• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Mother of all Conspiracies

calamity said:
The way OJ segued right into Lewinsky and then the contested election, the guy really nailed it because the mother of all media events followed right behind in September, 2001. America's eyes had been glued to CNN/Fox News pretty much continuously since 1993.

In all seriousness though, think about all the people who became news junkies in those years. Damn! I knew people whose TV's were on one of those stations almost 24 hours a day.
Click to expand...

You pay money for psychic readings, don't you?
 
Mark F said:
That's probably worse.
Click to expand...

Not sure what it is, but I can almost guarantee that if I dated her, she had a Sylvia Browne book on her shelf. Usually, it sat right next to several volumes on fad diets and healing yourself through positive thinking.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Your many posts here over a year or more, suggest otherwise. :cool:
Click to expand...

It is rather amusing to watch the conspiracy "debunkers" parroting official government releases to the media. They are theorists in their own right. Just that instead of believing in conspiracies, they believe in what they are told by official sources.

PBS did a special on it. Therefore it must be true. NYT wrote an article...gospel. Snopes proved it wrong. I guess that's the end of that. :lol:
 
calamity said:
It is rather amusing to watch the conspiracy "debunkers" parroting official government releases to the media. They are theorists in their own right. Just that instead of believing in conspiracies, they believe in what they are told by official sources.

PBS did a special on it. Therefore it must be true. NYT wrote an article...gospel. Snopes proved it wrong. I guess that's the end of that. :lol:
Click to expand...

The difference actually is in the thinking process. Conspiracy theorists can/do not think. This is why they are conspiracy theorists. People such as yourself who start off with the assumption that its the official story so it must be wrong (you prove me wrong) tend to demonstrate a distinct deficit of critical thinking.
 
Mark F said:
The difference actually is in the thinking process. Conspiracy theorists can/do not think. This is why they are conspiracy theorists. People such as yourself who start off with the assumption that its the official story so it must be wrong (you prove me wrong) tend to demonstrate a distinct deficit of critical thinking.
Click to expand...

Chances are pretty good that the "official story" is chock full of lies and misdirection, especially at first. Did you ever see the list of conspiracy theories proven to be true? It's rather eye-opening, if you choose to look.

All of these are verifiable.

http://list25.com/25-conspiracy-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-true/
 
calamity said:
Chances are pretty good that the "official story" is chock full of lies and misdirection, especially at first. Did you ever see the list of conspiracy theories proven to be true? It's rather eye-opening, if you choose to look.

All of these are verifiable.

http://list25.com/25-conspiracy-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-true/
Click to expand...

Chances are 100% that the conspiracy theories are chock full of lies and misdirection. Your list for example does not in fact contain a single CT that turned out to be true.
 
Mark F said:
Chances are 100% that the conspiracy theories are chock full of lies and misdirection. Your list for example does not in fact contain a single CT that turned out to be true.
Click to expand...

Wrong. All of those items listed were stories first denied to be true by official sources. But, in the end, each one of them was shown to be 100% true.

I guess you still believe pro wrestling is not fake. :)
 
calamity said:
Wrong. All of those items listed were stories first denied to be true by official sources. But, in the end, each one of them was shown to be 100% true.

I guess you still believe pro wrestling is not fake. :)
Click to expand...

That isn't what I said.
 
Mark F said:
That isn't what I said.
Click to expand...

Looks to me like you did. Maybe you should work on being more precise in your language. 50 well chosen words can say a lot. Whereas 500 poorly chosen ones just eats up space.
 
This thread makes me wonder how people on Debate Politics stay up all night listening to George Noory.:3oops:
 
Mark F said:
The difference actually is in the thinking process. Conspiracy theorists can/do not think. This is why they are conspiracy theorists. People such as yourself who start off with the assumption that its the official story so it must be wrong (you prove me wrong) tend to demonstrate a distinct deficit of critical thinking.
Click to expand...

I don't know about Calamity's experiences, but I actually believed that absurd government story for a number of years. Was I thinking by believing that garbage? No, I was conforming to the way they wanted me to think, and that is not really "thinking" in the classic sense of the word.

When I started reading and analyzing the known facts, THAT is thinking of the analytical variety.

Believing a fable because it's shoved down your throat is not thinking Mark, it is being gullible and incurious.
 
calamity said:
Looks to me like you did. Maybe you should work on being more precise in your language. 50 well chosen words can say a lot. Whereas 500 poorly chosen ones just eats up space.
Click to expand...

You need to work on your reading comprehension skills. Let me repeat one more time, even though I was abundantly clear and concise - being well aware that after 100 words your brain turns completely to Jello:

Your list for example does not in fact contain a single CT that turned out to be true.
Click to expand...
 
Thoreau72 said:
I don't know about Calamity's experiences, but I actually believed that absurd government story for a number of years. Was I thinking by believing that garbage? No, I was conforming to the way they wanted me to think, and that is not really "thinking" in the classic sense of the word.

When I started reading and analyzing the known facts, THAT is thinking of the analytical variety.

Believing a fable because it's shoved down your throat is not thinking Mark, it is being gullible and incurious.
Click to expand...

I have never known you to employ analytical thinking. There are no examples of it here. Not only do you not present reasoned argument, you run from it when reasoned argument is presented to you.
 
Mark F said:
You need to work on your reading comprehension skills. Let me repeat one more time, even though I was abundantly clear and concise - being well aware that after 100 words your brain turns completely to Jello:
Click to expand...

And, as I said, you must still believe that pro wrestling is not fake.
 
Thoreau72 said:
I don't know about Calamity's experiences, but I actually believed that absurd government story for a number of years. Was I thinking by believing that garbage? No, I was conforming to the way they wanted me to think, and that is not really "thinking" in the classic sense of the word.

When I started reading and analyzing the known facts, THAT is thinking of the analytical variety.

Believing a fable because it's shoved down your throat is not thinking Mark, it is being gullible and incurious.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Weighing evidence from various sources and comparing them to what seems logical and reasonable versus just buying some hair-brained explanation provided by some "official" source is the epitome of thinking. If the official story has holes in it, accepting that story is the opposite of thinking.
 
calamity said:
Exactly. Weighing evidence from various sources and comparing them to what seems logical and reasonable versus just buying some hair-brained explanation provided by some "official" source is the epitome of thinking. If the official story has holes in it, accepting that story is the opposite of thinking.
Click to expand...

Doesn't what you posted also apply to the alternative explanations? If the explanation "has holes in it, accepting that story is the opposite of thinking."
 
mike2810 said:
Doesn't what you posted also apply to the alternative explanations? If the explanation "has holes in it, accepting that story is the opposite of thinking."
Click to expand...

Of course. Hence, I do not accept any one of the explanations in "conspiracy theory," but rather simply agree that there probably is a conspiracy to intentionally keep evidence leading to the truth vague and off the front page.

My favorite conspiracy which was proven to be such a case is the CIA involvement with smuggling opium in the 70's. Denied by officials forever, even to this day, we all know (or we should) that the CIA was instrumental in smuggling heroin out of Southeast Asia and funneling it into the United States. I guess we could add murdering people in Chile and Guatemala to the list of known conspiracies still denied by the CIA to this day.
 
calamity said:
Of course. Hence, I do not accept any one of the explanations in "conspiracy theory," but rather simply agree that there probably is a conspiracy to intentionally keep evidence leading to the truth vague and off the front page.

My favorite conspiracy which was proven to be such a case is the CIA involvement with smuggling opium in the 70's. Denied by officials forever, even to this day, we all know (or we should) that the CIA was instrumental in smuggling heroin out of Southeast Asia and funneling it into the United States. I guess we could add murdering people in Chile and Guatemala to the list of known conspiracies still denied by the CIA to this day.
Click to expand...

While the events you describe are conspiracies (in that they involve more than one person) those are not instances of conspiracy theories later being proven true.
 
Mark F said:
While the events you describe are conspiracies (in that they involve more than one person) those are not instances of conspiracy theories later being proven true.
Click to expand...

Ah, now I get what you were driving at. No. They were not technically a CT proven true, at least not in the specific sense of a certain theory being verified. Rather, they were conspiracies outed, thus proving the skeptics who doubted the "official story" correct.

Sometimes my word-economy does assume the reader knows what we are talking about. If you'll notice, the author of the article did the same thing. The official story was pro wrestling is real. The CT folks said, "No it is not. It's fake." Thus, the CT folks were right.
 
calamity said:
Exactly. Weighing evidence from various sources and comparing them to what seems logical and reasonable versus just buying some hair-brained explanation provided by some "official" source is the epitome of thinking. If the official story has holes in it, accepting that story is the opposite of thinking.
Click to expand...

Conspiracy theorists do not come up with things that are "logical" or "reasonable." When they hear hooves, they don't think horses, or even zebras. They think snakes.
 
Deuce said:
Conspiracy theorists do not come up with things that are "logical" or "reasonable." When they hear hooves, they don't think horses, or even zebras. They think snakes.
Click to expand...

I see it a little more like this. The official story spins the sound of hooves into a yarn about mating snakes while CTists argue it came from three loud speakers on a UFO.
 
calamity said:
And, as I said, you must still believe that pro wrestling is not fake.
Click to expand...

What, it is faked! I am shocked. I will never look at pro wrestling the same way again. What a scam. Here I thought it was real all these years.
Shame on Hulk Hogan, Undertaker, Andre the Giant, Randy Savage, etc. Pulling a scam on some of us.:lamo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom