87 replies to this topic

[Lilly]

and then, on 05 March 2012 - 03:56 AM, said:

THAT is one serious blinged out GAT.   Though it would be disheartening to be killed with a matched accessory.

Oohhh...I absolutely love it! Now that's some 'deadly force' with real panache. Can't you just imagine pointing that and saying, "Freeze Sucker!"?  

[Left-Field]

aquatus1, on 05 March 2012 - 12:56 PM, said:

Yes, the obvious has been pointed out repeatedly, even to the death, and the general level of "duh" has not increased in the slightest.  Similarly, the only reasons such an utterly obvious an un-contested claim needs to be repeated three or four times is in order to make a point that, by itself, is similarly unimpressive.

I'm discussing what the thread's topic is about (would you prefer I post off topic like you and Lilly have?). The reason the point is being stated more than once is because there are some who refuse to believe conspiracies exist, and that if they do exist the government plays no part in them.

A weapon such as this Heart Attack Gun cleary shows otherwise. It's very existance leaves one to wonder under what circumstances would the government use such a device.

One reason that stands out to me would be a desire to silence / eliminate a person that stands in the way of an agenda they wish to push forward or to silence / eliminate a person who knows too much information about certain things the government doesn't want revealed.

It could also be used to eliminate dictators and what not - but something like that would usually take place as an act of war where there is little to no reason to try and cover up the fact the person was murdered.

aquatus1, on 05 March 2012 - 12:56 PM, said:

You are creating a false dichotomy here.  I haven't met anyone, here in this forum or anywhere else, who denies that government conspiracies exist.  Now, I do know quite a few people that do indeed mock and belittle conspiracy theorists.  The difference being, conspiracies are created by governments, whereas conspiracy theorists create their own conspiracies.  And, in all honesty, they tend to do it by emphasizing things that, to pretty much everyone else, are pretty obvious.

I would like to know what conspiracies "debunkers" are willing to acknowledge the government played a role in or have likely played a role in.

Unless one has definitive proof of a government created conspiracy than anything presented regarding the government and conspiracies will always be no more than a theory.

And it's not as if the government is going to reveal the facts about any conspiracy they created. If they were to do that then there would be no point in them conspiring as a means of accomplishing their goals to begin with.

The very act of conspiring is to do something wrong, evil, or illegal. As far as I know that is not how the government is supposed to serve its people.

aquatus1, on 05 March 2012 - 12:56 PM, said:

My point is that pretending that "government conspiracies" and "conspiracies created by conspiracy theorist" are one and the same feels pretty much like an unimpressive extension to an unimpressive conclusion drawn from unimpressive evidence.

Is your stance that government created conspiracies are ones citizens shouldn't question and / or take issue with?

Furthermore, would you be implying that "government conspiracies" are done for just and righteous reasons as opposed to the reasons conspiracy theorists believe they are done?

Edited by Silvergun Superman, 06 March 2012 - 03:09 AM.

[aquatus1]

Silvergun Superman, on 06 March 2012 - 02:59 AM, said:

The reason the point is being stated more than once is because there are some who refuse to believe conspiracies exist, and that if they do exist the government plays no part in them.

Anyone?  Anyone?  Hands?

Haven't seen anyone like that in this site for about 8 years now.

Quote

It's very existance leaves one to wonder under what circumstances would the government use such a device.

It does?  Seems kind of obvious, doesn't it?  You use it when you want someone dead with a minimum of fuss.

Quote

One reason that stands out to me would be a desire to silence / eliminate a person that stands in the way of an agenda they wish to push forward or to silence / eliminate a person who knows too much information about certain things the government doesn't want revealed.

Those are good.  I can also add "Get rid of someone who is a potential danger to the country, the military, or the government" and "To remove a leader in order to place a controllable successor".

Quote

It could also be used to eliminate dictators and what not - but something like that would usually take place as an act of war where there is little to no reason to try and cover up the fact the person was murdered.

Hmm, no, I think you are missing the point of it being a undetectable heart attack gun.  In fact, this sort of reason would probably be the primary scenario for its use, as it would prevent having to go to war and it could not be directly blamed on the U.S.  It is much less risky.  Trying to prevent a war by conventional assassination is more difficult, as one has to set up someone, preferably the opposition, to take the fall.

Quote

I would like to know what conspiracies "debunkers" are willing to acknowledge the government played a role in or have likely played a role in.

What, like confirmed conspiracies?  They aren't that difficult to find.

Cracked: 7 Real Conspiracies

Are you looking for older ones, maybe historically important ones?  Try these:  4 Ancient Conspiracies

Or just American conspiracies?  Leaving out that BIG one on back in 1787, when a group of politicians met behind closed doors and decided on a coup of the American government, weakening the powers of individual states and making them subservient to a new, stronger, central government, with the federal powers beyond anything the country had seen before...

Yeah, the U.S. has plenty of home-grown conspiracies: U.S. Conspiracies

Like I said, the roblem isn't really the conspiracies.  The problem is the conspiracy theorists.  Not to be confused with normal people who suspect a conspiracy.

Quote

Unless one has definitive proof of a government created conspiracy than anything presented regarding the government and conspiracies will always be no more than a theory.

Well, yeah...That's kind of how the whole "guilty till proven innocent" thing works.

Quote

And it's not as if the government is going to reveal the facts about any conspiracy they created. If they were to do that then there would be no point in them conspiring as a means of accomplishing their goals to begin with.

Quite right.  The government...or more accurately, the conspirators...go to some pretty impressive lengths to cover up their crimes.  It takes some massive effort to uncover a conspiracy, to find all the evidence, and to put the dots together in a case so airtight the government has no choice but to try the conspirators for their crimes.  That is the kind of effort it takes to win yourself a Pulitzer prize, and that is why the Pulitzer is considered the cream of a journalists career.

Quote

The very act of conspiring is to do something wrong, evil, or illegal. As far as I know that is not how the government is supposed to serve its people.

Well, there's your mistake right there!  Conspiracies have nothing to do with "wrong" or "evil".  Those are just subjective morality judgements.  Heck, usually, the conspirators are pretty sure they are actually doing something good.  No wonder you feel so strongly about conspiracies!

Nah, conspiracies aren't about morality.  All that a conspiracy is, is an acknowledgement that you are about to do something majorly illegal, and you don't want to get caught.

Quote

Is your stance that government created conspiracies are ones citizens shouldn't question and / or take issue with?

Can't even imagine how you got to that conclusion.

Quote

Furthermore, would you be implying that "government conspiracies" are done for just and righteous reasons as opposed to the reasons conspiracy theorists believe they are done?

Brings to mind a statement from Benjamin Franklin, back in 1776, when someone asked if a rebellion against England would be legal:

"Legal Rebellion?  Come now sir, you should know that rebellions are always legal in the first person: "Our" rebellion.  It is only in the third person, "Their" rebellion, in which they are illegal."

I like Franklin, but I'm glad they didn't let him write the Declaration of Independence.  Knowing him, he would have snuck some of his jokes just to prank people way down the line.

[ThePhantomFlanFlinger]

Silver...you should not be so naive...most major nations use such tactics to eliminate potential problems before they arise....if a potential c*** up gets out then its a problem that can be erased by conspiracy theorists..

[Left-Field]

You (aquatus1) may want to look up the definition of what it means to conspire.

The real point here is that the government creates conspiracies. To believe that they soley create them to accomplish goals deemed necessary as a means of protecting its citizens is foolish and naive.

aquatus1, on 06 March 2012 - 09:39 AM, said:

Like I said, the problem isn't really the conspiracies.  The problem is the conspiracy theorists.  Not to be confused with normal people who suspect a conspiracy.

I wholeheartedly agree with you there.

The thing is, I can reasonably consider myself one who suspects a conspiracy surrounds a certain event and yet still be labeled a "conspiracy theorist" by others simply because they don't suspect a conspiracy surrounding the same subject.

Edited by Silvergun Superman, 06 March 2012 - 10:35 AM.

[Babe Ruth]

aquatus1, on 06 March 2012 - 09:39 AM, said:

Anyone?  Anyone?  Hands?

Haven't seen anyone like that in this site for about 8 years now.



It does?  Seems kind of obvious, doesn't it?  You use it when you want someone dead with a minimum of fuss.



Those are good.  I can also add "Get rid of someone who is a potential danger to the country, the military, or the government" and "To remove a leader in order to place a controllable successor".

[/font]

Hmm, no, I think you are missing the point of it being a undetectable heart attack gun.  In fact, this sort of reason would probably be the primary scenario for its use, as it would prevent having to go to war and it could not be directly blamed on the U.S.  It is much less risky.  Trying to prevent a war by conventional assassination is more difficult, as one has to set up someone, preferably the opposition, to take the fall.



What, like confirmed conspiracies?  They aren't that difficult to find.

Cracked: 7 Real Conspiracies

Are you looking for older ones, maybe historically important ones?  Try these:  4 Ancient Conspiracies

Or just American conspiracies?  Leaving out that BIG one on back in 1787, when a group of politicians met behind closed doors and decided on a coup of the American government, weakening the powers of individual states and making them subservient to a new, stronger, central government, with the federal powers beyond anything the country had seen before...

Yeah, the U.S. has plenty of home-grown conspiracies: U.S. Conspiracies

Like I said, the roblem isn't really the conspiracies.  The problem is the conspiracy theorists.  Not to be confused with normal people who suspect a conspiracy.



Well, yeah...That's kind of how the whole "guilty till proven innocent" thing works.



Quite right.  The government...or more accurately, the conspirators...go to some pretty impressive lengths to cover up their crimes.  It takes some massive effort to uncover a conspiracy, to find all the evidence, and to put the dots together in a case so airtight the government has no choice but to try the conspirators for their crimes.  That is the kind of effort it takes to win yourself a Pulitzer prize, and that is why the Pulitzer is considered the cream of a journalists career.



Well, there's your mistake right there!  Conspiracies have nothing to do with "wrong" or "evil".  Those are just subjective morality judgements.  Heck, usually, the conspirators are pretty sure they are actually doing something good.  No wonder you feel so strongly about conspiracies!

Nah, conspiracies aren't about morality.  All that a conspiracy is, is an acknowledgement that you are about to do something majorly illegal, and you don't want to get caught.

[font="verdana"]

Can't even imagine how you got to that conclusion.





Brings to mind a statement from Benjamin Franklin, back in 1776, when someone asked if a rebellion against England would be legal:

"Legal Rebellion?  Come now sir, you should know that rebellions are always legal in the first person: "Our" rebellion.  It is only in the third person, "Their" rebellion, in which they are illegal."

I like Franklin, but I'm glad they didn't let him write the Declaration of Independence.  Knowing him, he would have snuck some of his jokes just to prank people way down the line.

That might be the most verbose statement ever making the simple point that "conspiracies exist, and sometimes the government engages in them."

And Silvergun is right, at least as I read the discussion--there are indeed people who SPEAK AND TEXT as though conspiracies, and government involvment in them, are so rare as to be virtually impossible to find.

[bouncer]

And... just to put the cat among the pigeons, if I may be so bold... someone else just died young, from a mystery 'something'... and the President was KNOWN to loathe him

"Obama Impersonator Steve Bridges Dead At 48"

Qoute: The Administration has tried to put a stop to Bridges’ act because Obama has made it known that he is deeply offended.

Source:  http://zen-haven.dk/obama-impersonator-steve-bridges-dead-at-48/

Now this is all getting weird? Like someone at the top is having a forest fire... clearing the ground?

Or...its just another co-incidence??

Edited by bouncer, 06 March 2012 - 09:12 PM.

[tapirmusic]

Breitbart, anyone?

[Fluffybunny]

tapirmusic, on 06 March 2012 - 10:52 PM, said:

Breitbart, anyone?

did you read any of the posts?

[aquatus1]

Silvergun Superman, on 06 March 2012 - 10:33 AM, said:

You (aquatus1) may want to look up the definition of what it means to conspire.

You may want to check the definition of "conspiracy", which is what we are actually talking about.

Quote

The real point here is that the government creates conspiracies.

Really?  'Cause in the OP, that's just kind of assumed.  Bouncer was just wondering how often the gun had been used.

Quote

To believe that they soley create them to accomplish goals deemed necessary as a means of protecting its citizens is foolish and naive.

Hmm...so, with four reasons to assassinate others already agreed to (only one of which could be interpreted as including "protecting citizens") and many others still available...

Your implied conclusion is:  "You are foolish and naive because you believe the sole reason for this is to protect citizens"?

Quote

I wholeheartedly agree with you there.
The thing is, I can reasonably consider myself one who suspects a conspiracy surrounds a certain event and yet still be labeled a "conspiracy theorist" by others simply because they don't suspect a conspiracy surrounding the same subject.

That is certainly one possibility.  Another possibility is that the manner in which you argue your case (such as using a definition for a word similar to, but not actually the same as the one being discussed) and/or come to your conclusions (accusation of a perceived stereotype in direct conflict with the given evidence) is behaviour more commonly seen in conspiracy theorist than in people who suspect conspiracies.

I tend to judge people less on what they claim, and more on what they do.  Behaviour is a far more honest indicator of actual mindset than thought or belief.

Babe Ruth, on 06 March 2012 - 01:54 PM, said:

That might be the most verbose statement ever making the simple point that "conspiracies exist, and sometimes the government engages in them."

I know, right!

One hopes simpler posts are agreed with, but after three tries, it's time to expand and support a statement as, evidently, it is not as clear as one intended.

Quote

And Silvergun is right, at least as I read the discussion--there are indeed people who SPEAK AND TEXT as though conspiracies, and government involvment in them, are so rare as to be virtually impossible to find.

Yeah, I keep hearing that, but I haven't seen any actual examples.  But hey, as long as we are discussing the accuracy of a claim, would my claim be considered right as well?

Would it be correct to claim that, on this site, there are no people who claim that there are no conspiracies, or that governments do not engage in them?

bouncer, on 06 March 2012 - 08:55 PM, said:

And... just to put the cat among the pigeons, if I may be so bold... someone else just died young, from a mystery 'something'... and the President was KNOWN to loathe him
"Obama Impersonator Steve Bridges Dead At 48"
Qoute: The Administration has tried to put a stop to Bridges' act because Obama has made it known that he is deeply offended.
...
Now this is all getting weird? Like someone at the top is having a forest fire... clearing the ground?
Or...its just another co-incidence??

Well, earlier, Silvergun pointed out that "Only for the protection of citizens" would be a foolish and naive justification.  I tend to agree, however, if we remove the qualifier "Only", and simply state "For the protection of citizens", I think we can put that on the table as Reason #5 for a heart attack gun (granted, a pretty vague reason, and hardly limited to an undetectable weapon, but, there you go...)

So, with the bar for justification lowered to that level, on the scale of "foolish and naive", where would: 'Cause he's kind of annoying and he REALLY bugs us  fall?

[Left-Field]

aquatus1, on 07 March 2012 - 12:44 AM, said:

You may want to check the definition of "conspiracy", which is what we are actually talking about.

And what do people do prior to carrying out a conspiracy? They conspire.

Guess what - it's actually the first definition given in the dictionary for the word.  

Conspiracy

1. the act of conspiring.
2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose.
4. Law . an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

aquatus1, on 07 March 2012 - 12:44 AM, said:

Really?  'Cause in the OP, that's just kind of assumed.  Bouncer was just wondering how often the gun had been used.

It's quite ammusing how when it's easier to state governments create conspiracies rather then delve into why they carry out these conspiracies you come right out and state it as if it is no big deal.

Yet when a "conspiracy theorist" gives their thoughts on why they feel the government played a role in an event such as 9/11 (just an example) you will resort to mocking, belittling, and talking down to them simply because they suggest such a thing.

aquatus1, on 07 March 2012 - 12:44 AM, said:

Hmm...so, with four reasons to assassinate others already agreed to (only one of which could be interpreted as including "protecting citizens") and many others still available...

Your implied conclusion is:  "You are foolish and naive because you believe the sole reason for this is to protect citizens"?

I didn't state that was your belief. I simply stated that if you, or anyone else, holds to that belief they are foolish and naive.

As it now seems, based upon your above statement, we are in agreement that the government carries out conspiracies for reasons other than the interest of the people.

aquatus1, on 07 March 2012 - 12:44 AM, said:

That is certainly one possibility.  Another possibility is that the manner in which you argue your case (such as using a definition for a word similar to, but not actually the same as the one being discussed)

Contrary to what you imply, it is you that is attempting trickery here.

Prior to carrying out a conspiracy, the people that are about to do so conspire. They go hand in hand.

Reread the top of this post if you are still confused about what a "conspiracy" is and how the word "conspire" relates to it.

aquatus1, on 07 March 2012 - 12:44 AM, said:

I tend to judge people less on what they claim, and more on what they do.  Behaviour is a far more honest indicator of actual mindset than thought or belief.

Ah, yes. We agree here also. I doubt you are well aware of what your own responses are revealing about yourself however.

aquatus1, on 07 March 2012 - 12:44 AM, said:

I know, right!

One hopes simpler posts are agreed with, but after three tries, it's time to expand and support a statement as, evidently, it is not as clear as one intended.

Now this is a perfect example of how you fail to realize what your quote directly above reveals about you.

You make this statement: I know, right!

Being sure to include not only an exclamation point, but a "laugh out loud" smiley as well, as if to imply something negative about me, my thought process, and / or how capable I am of processing your posts - and my ability to be a "normal" person that suspects a conspiracy as opposed to a "nutty" "conspiracy theorist" that proposes rediculous beliefs about the government - because it should be clear to everyone that you are in the right here and I am in the wrong.

I'm well aware of that tactic when one is dealing with a person who holds a view that opposes their own.

To me it is a sign of not only immaturity, but also reveals that your argument isn't strong enough to stand on it's own merit. You resort to a negative connotation about the person you are supposed to be having a respectful dialouge with as if it strengthens your view and weakens mine. The fact is, it does neither.

aquatus1, on 07 March 2012 - 12:44 AM, said:

Would it be correct to claim that, on this site, there are no people who claim that there are no conspiracies, or that governments do not engage in them?

There are definetly people here who post in a manner that would suggest the government does not create conspiracies. Whether they truly believe that or not is hard to really know without asking a poster the question directly.

And even if some of those people are willing to admit the government creates conspiracies, they will still treat those that suspect conspiracies in regards to certain topics as a "nutty" "conspiracy theorist" simply because they don't suspect a conspiracy regarding that same topic.

You are a perfect example of that mind set. How do I know? Well, it's like you said above:

"I tend to judge people less on what they claim, and more on what they do. Behaviour is a far more honest indicator of actual mindset than thought or belief."

Edited by Silvergun Superman, 07 March 2012 - 04:20 AM.

[aquatus1]

Silvergun Superman, on 07 March 2012 - 03:22 AM, said:

And what do people do when prior to carrying out a conspiracy? They conspire.

Yep, they do.  A word which has several definitions, from several different sources.  Why, there is even a definition for when the word is used to describe people or events acting in harmony towards a common end (The mothers conspired to set up the surprise party for the team).   This is the one of two definitions which actually uses "conspire" to indicate an emotional motive, in this case to plan happiness for their children's baseball team.

The only other definition, among the many others, that I found which also refers to an emotional motive, is the one you linked:  To agree together, especially secretly, to do something wrong, evil, or illegal: They conspired to kill the king.  Which, as we can see through the use of the qualifier "or", means that "wrong" and "evil" are possible motives, but hardly essential.

So, have we beat this horse into the ground yet, or are you adamant that governments, by necessity and definition of "conspiring", must also be wrong or evil?  It does kind of influence the conclusions drawn quite a bit, or we wouldn't be spending quite so much time on it.

Or, if you are willing to agree that "governments" are not necessary for people to carry out a conspiracy, and people, when carrying out conspiracies, do not always do so for the sheer wrongness or evilness of it, we can drop the subject right here.  I am not even asking you to agree conspirators often consider themselves to be doing good.  

Can we agree on that?

  

Quote

It's quite ammusing how when it's easier to state governments create conspiracies rather then delve into why they carry out these conspiracies you come right out and state it as if it is no big deal.

Um, okay.  We all have our own flavor of humor, I suppose.

Personally, I don't really see a conflict between saying "Government conspiracies (for ease of conversation) exist." and "Wow, that's kind of a bad theory there".  Nor do I see why it wouldn't be easier to claim the former, being that it is pretty much accepted globally and historically as being the case.

Quote

Yet when a "conspiracy theorist" gives their thoughts on why they feel the government played a role in an event such as 9/11 (just an example) you will resort to mocking, belittling, and talking down to them (which as far as I know is against forum rules to begin with. Every member here is supposed to be respect one another regardless of whether or not they hold the same beliefs) simply because they suggest such a thing.

I try to keep it to a minimum, and generally avoid the Conspiracy forums when I can, specifically because I have a tendency to do that.

Unfortunately, I am human, and sometimes it does sneak in.  I don't believe I have broken any forum rules, however.  If you feel I have, please feel free to report the offending post.  I know some people are hesitant to do that, but there is really no reason not to, if you suspect a violation.

Quote

I didn't state that was your belief. I simply stated that if you, or anyone else, holds to that belief they are foolish and naive.

That's fine.  You (me specifically) or you (the general "you"), doesn't really change anything.  I did think it was me specifically, because you did define me in your first sentence, but it didn't sound personal, and, like I said, either way it works, so no problem.

The logic behind the statement, however, remains.

Quote

As it now seems based upon your above statement - we are in agreement that the government carries out conspiracies for reasons other than the interest of the people.

We never disagreed.  Heck, I think you are the only person that even brought it up.

Quote

Contrary to what you imply, it is you that is attempting trickery here. Prior to carrying out a conspiracy the people that are about to do so conspire. They go hand in hand.

Yes, they do.  And, like I said, to conspire is to plan something illegal, that not only did not require morality definition such as wrongness or evil, but had even been known to be done with the best of intentions (and we all know what they say about that).  

Was that wrong?  Was it even misleading?  Even though the definition you linked to seems to be the only one I found with my extensive and grueling 2-minute Google search using the actual words, "wrong" and "evil", as opposed to almost a dozen others that refer almost exclusively to the illegal aspect of it?

Quote

Ah, yes. We agree here also. I doubt you are well aware of what your own responses are revealing about yourself however.

I'm sure you are.  You seem rather comfortable in the belief that people will always attempt to disguise or deny their behaviour for negative purposes.  For instance, pointing out a non sequitur is not generally considered trickery.

Quote

Now this is a perfect example of how you fail to realize what your quote directly above reveals about you.

You make this statement: I know, right!

That I am capable of twisting a remark meant to poke fun at me into a remark that pokes fun at someone else, even while actually pointing out a logical sequence that led to the previous remark being humorous?

Verbal Kung-fu.  Got to love it.  

Quote

Being sure to include not only an exclamation point, but a "laugh out loud" smiley as well, as if to imply something negative about me, my thought process, and / or how capable I am of processing your posts - and my ability to be a "normal" person that suspects a conspiracy as opposed to "nutty" "conspiracy theorist" that proposes rediculous beliefs about the government - because it should be clear to everyone that you are in the right here and I am in the wrong.

Hmm...no, not quite...actually, kind of wrong.  You weren't even the target.

Babe was the target, rather, his comment was.  As pretty much everyone here knows, Babe Ruth and I have our own positions, which, generally speaking, tend to be in opposition to each other.  There is, however, common ground, and Babe did acknowledge that a little earlier.  Not that he is on my side, by any means, and simply to remind people of that, he made the one-shot regarding me talking a lot (which I do, I admit it, English major, debate club, loudmouth, etc...).

So, I simply took that comment and used it to point out that, yes, it was a lot of talking, but nonetheless, there was a reason for it.  Tried talking little, didn't work, so you try talking bigger.

It was not an overt attack by Babe, and did not merit an overt response.  It was a simple one-liner from him, and a simple return serve from me.  You, Silvergun...not really part of the exchange.

Quote

I'm well aware of that tactic when one is dealing with a person who holds a view that opposes their own. To me it is a sign of not only immaturity, but also reveals that your argument isn't strong enough to stand on it's own merit. You resort to a negative connotation about the person you are supposed to be having a respectful dialouge with as if it strengthens your view and weakens mine. The fact is, it does neither.

Yes, well that would be because that isn't the tactic I was employing.

Oh, and, generally speaking, we should not forget that simply because someone is being mocked or belittled, it doesn't mean that the actual argument is wrong, on either side.  The argument exists independently of any personal attacks, and needs to be evaluated on that basis.  Personal attacks, ad homs, belittlement, or mockery are indeed often used to hide a lack of argument, but the reverse is also true; be careful if someone tries to hide the actual argument behind an accusation of insults.

Not that I agree with your accusation that I am mocking or belittling you.  Condescension...yeah, I got to give you that one.

Quote

aquatus1, on 07 March 2012 - 12:44 AM, said:

Would it be correct to claim that, on this site, there are no people who claim that there are no conspiracies, or that governments do not engage in them?

[/font]There are definetly people here who post in a manner that would suggest the government does not create conspiracies. Whether they truly believe that or not is hard to really know without asking a poster the question directly.

Well, again...okay.  Still haven't seen any examples.

Quote

And even if people are willing to admit the government creates conspiracies, they will still treat those that suspect conspiracies in regards to certain topics as a "nutty" "conspiracy theorist" simply because they don't sspect a conspiracy regarding that same topic.

I disagree.  I say they start treating them as conspiracy theorists (which, honestly, seems to me a bit harsher than "nutty conspiracy theorist"; "nutty" just seems a bit too whimsical), anyhow, I say they start treating people as conspiracy theorists when they spot three distinct behaviours:

--Repetition of basic conspiracy without acknowledgement of counters,
--Assumption of guilt towards unnamed or unspecified, organization, or association with name organization (sometimes a combination of the two),
--Reliance on assumption of evidence,

Quote

You are a perfect example of that mind set. How do I know? Well, it's like you said above "I tend to judge people less on what they claim, and more on what they do. Behaviour is a far more honest indicator of actual mindset than thought or belief.

The problem with that is you actually do have to show the relevant behaviour.  In this case, I readily admit that I have little respect for conspiracy theorists.  What you need to do now is show that I don't have any respect for people who suspect conspiracies.

Anyone can come up with a "yes" answer.  Often, the only people worth listening to are the ones who can come up with the "no" answers.

[Left-Field]

@aquatus1

I'm likely not about to respond to your post above in detail tonight (most likely not anyways), but I did want to say that I appreciate the response above far more than the previous approaches you have taken.

I don't mind a disagreement. I just prefer that when people discuss a topic they do their best to be respectful of one another.

I can understand extreme frustration when debating with someone who has truly outlandish beliefs (the Royal Family are reptilians, planes didn't hit the twin towers on 9/11, etc). But it's important to remember that just because a person believes in some conspiracies it doesn't mean they can't distinguish between the ones that are plausible and those that simply have little or no basis behind them.

[aquatus1]

Silvergun Superman, on 07 March 2012 - 04:57 AM, said:

I'm likely not about to respond to your post above in detail tonight (most likely not anyways),

Don't worry about it.  The beauty of a discussion forum is that it will still be here.  No need to rush anything.

Or, for that matter, to respond to everything.  I am seeing some definite "Post Crawl" there, darn thing is getting bigger and bigger...

Quote

but I did want to say that I appreciate the response above far more than the previous approaches you have taken.

No problem, I'll be back to my usual mocking self in no time.  

Quote

I don't mind a disagreement. I just prefer that when people discuss a topic they do their best to be respectful of one another.

I agree.  That said, it works both ways.  False accusations, paraphrasing, or insinuations are just as disrespectful as mocking and belittlement.  

Quote

I can understand extreme frustration when debating with someone who has truly outlandish beliefs (the Royal Family are reptilians, planes didn't hit the twin towers on 9/11, etc). But it's important to remember that just because a person believes in some conspiracies it doesn't mean they can't distinguish between the ones that are plausible and those that simply have little or no basis behind them.

I agree.  It isn't a person's belief that tell us the sort of thinker they are.  It is their behaviour.

[bouncer]

Blimey O Reily!

I guess the OP is so buried now with aquatus1 & Silvergun's flirting that there isnt much point my continuing to add anything as its just getting lost in their chatting up of each other. (cant you guys pm each other or something and leave this thread alone.  

Its not much fun for anyone to see two folk argue let alone read about it