Post your Kerazy Conspiracy Theories in Here

ST100 · Post by **ST100** » Mon Nov 17, 2008 5:27 pm

2012 is a no go.
The Mayan Calendar simply just restarts once it gets to 2012.
I mean, who the fuck would want to make an everlasting calendar?
its gotta stop somwhere.

I think somethings gonna happen, but not the end of the world.
plus, what about the events about the end of the world after 2012. theres too many.

jokes.

dubsworth · Post by **dubsworth** » Wed Nov 19, 2008 10:24 am

"Conspiracy Theory" is a bankrupt term. Calling someone a conspiracy theorist is a form of ad hominem logical fallacy. The term conspiracy theorist implies a mind where one who accepts one particular crime as conspiracy assumes that every crime has some conspiracy behind it. Obviously this is not the case of someone who accepts one or many crimes as conspiracy because....... Conspiracies are of course, a part of reality. Any crime committed by more than one person is a conspiracy. Oh and let's not forget, the official govt 9/11 commission is itself a conspiracy theory (and a highly discredited one at that). Let's encourage scrutiny, but to say you believe NO evidence that is presented if that particular evidence implies conspiracy is totally illogical. Stay specific and don't call people theorists who give you legitimate information.

Oh and i went to a website referenced in another post above here which said science explains away 10 popular conspiracy theories....sorry, but the very first entry on the page simply describes some version of a conspiracy theory about 9/11. There is nothing about science nor any explanations to the very legitimate questions being asked about 9/11 by millions of Americans including 100's of victims family members. Nothing is explained here!
http://listverse.com/miscellaneous/top- ... -theories/
and hello..the JFK assassination...come on people there was a bloody congressional hearing in the 80's which discredited the lone gunman/magic bullet idea. If you are going to post alleged debunking links please read them first and just show us the goods.

nousd · Post by **nousd** » Wed Nov 19, 2008 10:52 am

[quote="Dubsworth"]"Conspiracy Theory" is a bankrupt term... The term conspiracy theorist implies a mind where one who accepts one particular crime as conspiracy asumes that every crime has some conspiracy behind it.[/quote]

Nah
ascribing a motive to a particular act
doesnt mean that all acts are ascribed a similar motivation.
That is an unjustifiable generalization.

After all, some nut cases don't eat their own shit
so they are sane in some regards.

alien pimp · Post by **alien pimp** » Wed Nov 19, 2008 12:58 pm

conspiracy is not a motivation

manray · Post by **manray** » Wed Nov 19, 2008 2:18 pm

alien pimp wrote:conspiracy is not a motivation

Nobody said that....

To describe the point in simpler terms :

A cyclist does not cycle everywhere.

A conspiracy theorist does not always suggest that everything is a conspiracy.

alien pimp · Post by **alien pimp** » Wed Nov 19, 2008 2:38 pm

SD5 did

i agree with you

manray · Post by **manray** » Wed Nov 19, 2008 2:52 pm

alien pimp wrote:SD5 did

i agree with you

Oh seeno I thought he was saying the same thing?

Anyway

alien pimp · Post by **alien pimp** » Wed Nov 19, 2008 3:20 pm

i guess he was trying to say it's not right to think that, while the point was: yeah, it's not right, it's the public perception though

which kinda brings me back to how public perception is built...
but i don't have time now

nousd · Post by **nousd** » Wed Nov 19, 2008 9:00 pm

Yeah, I think that we all agree.
About something. Maybe that:
Conspiracy theorists believe that conspirators are initiating or manipulating the outcome of some events but not necessarily all (e.g. bowel movements).
The conspirators, presumably, are motivated by something.

Jus saying "conspiracy theorist" is not a bankrupt term.

alien pimp · Post by **alien pimp** » Wed Nov 19, 2008 9:15 pm

yeah, just when the conspiracies are already tv news, like chip implants, the internet black boxes law in uk and the nwo.

just had an update from a guy who works with data protection technologies:
everything you google is profiled by US government, who also gets the full resolution of the google satelite cameras, so if you don't have a mirror and need to know if you have dandruff, ask the gov!

he also said the trillion cameras on the streets of london have a very powerful facial recognition software, just in case laden shows up at the grocery store.

i wonder what public perception would be on this news! conspiracy theory? maybe the guy is a mole of david icke's?

kiddin, i no doubt about it: public perception is a slut!

dubsworth · Post by **dubsworth** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 8:27 am

SD5 wrote: Conspiracy theorists believe that conspirators are initiating or manipulating the outcome of some events but not necessarily all (e.g. bowel movements).
The conspirators, presumably, are motivated by something.

Jus saying "conspiracy theorist" is not a bankrupt term.

So by your definition above...everyone here is a conspiracy theorist because everyone knows that conspiracies have happened. So if you believe just one, you are saying that people are to be labeled as theorists? Unless you believe that we live in a world where there are no conspiracies and never have been which I know you do not.
This is why i say the term is bankrupt. It is so undefined that it is most commonly used as a form of name calling. The term "conspiracy theorist" is used by the mainstream media to discredit by painting a picture of a blanket conspiracy laden world view. Of course we all agree, that not every event is a conspiracy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lwBUXCM ... ews?page=1

puhatek_kurva_macz · Post by **puhatek_kurva_macz** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:19 am

The moon landing was a fake, but there is shit up on the moon that were not supposed to know about..

And ufo are fer reeeel.

echo wanderer · Post by **echo wanderer** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:54 am

Dubsworth wrote: So by your definition above...everyone here is a conspiracy theorist because everyone knows that conspiracies have happened. So if you believe just one, you are saying that people are to be labeled as theorists? Unless you believe that we live in a world where there are no conspiracies and never have been which I know you do not.
This is why i say the term is bankrupt. It is so undefined that it is most commonly used as a form of name calling. The term "conspiracy theorist" is used by the mainstream media to discredit by painting a picture of a blanket conspiracy laden world view. Of course we all agree, that not every event is a conspiracy.

O.B.Laden??!!!

It's a conspiracy!!!

nousd · Post by **nousd** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 11:00 am

Dubsworth wrote:So by your definition above...everyone here is a conspiracy theorist because everyone knows that conspiracies have happened.

Simple...if someone espouses a conspiracy which is unproven,, they are a conspiracy theorist.

Dubsworth wrote:So if you believe just one, you are saying that people are to be labeled as theorists?

With respect to that particular unproven proposition but not in general.

What's unreasonable about that Dubworthy?

dubsworth · Post by **dubsworth** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 9:11 pm

SD5 wrote:
Dubsworth wrote:So by your definition above...everyone here is a conspiracy theorist because everyone knows that conspiracies have happened.
Simple...if someone espouses a conspiracy which is unproven,, they are a conspiracy theorist.
Dubsworth wrote:So if you believe just one, you are saying that people are to be labeled as theorists?
With respect to that particular unproven proposition but not in general.

What's unreasonable about that Dubworthy?

It's not unreasonable. The problem is, is that the term seems to rarely apply to the particular unproven position, and is used for general attack on character. If it were just as you say above, of course that makes sense. This is just not how I have seen the general term used and applied.

dubsworth · Post by **dubsworth** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 9:12 pm

Echo Wanderer wrote:
Dubsworth wrote: So by your definition above...everyone here is a conspiracy theorist because everyone knows that conspiracies have happened. So if you believe just one, you are saying that people are to be labeled as theorists? Unless you believe that we live in a world where there are no conspiracies and never have been which I know you do not.
This is why i say the term is bankrupt. It is so undefined that it is most commonly used as a form of name calling. The term "conspiracy theorist" is used by the mainstream media to discredit by painting a picture of a blanket conspiracy laden world view. Of course we all agree, that not every event is a conspiracy.

O.B.Laden??!!!

It's a conspiracy!!!

Nice one Jez.

My loose mouth can always use a smile.

echo wanderer · Post by **echo wanderer** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 9:20 pm

Dubsworth wrote:
Echo Wanderer wrote:
Dubsworth wrote: So by your definition above...everyone here is a conspiracy theorist because everyone knows that conspiracies have happened. So if you believe just one, you are saying that people are to be labeled as theorists? Unless you believe that we live in a world where there are no conspiracies and never have been which I know you do not.
This is why i say the term is bankrupt. It is so undefined that it is most commonly used as a form of name calling. The term "conspiracy theorist" is used by the mainstream media to discredit by painting a picture of a blanket conspiracy laden world view. Of course we all agree, that not every event is a conspiracy.

O.B.Laden??!!!

It's a conspiracy!!!

Nice one Jez.
My loose mouth can always use a smile.

Glad to be of service!

Speaking of conspiracies,everyone check the thread I just started in the main forum!

deejay · Post by **deejay** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 9:42 pm

I just got wind of this thread....I'll be back. You can count on it.

AIM = Deej2012

echo wanderer · Post by **echo wanderer** » Fri Nov 21, 2008 1:16 am

deejay wrote:I just got wind of this thread....I'll be back. You can count on it.

nousd · Post by **nousd** » Sun Nov 23, 2008 5:47 am

Dubsworth wrote:It's not unreasonable. The problem is, is that the term seems to rarely apply to the particular unproven position, and is used for general attack on character. If it were just as you say above, of course that makes sense. This is just not how I have seen the general term used and applied.

OK, got ya. Probably right but I'd like to resist the media turning a useful, neutral, concise term into something derogatory and cliched.

Post your Kerazy Conspiracy Theories in Here

Who is online