Deconstructing "conspiracy"

[Compugasm]

Quote by: ICON Isn't the mocking label of "Conspiracy Theorist" constructed to avoid honest debate?

Not to long ago, there was someone here claiming that the planes never hit the towers. They were projected, an optical illusion, and a super powerful laser brought the towers down.... I couldn't imagine anything more spectacular than that. I don't know where the line of credible theories is, but "I know when i see it" as they say.

[ICON]

Quote by: Compugasm Not to long ago, there was someone here claiming that the planes never hit the towers. They were projected, an optical illusion, and a super powerful laser brought the towers down.... I couldn't imagine anything more spectacular than that. I don't know where the line of credible theories is, but "I know when i see it" as they say.

When faced with such arguments, you can choose to address them (it's not as if there aren't readily accessible arguments against those theories), ignore them, or categorically mock them. Of the 3 options, the last is the least productive, and does you the least credit. However, whether the terrorists hijacked airplanes or projected holograms and planted bombs is largely irrelevant to the conspiracy aspect. Don't you agree?

[NDOC]

Because nobody likes the truth. Truth hurts, I think most people want to believe there is something bigger out there. I think it also has allot to do with denial.

[ICON]

Quote by: NDOC Because nobody likes the truth. Truth hurts, I think most people want to believe there is something bigger out there. I think it also has allot to do with denial.

Denial? Denial is constructing an alternate reality full of puppies and rainbows. Denial is NOT inventing a dark place to escape from a gray one.

[another day]

Quote by: ICON I was playing off the angle that the absence of certain evidence could be evidence of something dastardly.

That's not what I meant. What I meant was that any evidence that there was NO CONSPIRACY, strictly for example lets say 9/11... is said to simply be further evidence of more conspiracy. Ie: say a blackbox was found on which muslims can be heard speaking arabic while they hijack the plane etc.. conspiracy theorists can brush this off and say it is just another part of the conspiracy, that it was fabricated by the conspirators. This can be said of any evidence that goes against a conspiracy theory.

So, you don't dispute the existence of conspiracies, but you simply believe there is a scale at which the requisite secrecy becomes improbable? Two questions (not rhetorical): 1) Is Al-Qaeda not a conspiratorial organization? 2) Does it not, presumably include "thousands of players"?

Basically yes. And no, al-quada is not a conspiracy organization in the sense that it doesn't seek to hide what it is doing (except on an operative level). Their objectives and motives are clearly stated. It's no secret that they are a terrorist organization that aims to kill and bomb american/western targets. In this sense it's not comparable at all to conspiracy theories.

Isn't the mocking label of "Conspiracy Theorist" constructed to avoid honest debate?

yes... simply yelling "conspiricy theorist!!!!11" is a weak argument... But seeking to understand and attack a persons flawed motives for constructing this theory and the shaky foundation it sits on is not.

But of course, a simple ad hom attack like yelling conspiracy theorist! is never a valid argument.

[another day]

Quote by: ICON Denial? Denial is constructing an alternate reality full of puppies and rainbows. Denial is NOT inventing a dark place to escape from a gray one.

You sure about that? It makes sense to me, knowing the human mind that if one cannot know the truth about something, they most dislike the idea of sitting on the fence. They pick an extreme and believe in that, and it doesn't have to be a positive one, because thinking you know something for certain gives people satisfaction, even if the belief is dark and depressing. People like that more then uncertainty. Also, the "dark place" can give people meaning, like it is their duty to spread the word about this evil doing and fight it.

[ICON]

Quote by: another day That's not what I meant. What I meant was that any evidence that there was NO CONSPIRACY, strictly for example lets say 9/11... is said to simply be further evidence of more conspiracy. Ie: say a blackbox was found on which muslims can be heard speaking arabic while they hijack the plane etc.. conspiracy theorists can brush this off and say it is just another part of the conspiracy, that it was fabricated by the conspirators. This can be said of any evidence that goes against a conspiracy theory.

I'm sorry, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. An insufficiency of evidence to support any particular theory does not constitute evidence of "no conspiracy." And the fact that some people will reject any evidence which contradicts their view as "falsified" does not negate the fact that evidence IS sometimes falsified. It isn't necessary to persuade everyone to your view. It's only pixie dust that requires mass faith for substantiation; truth stands on its own.

Quote by: another day Basically yes. And no, al-quada is not a conspiracy organization in the sense that it doesn't seek to hide what it is doing (except on an operative level). Their objectives and motives are clearly stated. It's no secret that they are a terrorist organization that aims to kill and bomb american/western targets. In this sense it's not comparable at all to conspiracy theories.

I think you misunderstand what constitutes a conspiratorial organization. Do you mean that Al-Qaeda is not such an organization because its existence is not secret, or because its intentions are not closely guarded? Need I remind you that there is much disagreement over its intentions. The West characterizes Al-Qaeda as seeking the annihilation of western civilization, while Al-Qaeda characterizes itself as seeking self-determination for the Middle East and the expulsion of the West from that region. We market their intentions to sell our own agenda. There are many conspiratorial organizations, in that their machinations are cloaked in deception, while their true intentions remain murky and subject to constant denial.

Quote by: another day yes... simply yelling "conspiricy theorist!!!!11" is a weak argument... But seeking to understand and attack a persons flawed motives for constructing this theory and the shaky foundation it sits on is not.

There are many theories, and, as is popularly said, "they can't all be right." However, conspiracy exists. If you believe that there exist corrupt men of power, and that corrupt men cooperate with other corrupt men, then you cannot doubt that existence...unless you are simply content to believe that the powerful are less highly organized.

Quote by: another day But of course, a simple ad hom attack like yelling conspiracy theorist! is never a valid argument.

We are in argreement.

[thx1138]

Every major event in history has been done through conspiracy, on the other hand very few events are done in the open with full transparency.

What would you call the video I will link to below conspiracy or history? I would refer to it as history...
The Money Masters - How International Bankers Gained Control of America

[ICON]

Quote by: another day You sure about that? It makes sense to me, knowing the human mind that if one cannot know the truth about something, they most dislike the idea of sitting on the fence. They pick an extreme and believe in that, and it doesn't have to be a positive one, because thinking you know something for certain gives people satisfaction, even if the belief is dark and depressing. People like that more then uncertainty. Also, the "dark place" can give people meaning, like it is their duty to spread the word about this evil doing and fight it.

And, what exactly is "unknown"? There is a children's bedtime story, complete with a happy ending, for every boogeyman the public is offered. There is no shortage of comforting answers, for those who can't abide unanswered questions...unless one seeks the actual truth of a matter. Patrick Henry spoke of denial in his famous speech, "It is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it." Those in accord with Patrick Henry's view can hardly be said to be "in denial."