extremely fringe and not very populated conspiracy theories. This in turn makes all conspiracies on a subject matter look crazy. Skeptics magazine and Popular Mechanics, among many others, did this with 9/11.

 

They referred to less than 10% of the many different conspiracy theories about 9/11 and picked the less popular ones, in fact, they picked the fringe, highly improbable points that only a few people make. This was used as the final investigation for looking into the conspiracy theories. Convenient, huh?

 

In fact, if one were to look into conspiracy theories, they will largely find that thinking about a conspiracy is associated with lunacy and paranoia. Some websites suggest it as an illness. It is also not surprising to see so many people on the internet writing about conspiracy theories in a condescending tone, usually with the words kool-aid, crack pot, or nut job in their articulation. This must be obvious to anyone that emotionally writing about such serious matter insults the reader more than the conspiracy theorist because there is no need to resort to this kind of behavior. It is employed often with an expert who will say something along the lines of, for these conspiracies to be true, you would need hundreds if not thousands of people to be involved. Its just not conceivable.

 

 

One more thing to consider, have you noticed that if the conspiracy is involving powerful interests with the ability to bribe, threaten or manipulate major institutions (like the mafia, big corporations or government) then dont you find it odd when people use one of those as the credible counter-argument? What I mean is, if you are discussing a conspiracy about the mafia, and someone hands you a debunking article that was written by the mafia, it doesnt seem like it would take rocket science to look at that with serious criticism and credibility. This is the case with many conspiracies. In fact, I am handed debunking pieces all the time written in many cases by the conspirators in question. Doesnt this seem odd to anybody else but me?

 

 

i'm paid by the international jewish media syndicate to debunk any and all conspiracies - 10 cents a post muthaphucka!!!

[rob]

So you agree that the 9/11 conspiracy theories taken up in the Popular Mechanics article are "highly improbable fringe" theories.

 

Progress!!!

 

[Pete_H]

Come on you don't expect Kevbone to read every word in his cut-and-paste job

[Choada_Boy]

There is a difference between skepticism and stupidity.

[kevbone]

There is a difference between skepticism and stupidity.

 

 

Agreed

[Pete_H]

So we're all in accord that you're a dumbass.

[rob]

Kevbone means well. Actually, the more I meet people out of my demographic, the more typical this sort of thinking turns out to be.

 

Like nearly half of us believe the literal creation story of the bible. ;(

 

 

[kevbone]

So we're all in accord that you're a dumbass.

 

Nice....love it when one guys speaks for everyone.

[tvashtarkatena]

Precious little snowflakes, every one.

 

How I love to crush them.

[kevbone]

You guys are hilarious. You probably acutally think that we killed OBL last year........hahahahahahahah.

 

You are sheep marching to slaughter. Just like me.

[keenwesh]

bone, the government is monitoring everything you do, so you might want to stop revealing the "truth" on here in order to avoid being silenced.

 

They're out to get you, nowhere is safe, we are all gonna die!

[tvashtarkatena]

You guys are hilarious. You probably acutally think that we killed OBL last year........hahahahahahahah.

 

You are sheep marching to slaughter. Just like me.

 

Sheep aren't marched to the slaughter - they're kept alive so they can be fleeced.

 

Just sayin'

[rob]

sometimes their balls are cut off, too

 

BY VACCINES!!!!!

[tvashtarkatena]

I have a couple of fair questions.

 

Bone - have you ever taken a Logic class or the self study equivalent? This would seem to be a prerequisite for properly evaluating any body of evidence.

 

Kimmo - what is the level of your statistics training?

 

I frequently run into a lot of self taught experts on the Constitution - THEY'VE READ IT, MAN, WANNA SEE A DOGEARED COPY???? - who've never read, nevermind analysed, a single constitutional court decision or amicus brief. I know some constitutional law professors - its just a wee bit more involved than the teabagger version.

 

Welcome to the age of social media - a pond a million miles wide and an inch deep - where everybody is Michael Phelps.

 

I'm waiting...

Edited November 29, 2012 by tvashtarkatena

[kevbone]

Sheep aren't marched to the slaughter - they're kept alive so they can be fleeced.

 

 

How do you know. Your information is no better than mine.

[tvashtarkatena]

Actually, my information, education, and what I have available upstairs to juggle the two are better than yours in an absolute sense.

 

Sorry. When it comes to analysis and debate - everybody's not a winner.

 

You've got other talents - I'd focus on them. This just isn't your strong suit.

[kevbone]

Actually, my information, education, and what I have available upstairs to juggle the two are better than yours in an absolute sense.

 

Your information? hahahah.....patty you made me actually laugh. Let me guess...you get your information from a "reliable" source right? Please inform me where so I can be awesome like you.

 

 

 

Sorry. When it comes to analysis and debate - everybody's not a winner.

 

 

glad to know you finally have come to grips with not being a winner.

[olyclimber]

WOW KEV UR MASTER DEBATER!!!!

 

 

[olyclimber]

 

In fact, I am handed debunking pieces all the time written in many cases by the conspirators in question. Doesn’t this seem odd to anybody else but me?

 

 

That you are "hand debunking"? No...not odd at all. Most people just call it masterbation though.

 

"Hand debunk" onward, I could give a shit about what crazy assed conspiracy theories you believe in.

[Jim]

Stranger things have happened.

 

William and Kate Tipped on bin Laden Killing

 

Bin Laden's death bumped the birthers out of the news—it also bumped off the royal wedding. Could there be a connection between the two huge media stories? The Daily Mail thought so, and managed to track down a professor from the University of Buckingham who said he “would not be surprised” if Prince William and Kate Middleton had been forewarned about the top secret raid on bin Laden's compound. After all, the royal couple postponed their honeymoon just before bin Laden's death was announced. The Mail even asked a palace spokesman if there was a connection. He insisted there was none.

 

I think the Seals did in OBL with the MMR vaccine.

[rob]

 

William and Kate Tipped on bin Laden Killing?

 

The Daily Mail thought so, and managed to track down a professor from the University of Buckingham who said he “would not be surprised” if Prince William and Kate Middleton had been forewarned about the top secret raid on bin Laden's compound.

 

This is true, they even got a picture of Miss Kate being informed of the pending raid.

 

[ScottP]

Come on you don't expect Kevbone to read every word in his cut-and-paste job

 

http://nexttruth.com/?p=7165

 

[Pete_H]

YOU'RE OUT OF YOUR ELEMENT, BONER!