New Posts
By:
Filters
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Answers for anti-conspiracy commenters.

Gee, I'm surprised nobody has commented about this. Maybe you didn't click on it ;)

Here it is:

How to respond to an anti Conspiracy Theorist
.

.
"You sound like a conspiracy theorist."
RESPONSE: "Conspiracy Theorist? Now tell me the truth, where did you hear that term...on TV? (Laugh.) ...So let me get this straight. Are you saying that men in high positions of power are not capable of criminal activity and telling lies to the general public? Are you really that naive?" (Laugh as you say this.)
.
"I'm not saying that governments don't lie, but a conspiracy like that would have to involve 100's of people. You can't hide something like that."
RESPONSE: "You're absolutely right. I agree with you 100%. It is impossible to totally cover up a conspiracy so massive. That's why I know about it! What you must understand is that they don't have to cover it up totally. Even a bucket that has a few leaks can still do the job of carrying water from here to there! They only need to fool 80% of the public, which isn't hard to do when you control the major networks and newspapers. The 10-20% that do figure it out (and the fewer still who will dare to speak their minds about it) can be very easily marginalized with the propaganda label "conspiracy theorist." The 80% + never take us critical thinkers seriously because they want to be part of the majority. This is known as groupthink. (*Note: When saying "conspiracy theorist", always hold your two hands up as you make sarcastic quote marks with your fingers.)
.
(The Ridicule Trick) "That's ridiculous (as he rolls his eyes). Do you really believe that nonsense?"
RESPONSE: "Can I ask you an honest question?" (Wait for "yes") Do you consider yourself an open minded, critical thinking person - yes or no? (Wait for "yes") Then how can you possibly ridicule an opinion when you haven't even done 10 minutes of research into the matter? That's kind of ignorant don't you think?" (Wait for response.)
. "Not
"Not everything that happens in the world is a conspiracy!"
RESPONSE: "Not everything is a conspiracy, but nor is NOTHING a conspiracy either. Wouldn't you agree that we should evaluate each case independently and with an open mind?" (Wait for response.)
.R
"Governments are so incompetant that they can't even deliver the mail on time or balance a budget. "They couldn't conspire their way out of a paper bag!".
RESPONSE: "Don't confuse your incompetant, dim witted Congressman or Senator with the shadow government. The dark covert elements who stage these events are very skilled at carrying out, and concealing, their plots. Take for example the Manhattan Project. Hundreds of the world's top scientists were holed up in a desert for months as they worked on the Atomic Bomb. This conspiracy was so secretive, that when FDR died and Vice President Truman became President, FDR's advisors had to inform him of the Project's existence! So you see, the shadowy intelligence element of the government is VERY capable!"
.
(The Unresolved Detail Trick) "If this is a conspiracy then explain to me how they managed to do x, y, and z?"
RESPONSE: "I don't have every missing piece of this puzzle. But I have enough pieces to KNOW that the government-media version is false! Imagine if I gave you a 100 piece jigsaw puzzle, and told you that the image is of a beach in Hawaii. But after snapping 30 pieces together, you notice polar bears, snow capped mountains, and men covered in furs. Although there are still 70 missing pieces, you already have enough to KNOW that the image is NOT that of a beach in Hawaii. It's the same with solving conspiracies. I may not have all of the details, but I have laid out enough pieces to know that the official story is a lie. Does that make sense to you? (Wait for response.)
..
"So what? just because "x" happened, or "y" said this, it doesn't mean it's a conspiracy. You're taking a few coincidences and making a conspiracy out of it. "
RESPONSE: "If it were just one or two coincidences, I would agree with you. But when you have a series of 10,15, 20 different anomolies, the law of statistics PROVES that they can't all be just "coincidence". For example, if we're playing dice, and I roll a "7" to win. That doesn't mean that my dice are rigged. It's just a 1 in 6 coincidence. But if I roll a "7", eight times in a row, then that's a 1 in 150,000 "coincidence". You would have to be a fool not to question the integrity of those dice! You do understand probabilities don't you? (Wait for response.)
..
(The Isolated Piece of Evidence Trick) "Other than citing some historical events, you still haven't shown me one piece of evidence that this was a conspiracy. Tell me just one thing that most proves a conspiracy."
RESPONSE: "That's a trick question! If I tell you "just one thing", you'll just climb on your high horse and dismiss it as a "coincidence". What I want to show you is TWENTY THINGS! But you're too closed minded to consider the case in its totality! You won't even watch a You Tube video let alone read the case! I sure hope you never get selected to serve on a jury! You want everything boiled down to a simplistic media sound byte. Unless you will commit to a few hours of study, I'm wasting my time with you. Why are you so afraid to study this? (Wait for a response.)
.
"If this were true, the media would be all over it! It would be on the front page of every newspaper in America."
RESPONSE: "The media, the government, the International bankers, Hollywood, and academia are all part of the same incestuous complex. The media is part of the conspiracy, so why would you expect them to tell you the truth?" (Wait for response.)
.
"You wouldn't be able to corrupt so many people. Every reporter and politician would have to be "in on it" in order to cover it up."
RESPONSE: "The corruption doesn't come from the outside-in. It comes from the top-down. If the ownership of a major media organization decides that a certain story is to be spiked, or if another story is to be hyped, then the rest of the organization follows. If a low level reporter decides to defy his bosses, he will lose his job and be blacklisted. Remember Helen Thomas? After 50 years as a White House Correspondent, she was dumped like a hot potato for publicly criticizing Israel. The same fearful top-down control works in government and academia as well.
.
"This is crazy. I don't believe in conspiracy theories."
RESPONSE: "You don't believe it? Or You don't WANT to believe it? There's a big difference between the two. The human mind is filled with complexes, one of which is the desire to shield itself from unpleasant truths. You're afraid that if you look into this, you might see that it's true. And you're especially afraid that if you come to agree with me, you too will then become marginalized as a "conspiracy theorist." It is FEAR that is causing you to close your mind and act like a sheep. Grow a pair and stop being so closed minded!"
.
"Conspiracy theories appeal to uneducated people because they provide simplistic answers to complex events."
RESPONSE: "Exactly the OPPOSITE is true! The evaluation of conspiracy theories not only requires much time and study, but also applied logic and critical thinking. It is intellectually lazy people like you who choose to swallow and parrot whatever simplistic narrative that the TV feeds you. Do you ever question anything that the TV feeds you?" (Wait for response.)
.
"Conspiracy theories appeal to people because they are comforting."
RESPONSE: "Exactly the OPPOSITE is true. It is far more comforting to believe that certain tragic events happen exactly as the TV says, than to believe in monstrous internal plots beyond our control. Do you actually think that I enjoy believing that such evil exists? You think I like being ridiculed by simple minded family members and friends? Take it from me, the life of a "conspiracy theorist" can actually be quite stressful at times!"
.
"Don't believe everything you read on the Internet."
RESPONSE: "I don't believe everything that's on the Internet. But apparently you believe everything that's on the TV! I only believe those things which are verifiable, and consistent with my own sense of reasoning and logic. The beauty of the Internet is that, unlike the TV that you worship so much, all sides of an issue are presented on the Internet. It allows a critical thinker to figure out what the true story is. The TV doesn't give you that option. Do you really believe that the media presents the whole story? Are you that naive? (laugh) Remember the fairy tale of the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? The media shoved that lie down our throats. So why do you trust the media so blindly and not the Internet?"
(Wait for response.)
.
"Some conspiracy theorists still believe Elvis is still alive."
RESPONSE: "So, according to your twisted logic, because some theories are false, therefore ALL theories are false? I'm astonished that you could make such a stupid and offensive anology! Is that the best you got?" (Wait for response.)
.
"You don't have any respect or compassion for the family members of the dead."
RESPONSE: "I am honoring the dead by pursuing the truth as to who killed them! If someone in your family was killed, wouldn't you want to know who the true culprit was?" (Wait for response.)
 
Queen Titania said:
Lol The other side of the coin

http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/scepticism/drasin.html
Click to expand...

Yup, the guy pretty well has it covered. Reminds me of a little story that I read years ago about a scientist who had the world's foremost collection of sea shells. He had gained quite a bit of fame and made good money on his books because he was known to have at least one of every known sea shell on earth. Nobody could match him.

One day the scientist was walking along the beach and kicked something with his foot. He bent down and picked it up and it was a sea shell. As he looked closely at it he realized that it didn't match any of the shells in his collection. He was absolutely panicked as he thought of how his fame would go out the window along with the proceeds from all of his books. If there were really other kinds still out there he would no longer be considered the only person that people could turn to for the definitive answers to everything about sea shells.

He looked around to see if anyone else was there, and when he saw that he was alone he took his foot smashed the sea shell into tiny bits. He smiled and said to himself, "there, it doesn't exist".
 
Boltlady said:
Yup, the guy pretty well has it covered. Reminds me of a little story that I read years ago about a scientist who had the world's foremost collection of sea shells. He had gained quite a bit of fame and made good money on his books because he was known to have at least one of every known sea shell on earth. Nobody could match him.

One day the scientist was walking along the beach and kicked something with his foot. He bent down and picked it up and it was a sea shell. As he looked closely at it he realized that it didn't match any of the shells in his collection. He was absolutely panicked as he thought of how his fame would go out the window along with the proceeds from all of his books. If there were really other kinds still out there he would no longer be considered the only person that people could turn to for the definitive answers to everything about sea shells.

He looked around to see if anyone else was there, and when he saw that he was alone he took his foot smashed the sea shell into tiny bits. He smiled and said to himself, "there, it doesn't exist".
Click to expand...

:( ..............
 
Boltlady said:
The following is kind of fun. The lines in yellow are the statements virtually always made by those who do not believe in any conspiracies. This is then followed by some really good responses to them.

http://www.tomatobubble.com/id196.html
Click to expand...

Say, have you by any chance heard of a fellow by the name of Joseph Banks Rhine? In case you haven't, he was a botanist by training and an instructor and researcher at Duke University from the late '20s through the mid '60s. Dr. Rhine became famous for his work involving extra-sensory perception and coined the term “Parapsychology.” In the '30's he conducted a number of studies that showed that certain individuals could guess what particular symbol cards another researcher was viewing at a rate that greatly exceeded what would be expected from simply guessing. He published some of those results in a rather influential book entitled Extrasensory Perception in 1934. In many ways his influence lingers to this day.

Unfortunately, when other researchers – and indeed when Rhine himself – attempted to replicate his results over time they weren't able consistently to match what he had originally seen. Some folks scored better than average, some worse than average, but with enough replications the scores were generally about average. This was true when multiple people were tested and it was also true when the same individuals were tested repeatedly.

Rhine refused to believe that this in any way disproved his hypotheses about ESP. He came up with all sorts of possible reasons why the supposed effects of ESP couldn't be consistently demonstrated. One notion was that the presence of non-believers in the lab interfered with the process (the “observer effect”). Another was that individuals who scored above average and then went on to score below average were suffering from some sort of “loss of power” as a result of continued testing (the “decline effect”). Whenever there were data that apparently failed to support or even contradicted his hypotheses, Dr. Rhine generally found a way to explain them away or else turn them around so that lack of support could actually be interpreted as support. He kept that up for 30-plus years.

I tell this little tale to make two points: anything can be made to be “plausible” with enough determination and creativity; it's impossible to “win” an argument with someone who's determined to structure and restructure logical premises as needed to avoid losing.

With that, here's another link that might be useful and interesting: The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy.

Cheers!
 
Bolt is super-convinced of MANY gub-ment conspiracies & shenanigans Havelock .. me? I believe that history shows 8 or 10 really juicy conspiracy theories that were actually true! (and therefore we shouldn't summarily discount them).

I tell this little tale to make two points: anything can be made to be “plausible” with enough determination and creativity; it's impossible to “win” an argument with someone who's determined to structure and restructure logical premises as needed to avoid losing
Click to expand...

But THIS nicely sums up the whole dang deal.. the way i figure it, their current record is about 100 to 1 BS. ;-)
 
Bo-4 said:
Bolt is super-convinced of MANY gub-ment conspiracies & shenanigans Havelock .. me? I believe that history shows 8 or 10 really juicy conspiracy theories that were actually true! (and therefore we shouldn't summarily discount them).



But THIS nicely sums up the whole dang deal.. the way i figure it, their current record is about 100 to 1 BS. ;-)
Click to expand...


Except that there isn't a 'their'. That just a conspiracy theory ;-)


Here is your 'their'

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=8339


And it was with, spit spit Thatcher I saw the change here ............I said this was happening to us then and I was right ! lol don't help much :( being right .........
 
Havelock said:
Say, have you by any chance heard of a fellow by the name of Joseph Banks Rhine? In case you haven't, he was a botanist by training and an instructor and researcher at Duke University from the late '20s through the mid '60s. Dr. Rhine became famous for his work involving extra-sensory perception and coined the term “Parapsychology.” In the '30's he conducted a number of studies that showed that certain individuals could guess what particular symbol cards another researcher was viewing at a rate that greatly exceeded what would be expected from simply guessing. He published some of those results in a rather influential book entitled Extrasensory Perception in 1934. In many ways his influence lingers to this day.

Unfortunately, when other researchers – and indeed when Rhine himself – attempted to replicate his results over time they weren't able consistently to match what he had originally seen. Some folks scored better than average, some worse than average, but with enough replications the scores were generally about average. This was true when multiple people were tested and it was also true when the same individuals were tested repeatedly.

Rhine refused to believe that this in any way disproved his hypotheses about ESP. He came up with all sorts of possible reasons why the supposed effects of ESP couldn't be consistently demonstrated. One notion was that the presence of non-believers in the lab interfered with the process (the “observer effect”). Another was that individuals who scored above average and then went on to score below average were suffering from some sort of “loss of power” as a result of continued testing (the “decline effect”). Whenever there were data that apparently failed to support or even contradicted his hypotheses, Dr. Rhine generally found a way to explain them away or else turn them around so that lack of support could actually be interpreted as support. He kept that up for 30-plus years.

I tell this little tale to make two points: anything can be made to be “plausible” with enough determination and creativity; it's impossible to “win” an argument with someone who's determined to structure and restructure logical premises as needed to avoid losing.

With that, here's another link that might be useful and interesting: The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy.

Cheers!
Click to expand...

Havelock, yes I had read some things about Dr. Rhine and his studies some years ago and I read the link you provided. Some very good points were made for one to keep in mind. However, if a person leans too far in the direction of everything being coincidence and random, he'll be just as far off base as the one creating the bullseye. Balance is the key.

Buddha said to take the middle road.

There are some people who have ESP, I've seen it for myself. Unfortunately for Dr. Rhine it's a rather fluid thing. The test that he kept using was rather like trying to put square pegs in a round hole in that it was too rigid for the way it actually works.

As for the examples that were given in the Texas sharpshooter piece, just as they were used to demonstrate random coincidences, they could cause a person's mind to be closed to the possibility that there was more to them than that. My point being that if a person leans too far one way or the other he could be missing out on what the truth really is.
 
Bo-4 said:
Bolt is super-convinced of MANY gub-ment conspiracies & shenanigans Havelock .. me? I believe that history shows 8 or 10 really juicy conspiracy theories that were actually true! (and therefore we shouldn't summarily discount them).



But THIS nicely sums up the whole dang deal.. the way i figure it, their current record is about 100 to 1 BS. ;-)
Click to expand...

The truth is BO-4 that you have no way of knowing how many conspiracy theories have actually been true. It's kind of the nature of the beast. Since history is written by the victors they usually are not going to tell you the truth about how they got there.

With our advancements in forensic science, we're finding 'history' as we knew it is being rewritten all the time.
 
Boltlady said:
The truth is BO-4 that you have no way of knowing how many conspiracy theories have actually been true. It's kind of the nature of the beast. Since history is written by the victors they usually are not going to tell you the truth about how they got there.

With our advancements in forensic science, we're finding 'history' as we knew it is being rewritten all the time.
Click to expand...

Even Boadicea was Roman propaganda ..........to put fear and mistrust into the people of Cleopatra :)
 
Boltlady said:
Havelock, yes I had read some things about Dr. Rhine and his studies some years ago and I read the link you provided. Some very good points were made for one to keep in mind. However, if a person leans too far in the direction of everything being coincidence and random, he'll be just as far off base as the one creating the bullseye. Balance is the key.

Buddha said to take the middle road.

There are some people who have ESP, I've seen it for myself. Unfortunately for Dr. Rhine it's a rather fluid thing. The test that he kept using was rather like trying to put square pegs in a round hole in that it was too rigid for the way it actually works.

As for the examples that were given in the Texas sharpshooter piece, just as they were used to demonstrate random coincidences, they could cause a person's mind to be closed to the possibility that there was more to them than that. My point being that if a person leans too far one way or the other he could be missing out on what the truth really is.
Click to expand...

Well, Boltlady, as you probably know, scientific inquiry operates under the constraint that no cause and effect relationship can be assumed when an observed effect cannot be attributed to a presumed cause with a certain degree of confidence. The standard is actually fairly high – 95% confidence that the presumed cause is the actual cause is a fairly standard test. We use controlled experiments with statistical analyses to establish these degrees of confidence. Any phenomenon that is “fluid” to the point where such testing cannot be conducted is beyond the scope of scientific inquiry. Believing in such phenomena, attributing a cause and a purpose to their existence, that's a matter of faith. Such faith has its place, perhaps, but history tells us that it's an area fraught with danger.

Another thing that history tells us is that scientific inquiry, properly conducted, has given us an unprecedented and unequaled power to shape and control our environment and our lives. For better and for worse, I suppose...

In any case, among other things, scientific inquiry also tells us that most people most of the time are really, really bad at finding the “balance” to which you refer.

Most folks think they are objective and rational most of the time. Science tells us that they aren't.

Most folks think they methodically collect and evaluate at least a somewhat comprehensive set of facts before drawing a conclusion. Science tells us that most of the time they don't. Moreover, we know that the more emotionally involved people are with an issue, the less likely they are to be methodical and the more likely they are to reason backward and find justifications for a preferred conclusion.

Most folks think that they weigh the evidence impartially before deciding what is true. Science tells us that quite a lot of the time quite a lot of folks weigh evidence based on whether or not it supports the conclusion they'd like to be true and simply reject the evidence that doesn't support what they “know” or want to be fact and accept the evidence that does.

Most of this biased, irrational thinking is quite unconscious; we all do it to one degree or another. The real struggle is to recognize one's own limitations and biases and to attempt to compensate for them as best one can. Some embrace that struggle, some avoid it by whatever means necessary (and avoidance mechanisms are legion, Lord knows), and some don't even understand there's a struggle at all. This very board provides more than ample evidence of the above each and every day, no?

Cheers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top