No Conspiracies?

[Rick Deckard]

Why do people who will never accept the possibility that there are conspiracies frequent a conspiracy forum?

I mean, what's the point?

It's the same with so-called 'UFO debunkers' - they know full well they aren't gonna get a sympathetic ear on a UFO forum, but here they are.

IMHO they're just argumentative attention seekers - if you are one of these people, my advice to you is go and set up or join a de-bunking/non-conspiracy forum and give us all some peace.

 

[KorMan]

Translation: "If you don't agree with me, shut up." Gotta love that expression of tolerance of opposing viewpoints. You don't want discussion. You want blind assenting.

 

[Rick Deckard]

Translation: "If you don't agree with me, shut up." Gotta love that expression of tolerance of opposing viewpoints. You don't want discussion. You want blind assenting.

Nope. You missed the point entirely. That's pretty typical of you.

Personally, I don't believe in Christianity (or any other religion for that matter) - should i find a Christian forum and tell them that their bible is a work of fiction? Nope, 'cos it would achieve *nothing*.

If you've got no time for 'conspiracy nuts' then WTF are you doing here?

 

[KorMan]

Your "point" is obvious.

IMHO they're just argumentative attention seekers - if you are one of these people, my advice to you is go and set up or join a de-bunking/non-conspiracy forum and give us all some peace.

Deny that those words say what they say. If your crackpot theories can't stand being dissected, it is the theories that are at fault, not those who challenge them.

 

[Rick Deckard]

Your "point" is obvious.

Deny that those words say what they say. If your crackpot theories can't stand being dissected, it is the theories that are at fault, not those who challenge them.

Please list my 'crackpot' theories.

 

[Rick Deckard]

Please list my 'crackpot' theories.

Didn't think so.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

Why do people who will never accept the possibility that there are conspiracies frequent a conspiracy forum?


I mean, what's the point?

To talk about conspiracies. Some to insult and/or convert. Not sure there are people who would never accept the possibility here. That might be a bit of an exaggeration. No one can buy into all conspiracies so expect a lot of people to disagree.

Actually it's all part of a conspiracy about conspiracies

It's the same with so-called 'UFO debunkers' - they know full well they aren't gonna get a sympathetic ear on a UFO forum, but here they are.

Not everyone comes to forums for sympathy. I don't at least. I come for pity

IMHO they're just argumentative attention seekers - if you are one of these people, my advice to you is go and set up or join a de-bunking/non-conspiracy forum and give us all some peace.

That's an argumentative statement Doubt they will listen to you. If there's someone you don't like here, maybe try ignoring them by not reading their posts. Trust David and Gene to moderate and go about your business. There's quite a few people here who's posts I generally don't read.

Just like you think they shouldn't be here if they don't like the subject, maybe not read their stuff if you don't like them.

 

[Rick Deckard]

Well, you know what? I think I'm wasting my time here.

So long.

 

[David Biedny]

Everyone should take a chill pill.

Deckard, I for one value your participation in these forums, so please reconsider taking your leave of us.

dB

 

[pixelsmith]

big bad mean trolls. they suck. typically they come to places they fear because of the size inadequacies of their sexual apperatus. it makes them feel bigger. just ignore them and they will find someone else to expose their little bits to.

hey Rick, come on back. thicken the skin up a little and just laugh at the guy with the little ding a ling. he is rotten to the core, man.

 

[Rick Deckard]

Sulk over...

...suit of armour primed and ready to go...

...ignore list on "stand-by".

 

[David Biedny]

Deckard, good to see you back, don't let folks get you down.

If there's one thing I'm getting the hang of in playing in this sandbox, it's the building of a tough skin that deflects BS... of which there's plenty in the paraworld.

dB

 

[hopeful skeptic]

Not that it matters much, but I believe in conspiracies - documented ones. Lincoln was unquestionably killed as a result of a conspiracy. Conspirators brought down the World Trade Center on 9/11 by flying planes into it. Conspirators (Leopold and Loeb) murdered a small boy for no good reason. Conspirators conduct beheadings, homicide bombings and sniping in the Middle East every day.

(A current, widely-available news story demonstrates that high-ranking officials of the Chiquita Corporation conspired to pay known terrorist organizations protection money.)

I don't believe in conspiracies that have no supporting evidence for them, and are so far-reaching, outlandish and sweeping that they would fall under their own weight. I'm always willing to listen and weigh the evidence a proponent offers, though.

(I'd be sorry to see Deckard go, too. I enjoy hearing his views.)

 

[mikepc]

Who would Superman be without Lex Luthor? A weird man in blue tights with a red cape.

Some folks are bored and find debunking conspiracy theories and paranormal activity something fun to do.

It should be considered that conspiracy theorists by definition are attempting to 'debunk' publicly accepted accounts of situations. The two belief systems are mutually compatible, even if the individual members of their constituencies have incompatible personalities.

Basically, people will believe what they will, and would rather cling to their own beliefs rather than embrace new evidence with any level of efficacy.

What is important is that all of us keep talking. Communion is the only path to the truth.

 

[CapnG]

homicide bombings

A momentary aside: Do not use this FOX-spawned term. You're obviously a smart guy Skeptic, smart enough to understand that all bombings have a homicidal intent. "Suicide bombing" is a perfectly accurate and sufficient term, let's not shelve it just because it's getting alot of use lately...

 

[Rick Deckard]

It should be considered that conspiracy theorists by definition are attempting to 'debunk' publicly accepted accounts of situations.

You know, I've never really thought about it in those terms before...

The two belief systems are mutually compatible, even if the individual members of their constituencies have incompatible personalities.

...I've felt this for some time - there are as many 'realities' as there are people. Where those 'realities' overlap becomes the 'accepted' reality. But a consensus on a particular reality doesn't necessarily prove it's the correct interpretation it just means that a majority of individuals *believe* it to be true based on their own life experiences and 'acquired' wisdom.

Of course the ability of the media, news, government and educational institutions to influence an individuals belief in a particular 'reality' should never be underestimated and we should be wary of those that seek to monopolize those institutions in order influence our life choices for their personal gain.

A case in point is the Global Warming issue - the UK government is pushing it's carbon taxes legislation based on what it says is a proven fact; that Carbon Dioxide causes Global Warming and the amount produced by humans is significant enough to affect the global climate. Well, the data I've looked shows no such thing - there is a direct correlation between solar activity, water vapor (cloud cover) and temperarture change. There is a delay, sometimes several hundred years, before the amount of carbon in the atmosphere correlates with temperature change. To me this clearly shows that Carbon Dioxide is a *product* of Global Warming not the other way round and yet we supposedly have a 'scientific consensus' that human production of CO2 is the main cause of Global Warming. In fact we are now at the stage where anyone offering an opposing view of the 'consensus' is labeled a heretic. I despair.

 

[hopeful skeptic]

A momentary aside: Do not use this FOX-spawned term. You're obviously a smart guy Skeptic, smart enough to understand that all bombings have a homicidal intent. "Suicide bombing" is a perfectly accurate and sufficient term, let's not shelve it just because it's getting alot of use lately...

FOX didn't invent it, actually. The term was first used by an ABC News correspondent when the Marines were bombed in Lebanon. It's re-emerged more now that folks from "the religion of peace" have been more active than usual.

I use it because I don't feel those who conduct the attacks are worthy of a mention. It's not a pro-FOX thing with me at all. I'd freely admit to it if it were.

 

[hopeful skeptic]

Who would Superman be without Lex Luthor? A weird man in blue tights with a red cape.

I always cheered for Lex Luthor, actually, but even without Lex, Superman still had Lois Lane. Not bad for a fellow in tights.

Some folks are bored and find debunking conspiracy theories and paranormal activity something fun to do.

I guess this is a shot at skeptics who insist that folks who propound conspiracy theories and paranormal theories do so by presenting hard evidence. No evidence? No theory. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If, for example, you believe that Skull and Bones, the Bilderberg group and the Tri-Lateral Commission rule the world, you have to provide hard evidence for that. If you can't, you're only speculating, and speculation is not theory.

It should be considered that conspiracy theorists by definition are attempting to 'debunk' publicly accepted accounts of situations. The two belief systems are mutually compatible, even if the individual members of their constituencies have incompatible personalities.

Please explain how a logical positive is mutually compatible with a logical negative. That I'd like to hear.

Basically, people will believe what they will, and would rather cling to their own beliefs rather than embrace new evidence with any level of efficacy.

Yep. Supernaturalists, for example.

What is important is that all of us keep talking. Communion is the only path to the truth.

Critical thinking is the only path toward the truth. Talking is just noise, as Mr. Biedny is fond of saying.

 

[hopeful skeptic]

A case in point is the Global Warming issue - the UK government is pushing it's carbon taxes legislation based on what it says is a proven fact; that Carbon Dioxide causes Global Warming and the amount produced by humans is significant enough to affect the global climate. Well, the data I've looked shows no such thing - there is a direct correlation between solar activity, water vapor (cloud cover) and temperarture change. There is a delay, sometimes several hundred years, before the amount of carbon in the atmosphere correlates with temperature change. To me this clearly shows that Carbon Dioxide is a *product* of Global Warming not the other way round and yet we supposedly have a 'scientific consensus' that human production of CO2 is the main cause of Global Warming. In fact we are now at the stage where anyone offering an opposing view of the 'consensus' is labeled a heretic. I despair.

You're talking, of course, about an appeal to popularity, which is a logical fallacy. When Al Gore propounds his panic-mongering, he does so by saying that no "serious scientists" disagree that global warming is happening. That is misleading and fallacious. If global warming is occurring, the debate centers on the cause and the phenomenon's permanence, and there are plenty of very good reasons - reasons based on hard, observable, testable data - to argue that mankind has little or nothing to do with global warming. Try saying that in California, or at a UFO conference, though.

The problem is that the issue is so politicized now that it's almost beyond recovery. I despair, too.

 

[CapnG]

FOX didn't invent it, actually. The term was first used by an ABC News correspondent when the Marines were bombed in Lebanon. It's re-emerged more now that folks from "the religion of peace" have been more active than usual.

I stand corrected.

I use it because I don't feel those who conduct the attacks are worthy of a mention.

I don't think personal feelings would satisfy an english teacher for use of grammatically nonsensical term. "Homicide bombings"? As opposed to what, the life-generating kind? It's silly. It's like when I hear someone say "dead corpse", makes me want to illustrate the redundancy by means of demonstration...