Conspiracy Theorist Conspiracy Theorists

I think you are being deliberately obtuse. There isn't one definition, but there is certainly a lot of common ground, and even more understanding of what the various camps mean by the term:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

Sorry, I don't buy that anyone here doesn't understand what it means

And I also said that for me the definition is based not just on the evidence thing, but also on the manic behaviour, refusal to accept that some of us DON'T believe, and that the clicks on their phones aren't the CIA out to get them.

Someone wants to believe that Stanley Kubrick faked the moon landing? I don't really care so long as they don't try to talk my ear off about it and insist that I agree with them or I am part of the plot.

What makes you think I or others don't consider what people are basing their ideas on?

Should we also not call things fascist or oppressive or colonialist or discriminatory because these are also complex ideas that cover a lot of ground, so we can't assume that people are actually thinking and paying attention?

Nah, I think I'll just continue calling conspiracy theory when I see it.

And besides, when you say 9-11 theory, surely you don't mean all of them; they can't all be true.

Besides, those 9-11 amateurs haven't topped this tune:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3er7IZLRek

Personally, I have a soft spot for Trevor Ravenscroft's "Spear of Destiny" book, not because it isn't complete horseshit, but because it reads like some wacky Doctor Strange comic, with Rudoplh Steiner as the Doctor, and Hitler as some literally posessed demon.

Feel free. I'm not particularly worried. Though you should remember that the burden of proof isn't on me, but on the person making the claim.

Again, I don't buy the argument that because there are different interpretations of the term means that it has no meaning or cannot be used. Conspiracy theorists can stop using the term if they wish; I doubt anyone else will.

And being concerned about conspiracy theories not being heard? Not sure there's much need to worry about that. Holding off from healthy skepticism? well that is another matter.

I have to smile at the notion of a "previously disproven" conspiracy theory. I'm curious as to how for you'd get with that one among those for whom theories are never disproven, and any evidence to the contrary just proves that someone is trying to cover it up.

Quote:

Instead we have a term that implies the problem is with the idea of conspiracy which in itself is no reason to reject an idea rather the likelihood, plausibility or evidence for an idea.

Sometimes it IS the conspiracy itself that contributes much of the implausibility -- specifically, when the conspiracy necessarily includes hundreds of people and when it's extremely doubtful that most of them are dedicated to the conspiracy.

Could four dedicated people conspire to set a fire in the night and leave false evidence behind?  Probably.

But is it really reasonable to believe that hundreds of first responders, doctors, nurses and bystanders were all cheerfully ready to pretend that the victims of the Boston Marathon "bombing"were injured runners, and to keep that secret to their grave?

Can someone fake a wound?  Sure.  Can someone make something go "bang"?  Sure.  But the whole theory falls apart once those fakey actors with their pretend wounds go to a hospital -- unless we're prepared to believe that this particular conspiracy included hospital staff for some inexplicable reason.  Oh, and also the family of a dead child.

The ones we're all forever hearing "the truth" from are the ones too brave, too committed and too patriotic to be silenced.

It's all the regular, good, honest folk who have burning questions they'd like answered, but don't want to be forever labelled, who are remaining silent.

If we would all just stop using the term "conspiracy theorist" then they might feel empowered to join their brave voices with the others, and with a steamrollin' mass movement like that the government would be forced to admit that heat cannot weaken steel, and that yes, it was an inside job.  And they would have got away with it too, "if it weren't for you meddling kids."

Mr. Magoo wrote:

But is it really reasonable to believe that hundreds of first responders, doctors, nurses and bystanders were all cheerfully ready to pretend that the victims of the Boston Marathon "bombing"were injured runners, and to keep that secret to their grave?

Can someone fake a wound?  Sure.  Can someone make something go "bang"?  Sure.  But the whole theory falls apart once those fakey actors with their pretend wounds go to a hospital -- unless we're prepared to believe that this particular conspiracy included hospital staff for some inexplicable reason.  Oh, and also the family of a dead child.

Well, this is interesting. There is some news footage out there in which a hospital nurse states in an interview that the people requiring amputation did not go through the normal hospital registration process, and that no attending personnel saw them. But I agree that the considerations you raise definitely make the Boston Bombing hoax theory difficult to swallow. The research that's been done on it so far does show a lot of gaps in the news record of this event, though.

Being new to this information myself, I was simply approaching it from an everyday, common sense perspective, having many years first aid training myself, assuming others would also, and just asking questions about these images which, to my mind, depict a bizarre and completely counter-to-all-common-sense first aid approach in treating supposed trauma. I would not be able to construct an entire theory about how such a hoax could be pulled off in plain view. But many of the details of this event, and certainly the official images raise questions. So rather than dismiss something right off the bat out of incredulity, I was asking folks here to simply look at the images and give their impressions of it. I understand why my posting of those images was repugnant to some, but this what I mean by being able to examine the facts alone, on their own merit, before demanding an entire, elaborate explanation of what those facts suggest.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

Instead we have a term that implies the problem is with the idea of conspiracy which in itself is no reason to reject an idea rather the likelihood, plausibility or evidence for an idea.

Sometimes it IS the conspiracy itself that contributes much of the implausibility -- specifically, when the conspiracy necessarily includes hundreds of people and when it's extremely doubtful that most of them are dedicated to the conspiracy.

Too bad the concept of implausibility did not define the term more than the concept of conspiracy. I wish I could lump all the implausible ideas in a basket defined by implausibility rather than conspiracy. A good many implausible ideas have nothing to do with conspiracy and a number of conspiracy ideas are quite plausible.

I do understand the point that grand conspiracy is hard to do and the greater the numbers of people who must be involved the less plausible the idea is. Perhaps even a term: grand conspiracy theorist would be better.

As a point of logic there is no benefit in having such pejorative connotation to something that exists. Conspiracy exists. Check out the criminal code of any nation on earth -- and it is proven in courts. White collar conspiracy also exists and it is not all tax fraud.