About the idea that conspiracies are all nonsense?

Started by AllPurposeAtheist, March 07, 2016, 04:01:04 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

stromboli

#30
Don't think there is much doubt that a dead Osama is way better than a live one. No one wanted to give the man a voice after the fact anyway. Obama had cross hairs on him when the first plane hit the tower. And you can tout conspiracy theories about how he was sitting in a Syrian jail and we could have disposed of him prior to 9/11 and didn't. I never thought the U S intelligence community had much going on between the ears.

All conspiracy theories are after the fact based on some erroneous, doesn't fit the pattern information. Human nature is one of suspicion and doubt, so you will always have conspiracy theories. I will still examine them because of my curious nature, but by and large they are bunk.

Gawdzilla Sama

Quote from: stromboli on March 08, 2016, 10:51:28 AM
Don't think there is much doubt that a dead Obama is way better than a live one. No one wanted to give the man a voice after the fact anyway. Obama had cross hairs on him when the first plane hit the tower. And you can tout conspiracy theories about how he was sitting in a Syrian jail and we could have disposed of him prior to 9/11 and didn't. I never thought the U S intelligence community had much going on between the ears.

All conspiracy theories are after the fact based on some erroneous, doesn't fit the pattern information. Human nature is one of suspicion and doubt, so you will always have conspiracy theories. I will still examine them because of my curious nature, but by and large they are bunk.
Did you mean "Osama"?
We 'new atheists' have a reputation for being militant, but make no mistake  we didn't start this war. If you want to place blame put it on the the religious zealots who have been poisoning the minds of the  young for a long long time."
PZ Myers

stromboli


stromboli


Gawdzilla Sama

We 'new atheists' have a reputation for being militant, but make no mistake  we didn't start this war. If you want to place blame put it on the the religious zealots who have been poisoning the minds of the  young for a long long time."
PZ Myers

widdershins

Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on March 07, 2016, 06:30:51 PM
I'm not pushing conspiracy theories, just saying that violence and robbery are not limited to the shady character hanging out by the ally way.. The bigger the prize the more likely that someone is going to spend some time plotting to take it from you and that plot very well may involve violence.
I just don't get that people are just fine if a guy in a suit swindles them vs a guy in a tshirt..  It's somehow ok if the clean cut, well dressed guy takes all your money, but a guy in a tshirt should be killed on the spot for even thinking about it? 
You hit on one of my biggest pet peeves in our "justice" system.  Forget the fact that there are 3 levels of punishment, depending on who you are.  And forget the fact the justice is very much for sale.  If one person has vastly more money than another, the one with more money will either win or utterly financially destroy the other.  The fact that the punishment doesn't fit the crime is much, much worse.  Corporations have no incentive to be "good guys" because when they're not they can steal an amount of money and, when caught, pay back a paltry percentage of what was stolen along with fines, often totally less than a quarter of what they actually stole.  And the guy who made the decisions on who to steal from and how, bringing home multi-million dollar salaries each year, his assets are untouchable because "he" didn't commit the crime, the corporation did.  He just ordered it done.

Throw in the outrageous disparity between how the rich are treated compared to ordinary people and our justice system is nothing but a joke.  If you're poor and charged with a crime, you sit in jail until you are proved innocent.  If you are rich and charged with a crime, the "arrest" is a formality and you're free until you're proved guilty, sentenced and then given a few months to get your affairs in order...IF you get any jail time at all, at which time you are expected to personally report to "very much not" the same jail the poor people are in.  It's a disgrace, a sickening product of our for-profit prison system where money can buy a better prison experience.

Case in point, Stewart Parnell of Peanut Corporation of America knowingly shipped salmonella tainted peanuts.  The plant was shut down in 2009 after a massive outbreak.  It took 4 years before Parnell was even charged with a crime.  It took nearly another year and a half before the trial began.  4 more months before he was convicted.  Another year before he was sentenced.  Another 5 months before, just last month, he started serving that sentence.  And all that time, he walked free.  7 years to the month of extra freedom his money bought him, and a 28 year sentence (admittedly, effectively life) of a possible 803 year sentence for killing 9 people and sickening hundreds more in reckless profiteering with no concern for public safety.  He blatantly violated health laws.  There were holes in the roofs of some of his buildings and birds flying around inside, crapping on conveyor belts.  Products which tested positive for salmonella were retested again and again until the test was negative so they could be shipped, though the law clearly stated that ONE failed test meant the product had to be destroyed.  None of his plants had ever been inspected by health officials because he had purposely mis-classified them as facilities that did not require health inspections.  And when officials finally shut him down, his response was to ask them to just let him "turn the product on the floor into money".  And this from a man who served on the US Department of Agriculture Peanut Standards Board, responsible for the very standards he violated routinely.  And when he was sued, it was the company which went bankrupt.  He's still rich.

The there's ex-congressman Mark Foley, a champion of online safety for children...then caught texting teenage boys for sex.  But what happened to Parnel, that's not what happened to Foley.  Parnel was using the rules for the "rich".  Foley fell under the rules for the "powerful".  No charges.  Resign and it's done.

I could go on and on about the problems with our corrupt and out of control justice system, but that's not the topic and I'm sure nobody wants to read me bitching for 5 more paragraphs.
This sentence is a lie...

Hijiri Byakuren

People tend to disregard conspiracy theories mainly because the term has become associated with crackpots. The ones which are actually believable are just called theories.
Speak when you have something to say, not when you have to say something.

Sargon The Grape - My Youtube Channel

Baruch

#37
Here is an example:  The government could impose additional capital controls on your 401k/IRA/pension money.  It is already under government control.  They could increase that control.  They could prohibit you from taking any money out (including under current rules) ... because they got up one morning and decided that.

So if I say they will increase capital controls, or they will do it on 7/4/16 ... then that is a speculation, not a theory.  A theory has to have backing.  I would have to know someone in Treasury who told me this in confidence.  The US and every other government, has complete control of your checking and bank accounts, and all other electronic financial assets ... because they control every institution (including banks) that allow you access or control.  This is a theory, because it is backed by evidence.  So they could do this ... and if they do, I don't know when.  So does that make me a crackpot?  Depends on if you need access or control ... and if you expect that your financial institution or government ... is looking out for your interests ;-)

On a related point ... a little bird told another little bird, that right now, the IT department at Bank of America is reworking their software (like the year 2000 issue) to allow negative interest rates.  That isn't the same as the President coming out and saying it.  But if any President came out and said that ... I would think it highly unlikely, rather than more likely, because all Presidents are tools, and pathological liars.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

widdershins

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on March 08, 2016, 11:16:16 PM
People tend to disregard conspiracy theories mainly because the term has become associated with crackpots. The ones which are actually believable are just called theories.
I think it's more than that, though for many it may not be on a conscious level.  In my early evolution as an atheist I used to be open to ideas about just about anything.  Alien visitation, ghosts, bigfoot, God, you name it.  I didn't necessarily believe in any of it, but let's say I hoped there was something truly magical out there.  But I had just come out of a religion which I had ignorantly taken on "faith" (because that's how it's done) and, realizing I had been wrong, I was fully aware that faith was stupid.

Long story short, I spent a lot of time looking into claims and tracking down stories for a couple of years, and conspiracy theories were among the things I looked into.  Not one of them panned out, of course, but more than that, I noticed the attitudes of the claimants, how they would change when a favored theory was shot down.  They wouldn't.  Not one bit.  They would simply drop the discussion entirely and move on to the next claim.  They were never phased, never slowed, never dissuaded.  To them, it was "proof" until you proved it wasn't.  And if you did, forget about it.  There was plenty more "proof" to fawn over.  I got to know the psychology of the claimant and I realized they tend to have similarities.  There is the basic, urgent need for there to be a conspiracy, and it really doesn't matter what it is, though they all have their favorites.

So I don't think it is so much that the term has been associated with crackpots as it is that only crackpots use the term and, on a subconscious level anyway, we all tend to be able to spot them pretty easily if we're not blinded by that self-same need.  Some of them speak desperately, some of them speak eloquently, but all of them speak vaguely, offering "suggestive evidence" instead of real evidence.  Nobody is calling Snowden a conspiracy theorist.  Why?  Because he speaks directly, offering actual, real evidence, not some vague connect-the-dots "theory", but reality.  Because the laymen calls it a "theory" when they have no proof, and I think, at least on a subconscious level, we all kind of recognize that and, unless we choose to ignore it (as many do, again, subconsciously) to entertain a fantasy with which to occupy our minds with mystery we just dismiss them outright unless they have proof, which is natural, honest and intellectual.
This sentence is a lie...

josephpalazzo

It's one of those things where crackpot theory uses crackpot evidence. Hard to penetrate through...

AllPurposeAtheist

#40
The thing about the kinds of things that might arise to the level of a conspiracy theory or actual conspiracies is they're usually committed by people who will go to extraordinary lengths to keep anyone from finding out up to and including murder which in turn has to be covered up.  It's hard to fathom for most people those kinds of concepts and for those involved they always have the ace in the hole of simply saying that it's just a conspiracy theory. Once the public believes that it's simply a conspiracy theory the odds of anyone following through and actually investigating it diminishes greatly.  After all, who wants to be the high profile conspiracy theory investigator? There really are two sides to the coin.
We know that conspiracy exist and so do theories, but put the two together and whalah! It's like magic and goes away..
All hail my new signature!

Admit it. You're secretly green with envy.

FaithIsFilth

My problem is not with people accepting the official 9/11 story. That's all fine and well. My problem is when people act like questioning the official story makes you an idiot. You can pretend that any questions have been "debunked", but nothing that I've said about 9/11 has been debunked. It can't be debunked, so all this debunked talk you hear is nothing but nonsense. We don't know exactly what happened that day, and anyone acting like they know exactly what happened acts like they know more than they do. You don't know what happened. I don't know what happened. You pretend to know everything about everything. I don't pretend to know everything.

Yes, most truthers are morons. That goes for anything in life. Most consevatives are morons and most liberals are also morons. Most human beings are morons. Most human beings make claims that can not be backed up by evidence. I try to make sure not to do that, and that's why my take on 9/11 can't be debunked. Dick Cheney and George W Bush, two of the most evil men to ever live, had the power to shoot planes down. No planes were shot down. One decision destroys their Presidency and fucks up everything they want to accomplish (shoot the planes down), and the other possible decision gives them everything they want on a silver platter. If you're one of the most evil men to ever live, what is your decision? What do you do? Hard choice, eh? Sure, it's possible that they didn't catch the planes in time to shoot them down. I accept that that's possible. If they did catch the planes in time though, which choice are two of the most evil men ever more likely to make? One that's going to ruin their Presidency, or one that's going to benefit their Presidency more than anything has ever benefited a Presidency before? If you answer that question by saying you think two of the most evil men doing something to benefit them in a huge way is as likely as Jesus rising from the dead, I can not take your opinion seriously even a little bit. When I see someone say something like that, it seems like you've just heard Bill Maher compare people who question the government to Christians or something so you're just repeating that crap even though it makes little to no sense. Those who act like they are certain nothing sketchy went on behind the scenes... they are the ones acting like know-it-all Christians.

Sal1981

Conspiracy theories thrive on unknowns. Just that should tell you plenty about their veracity.

Sent from my ST23i using Tapatalk


Gawdzilla Sama

Quote from: josephpalazzo on March 09, 2016, 11:12:44 AM
It's one of those things where crackpot theory uses crackpot evidence. Hard to penetrate through...
Just pay attention to the speakers. Are they there to get the facts or are they there to attack someone or some group? Are they impervious to fatal flaws in their theory? Do they claim that anybody who uses the term conspiracy theorist is a tool of some shadowy force you've probably never heard of before?
We 'new atheists' have a reputation for being militant, but make no mistake  we didn't start this war. If you want to place blame put it on the the religious zealots who have been poisoning the minds of the  young for a long long time."
PZ Myers

Hydra009

Quote from: FaithIsFilth on March 09, 2016, 03:07:32 PMIf you answer that question by saying you think two of the most evil men doing something to benefit them in a huge way is as likely as Jesus rising from the dead, I can not take your opinion seriously even a little bit. When I see someone say something like that, it seems like you've just heard Bill Maher compare people who question the government to Christians or something so you're just repeating that crap even though it makes little to no sense. Those who act like they are certain nothing sketchy went on behind the scenes... they are the ones acting like know-it-all Christians.
There actually are parallels between conspiracy theorists and religious people.  The most obvious ones are a reliance on personal conviction instead of hard facts and a tendency to hang onto disproven claims, either ignoring disconfirming evidence or obstinately denying that their claims are disproven at all.