10 traits of conspiracy worship

[crackf]

i love christmas, i know christmas day tends to be more of an anti climax to the whole christmas spirit building up to it, but boy do i get absorbed in the christmas spirit

everythings just really merry and happy

might be going for a bombing session tonight, guessin not too many people will be out

[nicenice]

if your on it im on it

[Badman Juice]

OP deserves to be tickled and raped simultaneously.

[nicenice]

come online g

[64hz]

lol christmas is always shit, even the most adamant of christians will admit that

winter would be shitter without it tho.
at least its something to do and talk about during the dark days of shit weather.
how boring would november through to january be without it?

[crackf]

lol christmas is always shit, even the most adamant of christians will admit that

winter would be shitter without it tho.
at least its something to do and talk about during the dark days of shit weather.
how boring would november through to january be without it?

this x10

[nicenice]

lol christmas is always shit, even the most adamant of christians will admit that

winter would be shitter without it tho.
at least its something to do and talk about during the dark days of shit weather.
how boring would november through to january be without it?

i enjoy winter though
personal difference
more happens in winter for me though
christmas dulls the mood, then it picks up towards jan

summer is boring

[Badman Juice]

seckle and nicenice should meet up and swing tbh

[christophera]

bait thread

seriously seckle, what the fuck. you should be embarrassed for yourself.

[christophera]

somebody needs to have their avatar taken away for breaking the forum rules

- Threads created purely to call out or attack a member of the forum.

[noam]

i actually have no personal beef against seckle, this was all brought about from some kind of personal beef seckle had with me that was based on who knows what

lol.

this thread has got so shit from the moment the three stooges stumbled into what they thought was a winnable argument

snh gon dun it agen

[seckle]

somebody needs to have their avatar taken away for breaking the forum rules

- Threads created purely to call out or attack a member of the forum.

right because the only time conspiracies can be discussed on here is when the culture and those that support it are being highlighted, not critiqued? seems a little funny coming from you of all people, who have gone to insults dozens of times over people that disagree with you.

not one person is named in this thread personally in some attack, and moreover if you cannot discuss conspiracy theory without objectivity and logic, rather than knee jerk emotional reactions, then you're proving the points in the article to the T.

[christophera]

i guess this means you're not embarrassed for yourself?

well, on behalf of the forum, i'm embarrassed for you.

[seckle]

well, on behalf of the forum, i'm embarrassed for you.

arrogance, do you understand it?

[christophera]

uh

[nicenice]

well, on behalf of the forum, i'm embarrassed for you.

[noam]

[test_recordings]

http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html

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.

OP should be more correctly termed '10 characteristics of a dogmatic attitude to a conspiracy theory'.

The use of 'traits' implies a stable personality feature that is unchangeable and 'conspiracy worship' that it is being followed for its own sake rather than looking at the intention of following such belief...

[christophera]

bump