Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Are conspiracy theories destroying democracy?
- Thread starter The Truth
- Start date
Nibble
New member
- Jan 3, 2007
- 19,238
10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes
1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.
2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.
3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.
4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.
5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.
6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.
7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.
8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.
9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's “happened before”.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.
10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.
A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at very least, a bore.
1. Initiated on the basis of limited, partial or circumstantial evidence;
Conceived in reaction to media reports and images, as opposed to, for example, thorough knowledge of the relevant forensic evidence.
2. Addresses an event or process that has broad historical or emotional impact;
Seeks to interpret a phenomenon which has near-universal interest and emotional significance, a story that may thus be of some compelling interest to a wide audience.
3. Reduces morally complex social phenomena to simple, immoral actions;
Impersonal, institutional processes, especially errors and oversights, interpreted as malign, consciously intended and designed by immoral individuals.
4. Personifies complex social phenomena as powerful individual conspirators;
Related to (3) but distinct from it, deduces the existence of powerful individual conspirators from the 'impossibility' that a chain of events lacked direction by a person.
5. Allots superhuman talents or resources to conspirators;
May require conspirators to possess unique discipline, unrepentant resolve, advanced or unknown technology, uncommon psychological insight, historical foresight, unlimited resources, etc.
6. Key steps in argument rely on inductive, not deductive reasoning;
Inductive steps are mistaken to bear as much confidence as deductive ones.
Appeals to 'common sense';
Common sense steps substitute for the more robust, academically respectable methodologies available for investigating sociological and scientific phenomena.
7. Exhibits well-established logical and methodological fallacies;
Formal and informal logical fallacies are readily identifiable among the key steps of the argument.
8. Is produced and circulated by 'outsiders', often anonymous, and generally lacking peer review;
Story originates with a person who lacks any insider contact or knowledge, and enjoys popularity among persons who lack critical (especially technical) knowledge.
9. Is upheld by persons with demonstrably false conceptions of relevant science;
At least some of the story's believers believe it on the basis of a mistaken grasp of elementary scientific facts.
10. Enjoys zero credibility in expert communities;
Academics and professionals tend to ignore the story, treating it as too frivolous to invest their time and risk their personal authority in disproving.
11. Rebuttals provided by experts are ignored or accommodated through elaborate new twists in the narrative;
When experts do respond to the story with critical new evidence, the conspiracy is elaborated (sometimes to a spectacular degree) to discount the new evidence, often incorporating the rebuttal as a part of the conspiracy.'
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes
1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.
2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.
3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.
4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.
5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.
6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.
7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.
8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.
9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's “happened before”.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.
10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.
A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at very least, a bore.
1. Initiated on the basis of limited, partial or circumstantial evidence;
Conceived in reaction to media reports and images, as opposed to, for example, thorough knowledge of the relevant forensic evidence.
2. Addresses an event or process that has broad historical or emotional impact;
Seeks to interpret a phenomenon which has near-universal interest and emotional significance, a story that may thus be of some compelling interest to a wide audience.
3. Reduces morally complex social phenomena to simple, immoral actions;
Impersonal, institutional processes, especially errors and oversights, interpreted as malign, consciously intended and designed by immoral individuals.
4. Personifies complex social phenomena as powerful individual conspirators;
Related to (3) but distinct from it, deduces the existence of powerful individual conspirators from the 'impossibility' that a chain of events lacked direction by a person.
5. Allots superhuman talents or resources to conspirators;
May require conspirators to possess unique discipline, unrepentant resolve, advanced or unknown technology, uncommon psychological insight, historical foresight, unlimited resources, etc.
6. Key steps in argument rely on inductive, not deductive reasoning;
Inductive steps are mistaken to bear as much confidence as deductive ones.
Appeals to 'common sense';
Common sense steps substitute for the more robust, academically respectable methodologies available for investigating sociological and scientific phenomena.
7. Exhibits well-established logical and methodological fallacies;
Formal and informal logical fallacies are readily identifiable among the key steps of the argument.
8. Is produced and circulated by 'outsiders', often anonymous, and generally lacking peer review;
Story originates with a person who lacks any insider contact or knowledge, and enjoys popularity among persons who lack critical (especially technical) knowledge.
9. Is upheld by persons with demonstrably false conceptions of relevant science;
At least some of the story's believers believe it on the basis of a mistaken grasp of elementary scientific facts.
10. Enjoys zero credibility in expert communities;
Academics and professionals tend to ignore the story, treating it as too frivolous to invest their time and risk their personal authority in disproving.
11. Rebuttals provided by experts are ignored or accommodated through elaborate new twists in the narrative;
When experts do respond to the story with critical new evidence, the conspiracy is elaborated (sometimes to a spectacular degree) to discount the new evidence, often incorporating the rebuttal as a part of the conspiracy.'
symyjym
Banned
No, Google work for themselves, but they are also an American organisation, so I am sure the American Government would be working on tapping into it.
And on the other side of the coin, if it wasn't for Google or youtube etc we would have far less information to form an opinion on anything.
All the CT's have taken advantage of their service as well, especially the leading 911 CT campaigner Richard Gage.
What I want to know from you is your thoughts on the Richard Gage WTC collapse demonstration? This is important to me and the fourth time I have asked.
Nibble
New member
- Jan 3, 2007
- 19,238
Hahah! You have just illustrated nearly every point on that cut and paste. Goon.
What is the answer to stopping lies and ignorance being spread on the internet in your opinion?
hitony
Administrator
Answer me one question, do you actually support Brighton & Hove Albion? as I never ever see you post anything remotely football related, ever!
Goldstone76
New member
- Jun 13, 2013
- 306
Conclusive proof that Nano Thermite was used to bring down buildings on 911?
You decide.. http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf
"Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material."
You decide.. http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf
"Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material."
symyjym
Banned
Maybe you can answer this as The Truth has avoided it four times now.
What are your thoughts on the Richard Gage WTC collapse demonstration? And do you think it is less than scientific, because quite frankly if anyone believes his explaination on the evidence he is providing here, they will believe anything.
We can go through thermite later.
pastafarian
Well-known member
,i hate to bounce this nonsense but you will never get an answer chap,you can ask until the cows come home,however the truthers will never engage when they see they have been found out,i would give up now if i were you while you still have the will to live.
pastafarian
Well-known member
i all fairness i think he did try it a few times in between some of his many banning orders.
its quite obvious though he is here purely to wind people up.....and doesnt he do that well
shame on me really for falling for his lies and trolling and engaging him,
i can only apologise to everyone for contributing to these ridiculous binfests
hybrid_x
Banned
- Jun 28, 2011
- 2,225
lol....people on NSC still think the trade towers fell due to fire..........and get the punchline....heheh.....because the corporate owned main stream media told them......lol.......and the kicker punchline......the same corps who benefited from military and construction action in the middle east..........lol.
Two words for the above people.
Cognitive Dissonance.
Two words for the above people.
Cognitive Dissonance.
pastafarian
Well-known member
actually its only idiots like you that accuse people of only thinking that fire was the sole cause of the collapse,it fits your warped agenda perfectly.
Most people agree the collapse was due to structural failure,the contributing factors yes being fire and the fact some **** with a religious agenda had flown a ****ing big plane into the place.
No one reputable describing the collapse has ever contributed it to fire alone...only the truthers perpetuate this myth...yet you bang on about it.....says much about you and your one sided agenda
hybrid_x
Banned
- Jun 28, 2011
- 2,225
a) the warped agenda is from the corps, not myself. my life has not murdered anyone for profit, nor plans to.
b) there IS NO PROOF any muslim flew the plane. maybe you watched the hollywood movie 'flight 93' and believed it....heheh.
c) your pancake theory has been disproved, it is irrational.
d) just because many people share the same mental pathology does not make them sane.
with b you might be referring to the passport they found in the debris.....lol.....of the muslim who was still alive......lol.
you are probably a troll....a forum with 100k people always attracts trolls who guard the status quo....how much do they pay you? lol.
pastafarian
Well-known member
and the truthers will tell you this:
how do you explain this .........if it wasnt a controlled demolition how was it that the towers fell in their own footprint and they were turned to dust.
well cunttards firstly the towers fell all over the shop and not straight down as one would expect in a controlled demolition,debris was strewn over 100`s metres,and secondly you like to believe they were turned to dust but this is just a lie....how do you explain the debris mound with all the steel and 7 floors of the steel structure still standing....explain that you twats
how do you explain this .........if it wasnt a controlled demolition how was it that the towers fell in their own footprint and they were turned to dust.
well cunttards firstly the towers fell all over the shop and not straight down as one would expect in a controlled demolition,debris was strewn over 100`s metres,and secondly you like to believe they were turned to dust but this is just a lie....how do you explain the debris mound with all the steel and 7 floors of the steel structure still standing....explain that you twats
pastafarian
Well-known member
i asked you on another thread to name these "corps" you keep banging on about yet strangely the same as the truth when asked a direct question you somehow have problems with your keyboard.
can you actually name the"corps" who are running the show or are you just a repeater,shoveling out what you have read on the internet
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,992
yeah, amusing, you learnt a new phrase. the punchline is you only believe otherwise because someone else told you, who have no proof to the point they have to come up with several alternative "theories" because each one is fatally flawed by lack of evidence.
readingstockport
New member
What I really want to know is if these 'corps' are sooooooo powerful and they are working with the government through mind control WHY? What are they doing it for? They already control everything according to you loonies so what more is there? They already control the military/industrial complex from top to bottom, including China as I saw someone claim recently - apparently Mao was a memberr of Skull and Bones it seems - so what more do they want?
And why, if they control everything, are they not stopping the loonies from exposing their dastardly plots and schemes?
Anyone remember the major event they were going to stage during the Olympics opening ceremony? Now, who was it on here that was telling eveyone there would be an 'alien invasion'?
And why, if they control everything, are they not stopping the loonies from exposing their dastardly plots and schemes?
Anyone remember the major event they were going to stage during the Olympics opening ceremony? Now, who was it on here that was telling eveyone there would be an 'alien invasion'?
Love the way you accuse other people of not having any proof for their theories, yet you don't need any for yours, just a few links to YouTube videos made by other idiots.
Does your life completely revolve around worrying about this nonsense, or do you manage to actually get on and live it at any point?
Because the likes of hybrid_x etc are too clever for them. They know, we are just sheep blindly following.