Volconvo Debate Forums - View Single Post

grandpa · Mar 5, 2008, 01:15 pm

Here's my opinion:
If you look at the evidence, there is plenty reason we should not donate our angry energies on immigrants or "minorities" as the media often suggests, but on the real exploiters who primarily exist in government. It's a personal view which some may not like, but something else keeps getting in my way: This label of "conspiracy theory." No matter what I may say, I occasionally get this label attached to me.

But here's an obvious example where I cited a large amount of evidence to justify my claim that our government is substantially run by corporate interests:
The Sociological Implications of Rollerball

Notice how my view was totally dismissed, regardless of the evidence cited (most of it was even from what are called "mainstream sources"). Why?

My theory is that many use the term "conspiracy theory" for a simple reason: They prefer making sweeping accusations and ad hominems over actually engaging in a substantive debate. Obviously, I regard the term rather contemptuously. If I say ruling elites throughout history have been one of the root causes of poverty, is it conpsiracy fact or conspiracy fiction? To me, it seems like an apt description of the global economy. In fact, you can read headlines even in the mainstream press indicating as much, as hinted at already.

Here's another thing: some accused of engaging in "conspiracy theory" may be simply disorganized talkers. For example, they might have had compelling evidence at one point but maybe they lose the source (this unfortunately happens to me sometimes when I find a compelling, well-sourced article online that eventually gets erased -- or maybe the source switches from being free to one where you have to pay for it, thus making it less accessible). Obviously, in such cases, the arguer shouldn't really be blamed too sharply.

Yet another thing: Why are so many people hesitant to examine claims themselves? Certainly, the internet has a wealth of information, as does the local library. It seems that if more were willing to research into claims that the term "conspiracy theory" would be less common.

I think all of these things should be considered when assessing my views, or those of anyone else. Thank you, and please discuss.

Grandpa h.

Mar 5, 2008, 01:15 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
grandpa blasphemer Location: Michigan Posts: 7,938	Am I A "Conspiracy Theorist"? Here's my opinion: If you look at the evidence, there is plenty reason we should not donate our angry energies on immigrants or "minorities" as the media often suggests, but on the real exploiters who primarily exist in government. It's a personal view which some may not like, but something else keeps getting in my way: This label of "conspiracy theory." No matter what I may say, I occasionally get this label attached to me. But here's an obvious example where I cited a large amount of evidence to justify my claim that our government is substantially run by corporate interests: The Sociological Implications of Rollerball Notice how my view was totally dismissed, regardless of the evidence cited (most of it was even from what are called "mainstream sources"). Why? My theory is that many use the term "conspiracy theory" for a simple reason: They prefer making sweeping accusations and ad hominems over actually engaging in a substantive debate. Obviously, I regard the term rather contemptuously. If I say ruling elites throughout history have been one of the root causes of poverty, is it conpsiracy fact or conspiracy fiction? To me, it seems like an apt description of the global economy. In fact, you can read headlines even in the mainstream press indicating as much, as hinted at already. Here's another thing: some accused of engaging in "conspiracy theory" may be simply disorganized talkers. For example, they might have had compelling evidence at one point but maybe they lose the source (this unfortunately happens to me sometimes when I find a compelling, well-sourced article online that eventually gets erased -- or maybe the source switches from being free to one where you have to pay for it, thus making it less accessible). Obviously, in such cases, the arguer shouldn't really be blamed too sharply. Yet another thing: Why are so many people hesitant to examine claims themselves? Certainly, the internet has a wealth of information, as does the local library. It seems that if more were willing to research into claims that the term "conspiracy theory" would be less common. I think all of these things should be considered when assessing my views, or those of anyone else. Thank you, and please discuss. Grandpa h. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you (unless it costs something).