Total Posts:62|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why Do Conspiracy Theorists Know More

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2012 10:39:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
People like to degenerate Conspiracy Theorists and portray them as the lowest of intellectual thought down there with fundamentalist young Earthers. Yet conspiracy theorists know more than the average person and even the politically literate.

I won't use myself as an example because I'm far from the most well-learned conspiracist (my critical thinking, theoretical knowledge, and diverse understanding is my strong point compared to most other conspiracists).

The conspiracy theorists knew what the Bilderberg Group was before any political scientist ever heard about it. The media said it didn't exist, now it's widely accepted that it exists because conspiracists got it on camera.

The conspiracy theorists know about globalism, the Security & Prosperity Partnership (SPP aka North American Union), the inner workings of the Federal Reserve, the influence of the Rothschilds, which organizations Rockefeller funded, who Zbigniew Bezezinski is, Operation Northwoods, the ties of the Bush family to Nazi Germany, the genealogy of who's related to who, the list of people who attend Satanic rituals at Bohemian Grove, knew what the NDAA was before anyone else, knew about Rex 84 martial law bills, the DHS security documents, the Army manuels about reeducation camps, the Delphi mind manipulation technique, the U.N Agenda 21, the war crimes of Henry Kissinger, the content of the books of the most powerful people in the world.

There's a freakin genocidal eugenecist in Obama's administration named John Holdren and nobody knows about it but the conspiracists? Come on. He writes in his own books that there should be forced abortions, forced sterilizations, poisoning the food and water for "sustainable population" purposes, and bringing the population down to 1 billion.

This is a travesty. And the idea that conspiracists know nothing and are just paranoid delusional is just insane. What's delusional is not knowing about hidden agendas and saying what the conspiracists uncovered is not important.

.
.
.
.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
inferno
Posts: 10,689
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2012 10:52:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/3/2012 10:39:52 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
People like to degenerate Conspiracy Theorists and portray them as the lowest of intellectual thought down there with fundamentalist young Earthers. Yet conspiracy theorists know more than the average person and even the politically literate.

I won't use myself as an example because I'm far from the most well-learned conspiracist (my critical thinking, theoretical knowledge, and diverse understanding is my strong point compared to most other conspiracists).

The conspiracy theorists knew what the Bilderberg Group was before any political scientist ever heard about it. The media said it didn't exist, now it's widely accepted that it exists because conspiracists got it on camera.

The conspiracy theorists know about globalism, the Security & Prosperity Partnership (SPP aka North American Union), the inner workings of the Federal Reserve, the influence of the Rothschilds, which organizations Rockefeller funded, who Zbigniew Bezezinski is, Operation Northwoods, the ties of the Bush family to Nazi Germany, the genealogy of who's related to who, the list of people who attend Satanic rituals at Bohemian Grove, knew what the NDAA was before anyone else, knew about Rex 84 martial law bills, the DHS security documents, the Army manuels about reeducation camps, the Delphi mind manipulation technique, the U.N Agenda 21, the war crimes of Henry Kissinger, the content of the books of the most powerful people in the world.

There's a freakin genocidal eugenecist in Obama's administration named John Holdren and nobody knows about it but the conspiracists? Come on. He writes in his own books that there should be forced abortions, forced sterilizations, poisoning the food and water for "sustainable population" purposes, and bringing the population down to 1 billion.

This is a travesty. And the idea that conspiracists know nothing and are just paranoid delusional is just insane. What's delusional is not knowing about hidden agendas and saying what the conspiracists uncovered is not important.



Actually this is wrong. Over Half of Americans believe that Kennedy was assasinated for a reason. And that Oswald did NOT act alone.
.So people are slowly starting to realize that these conspiracies are real life things going on behind closed doors.
But dont expect DDO to be a representation of the real world today.
These idiots are clueless. =)
.
.
.
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2012 10:57:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
It's the same reason why libertarians tend to know more about the Democrats and Republicans than the Democrats and Republicans do and why atheists tend to know more about all the Abrahamic religions than most people who follow them do. I am not saying this proves anything in favor of libertarianism, atheism, or conspiracy theorism (that's not a word but it fit so shut up): though I myself happen to be an anarchistic atheist who subscribes to a whole bunch of "conspiracy theories", but not the sort with lizard people. The sort about powerful people in charge of religions and governments, those in power, and what they have duped the "non-powerful" common people into believing, through propaganda, the media, the school system, etc.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2012 11:21:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Kind of what Jat said. Conspiracy theorists spend more time looking into the issue since they're a minority opposition. You won't see people who think 2 and 2 is 4 looking into the issue very hard since their view is basically common sense as far as they're concerned. It's generally the opposite with conspiracy theorists though.
.
.
.
.
All hail the lizard people.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2012 11:27:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/3/2012 11:14:45 AM, drafterman wrote:
Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while.

That makes no sense. I'm talking about knowledge, not predictions. Conspiracists aren't about making 100 predictions and hoping 1 comes true.

Conspiracists investigate and reveal what actually had already happened. It's not about "make empty claim, hope it's right." They don't make claims, they uncover. Or in many cases, loudly report what has already been made public or declassified.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2012 11:32:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/3/2012 10:39:52 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
People like to degenerate Conspiracy Theorists and portray them as the lowest of intellectual thought down there with fundamentalist young Earthers. Yet conspiracy theorists know more than the average person and even the politically literate.

I won't use myself as an example because I'm far from the most well-learned conspiracist (my critical thinking, theoretical knowledge, and diverse understanding is my strong point compared to most other conspiracists).

The conspiracy theorists knew what the Bilderberg Group was before any political scientist ever heard about it. The media said it didn't exist, now it's widely accepted that it exists because conspiracists got it on camera.

The conspiracy theorists know about globalism, the Security & Prosperity Partnership (SPP aka North American Union), the inner workings of the Federal Reserve, the influence of the Rothschilds, which organizations Rockefeller funded, who Zbigniew Bezezinski is, Operation Northwoods, the ties of the Bush family to Nazi Germany, the genealogy of who's related to who, the list of people who attend Satanic rituals at Bohemian Grove, knew what the NDAA was before anyone else, knew about Rex 84 martial law bills, the DHS security documents, the Army manuels about reeducation camps, the Delphi mind manipulation technique, the U.N Agenda 21, the war crimes of Henry Kissinger, the content of the books of the most powerful people in the world.

There's a freakin genocidal eugenecist in Obama's administration named John Holdren and nobody knows about it but the conspiracists? Come on. He writes in his own books that there should be forced abortions, forced sterilizations, poisoning the food and water for "sustainable population" purposes, and bringing the population down to 1 billion.

This is a travesty. And the idea that conspiracists know nothing and are just paranoid delusional is just insane. What's delusional is not knowing about hidden agendas and saying what the conspiracists uncovered is not important.

Stephen Hawkins stated:

If the governments are involved in the covering up the knowledge of aliens, then they are doing a much better job of it than they seem to be doing at everything else.

Question: Given the track record if government, doesn't it stand to reason that someone in the government will spill the beans? The only people that actually believe the conspiracy theories are lunatics like you, Jones, and Ventural

Geo, I challenge you to a debate on any conspiracy theory you want and I'll prove it to be false.
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2012 11:39:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/3/2012 11:27:27 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 12/3/2012 11:14:45 AM, drafterman wrote:
Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while.

That makes no sense. I'm talking about knowledge, not predictions. Conspiracists aren't about making 100 predictions and hoping 1 comes true.

Conspiracists investigate and reveal what actually had already happened. It's not about "make empty claim, hope it's right." They don't make claims, they uncover. Or in many cases, loudly report what has already been made public or declassified.

Knowledge is a justified true belief. So while I won't contest the "belief" part, nor the "true" part in the cases it was actually "true," I'll have to request support for the notion that they were justified in their belief.

I perceive it as a shot-gun method (which is ultimately self-defeating). If you throw enough "theories" out there, you're bound to be "right" eventually.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2012 11:44:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Rationalization is a failure of applying logical thinking in which the arguments and evidence contrary to a belief are ignored or downplayed in favor of supporting arguments or evidence. conspiracy theorists critically depend upon most people knowing about nothing about a particular subject. That way, when the conspiracy theorist displays his 5% knowledge it seems positively awesome.

Conspiracy theorists know some things which are true, but that knowledge is invariably supplemented by fanciful claims that require substantial knowledge to refute. I saw a few minutes of Jesse Ventura TV show on the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon. Ventura stated as fact that no bodies of passengers were found at the scene in the Pentagon. You have to be very interested in the incident to know that claim is false, and that there is ample testimony of emergency service people who extracted bodies. There are dozens of such false claims, and Ventura ran off a string of them that the average person would not know to be long-proved false.

One of the characteristics of conspiracy theorists is that when they say something at is proved false, their knowledge does not advance to include the new facts. They endlessly repeat false claims. Since few people are interested enough to research the subject, they usually get away with false claims and that allows the conspiracy theory to stay alive.

Interest in 9/11 peaked a year or two afterwards. Young people who are now 20 missed all the debate that happened when they were eight or ten. That means they are unlikely to have heard the refutations of all the nonsense claimed as fact.

The stock and trade of conspiracy theorists is to learn a little bit about something of which most people know nothing,then never learn a thing beyond that so the theory can stay alive.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2012 11:51:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/3/2012 11:32:05 AM, Microsuck wrote:
Stephen Hawkins stated:

If the governments are involved in the covering up the knowledge of aliens, then they are doing a much better job of it than they seem to be doing at everything else.

False. Many government documents on extraterrestrials has already been declassified and 200 government insiders have blown the whistle on ET's. See Disclosure Project.

Question: Given the track record if government, doesn't it stand to eason that someone in the government will spill the beans?

Yeah, no frickin sh!t. Many people in government HAVE spilled the beans you idiot. There's FBI, CIA, Illuminati, CNN, military intelligence officials, etc. who have blown the whistle and spilled the beans.

Hell, even the conspirators themselves brag about their agenda in their books! You are willfully ignorant of the facts. You have no knowledge.

The only people that actually believe the conspiracy theories are lunatics like you, Jones, and Ventural

False. Tell that to Noam Chomsky, Lew Rockwell, Ron Paul, Dr. Webster Tarpley, G Edward Griffin, historian Howard Zinn, Lord Monckton, Gerald Celente, and the list goes on.

Look at the guests who have been on Alex Jones show and consider that 90% of them agree with him or in fact are the ones who informed him. He has PhDs, economists, scientists, parliament statesman, Senators, Congressman, judges, health experts, director of HAARP, ex-intelligence agents, etc. all on his show concuring with him and are in fact his informants.

Geo, I challenge you to a debate on any conspiracy theory you want and I'll prove it to be false.

Lmao! Thats laughable.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2012 12:02:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/3/2012 11:51:37 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 12/3/2012 11:32:05 AM, Microsuck wrote:
Stephen Hawkins stated:

If the governments are involved in the covering up the knowledge of aliens, then they are doing a much better job of it than they seem to be doing at everything else.

False. Many government documents on extraterrestrials has already been declassified and 200 government insiders have blown the whistle on ET's. See Disclosure Project.

References?


Question: Given the track record if government, doesn't it stand to eason that someone in the government will spill the beans?

Yeah, no frickin sh!t. Many people in government HAVE spilled the beans you idiot. There's FBI, CIA, Illuminati, CNN, military intelligence officials, etc. who have blown the whistle and spilled the beans.

LOL!! Sources???


Hell, even the conspirators themselves brag about their agenda in their books! You are willfully ignorant of the facts. You have no knowledge.

Please tell me more about these books.


The only people that actually believe the conspiracy theories are lunatics like you, Jones, and Ventural

False. Tell that to Noam Chomsky, Lew Rockwell, Ron Paul, Dr. Webster Tarpley, G Edward Griffin, historian Howard Zinn, Lord Monckton, Gerald Celente, and the list goes on.

Note that I did not state you three were the only peopel.


Look at the guests who have been on Alex Jones show and consider that 90% of them agree with him or in fact are the ones who informed him. He has PhDs, economists, scientists, parliament statesman, Senators, Congressman, judges, health experts, director of HAARP, ex-intelligence agents, etc. all on his show concuring with him and are in fact his informants.

90% of them agree with him because he censors those that don't agree with him. So what if they are PhDs or whatever else, that's simply an appeal to authority.


Geo, I challenge you to a debate on any conspiracy theory you want and I'll prove it to be false.

Lmao! Thats laughable.

What? Someone chicken?
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2012 12:07:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2012 12:22:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/3/2012 11:44:08 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
Rationalization is a failure of applying logical thinking in which the arguments and evidence contrary to a belief are ignored or downplayed in favor of supporting arguments or evidence. conspiracy theorists critically depend upon most people knowing about nothing about a particular subject. That way, when the conspiracy theorist displays his 5% knowledge it seems positively awesome.

Conspiracy theorists know some things which are true, but that knowledge is invariably supplemented by fanciful claims that require substantial knowledge to refute. I saw a few minutes of Jesse Ventura TV show on the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon. Ventura stated as fact that no bodies of passengers were found at the scene in the Pentagon. You have to be very interested in the incident to know that claim is false, and that there is ample testimony of emergency service people who extracted bodies. There are dozens of such false claims, and Ventura ran off a string of them that the average person would not know to be long-proved false.

One of the characteristics of conspiracy theorists is that when they say something at is proved false, their knowledge does not advance to include the new facts. They endlessly repeat false claims. Since few people are interested enough to research the subject, they usually get away with false claims and that allows the conspiracy theory to stay alive.

Interest in 9/11 peaked a year or two afterwards. Young people who are now 20 missed all the debate that happened when they were eight or ten. That means they are unlikely to have heard the refutations of all the nonsense claimed as fact.

The stock and trade of conspiracy theorists is to learn a little bit about something of which most people know nothing,then never learn a thing beyond that so the theory can stay alive.

I never put stock in the theories about 9/11 talking about thermite this, testimony that, no passangers found there, no plane here, demolition there, because there's such a mess of information and contradicting testimonies it's hard to determine what is true.

The fact of the matter is, the chairman of the 9/11 Commission said that the government agreed to lie about 9/11 and that he was shocked at just how different the truth was from the official story. I also know that the hi-jackers were trained by the U.S. military at Penescola base ( http://www.scoop.co.nz...). I know about the insiders having foreknowledge and people in high positions being told not to fly that day.

If you wanna see a devastating critique of 9/11, look no further than David Icke's scathing lecture on Youtube called "David Icke tears apart 9/11."

.
.
.
.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2012 12:29:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/3/2012 12:08:37 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
Geo, can you stop using Ad Populum and False Authority fallacies?

Show me where I have committed such.

When someone says "only x, y, & z cooks believe that," it is NOT fallacious to respond to that by saying "no, actually a to z credible sources also affirm this." He raised the fallacious point asking for ad populum answer, I responded to it.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Ron-Paul
Posts: 2,557
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2012 12:34:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/3/2012 12:29:18 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 12/3/2012 12:08:37 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
Geo, can you stop using Ad Populum and False Authority fallacies?

Show me where I have committed such.

When someone says "only x, y, & z cooks believe that," it is NOT fallacious to respond to that by saying "no, actually a to z credible sources also affirm this." He raised the fallacious point asking for ad populum answer, I responded to it.

You commit ad populum fallacies everytime you jump on the illuminati conspiracy bandwagon and you commit false authority fallacies everytime you cite Alex Smith as a credible source.

Not to mention everytime use commit post hoc...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2012 12:43:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/3/2012 12:34:00 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
You commit ad populum fallacies everytime you jump on the illuminati conspiracy bandwagon

False. Show me where I said "lots of people said it, therefore it's true." Never, so shut the fvck up, you have no knowledge.

My claim is "these credible people and sources affirm this, therefore it's credible." Big difference between that and an ad populum.

and you commit false authority fallacies everytime you cite Alex Smith as a credible source.

I cite Infowars articles because of the detailed information, compelling argument, and links to evidence contained within the article, not because "Alex Jones says so." Alex Jones makes no claims, he's reporter who expresses opinions about news and current affairs.

Not to mention everytime use commit post hoc...

Youre an idiot. Youre just regurgitating a talking point touted by so called "skeptics." You can't show me one time where I ever committed the post hoc fallacy.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Ron-Paul
Posts: 2,557
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2012 12:47:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/3/2012 12:43:53 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 12/3/2012 12:34:00 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
You commit ad populum fallacies everytime you jump on the illuminati conspiracy bandwagon

False. Show me where I said "lots of people said it, therefore it's true." Never, so shut the fvck up, you have no knowledge.

False. Tell that to Noam Chomsky, Lew Rockwell, Ron Paul, Dr. Webster Tarpley, G Edward Griffin, historian Howard Zinn, Lord Monckton, Gerald Celente, and the list goes on.

There. Not to mention, it's false ad populum; even worse.

My claim is "these credible people and sources affirm this, therefore it's credible." Big difference between that and an ad populum.


Just refuted above. References?
and you commit false authority fallacies everytime you cite Alex Smith as a credible source.

I cite Infowars articles because of the detailed information, compelling argument, and links to evidence contained within the article, not because "Alex Jones says so." Alex Jones makes no claims, he's reporter who expresses opinions about news and current affairs.

Yeah... That's kind of false authority...

Not to mention everytime use commit post hoc...

Youre an idiot. Youre just regurgitating a talking point touted by so called "skeptics." You can't show me one time where I ever committed the post hoc fallacy.

When you claimed that there is "evidence" that "might indicate a possible illuminati conspiracy" and then concluded that there is a global illuminati conspiracy.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2012 1:06:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/3/2012 12:47:50 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 12/3/2012 12:43:53 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
False. Show me where I said "lots of people said it, therefore it's true." Never, so shut the fvck up, you have no knowledge.

False. Tell that to Noam Chomsky, Lew Rockwell, Ron Paul, Dr. Webster Tarpley, G Edward Griffin, historian Howard Zinn, Lord Monckton, Gerald Celente, and the list goes on.

There. Not to mention, it's false ad populum; even worse.

I didn't say "this many people said it, therefore it's true." You can't find me one quote saying that. All you can do is quote me not saying anything of the sort.

My claim is "these credible people and sources affirm this, therefore it's credible." Big difference between that and an ad populum.


Just refuted above. References?

No, you didn't refute it. See above.

I cite Infowars articles because of the detailed information, compelling argument, and links to evidence contained within the article, not because "Alex Jones says so." Alex Jones makes no claims, he's reporter who expresses opinions about news and current affairs.

Yeah... That's kind of false authority...

No, it's not when it is not appeal to authority to begin with. I'm citing an article that makes arguments and cites credible sources like Forbes, Drudge Report, AP, Reuters, BBC, CNBC, The Economist, The Wall Street Journal, etc.

Youre an idiot. Youre just regurgitating a talking point touted by so called "skeptics." You can't show me one time where I ever committed the post hoc fallacy.

When you claimed that there is "evidence" that "might indicate a possible illuminati conspiracy" and then concluded that there is a global illuminati conspiracy.

1. No, I didnt make that claim.

2. You don't even understand the fallacy you accuse me of committing. Post hoc is false cause, correlation not causation. I never said "this event happened right before this, therefore that event caused this and therefore conspiracy." Never made such fallacious argument.

.
.
.
.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Ron-Paul
Posts: 2,557
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2012 1:10:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/3/2012 1:06:25 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 12/3/2012 12:47:50 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 12/3/2012 12:43:53 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
False. Show me where I said "lots of people said it, therefore it's true." Never, so shut the fvck up, you have no knowledge.

False. Tell that to Noam Chomsky, Lew Rockwell, Ron Paul, Dr. Webster Tarpley, G Edward Griffin, historian Howard Zinn, Lord Monckton, Gerald Celente, and the list goes on.

There. Not to mention, it's false ad populum; even worse.

I didn't say "this many people said it, therefore it's true." You can't find me one quote saying that. All you can do is quote me not saying anything of the sort.

Yeah, you kind of did.

My claim is "these credible people and sources affirm this, therefore it's credible." Big difference between that and an ad populum.


Just refuted above. References?

No, you didn't refute it. See above.

References?

I cite Infowars articles because of the detailed information, compelling argument, and links to evidence contained within the article, not because "Alex Jones says so." Alex Jones makes no claims, he's reporter who expresses opinions about news and current affairs.

Yeah... That's kind of false authority...

No, it's not when it is not appeal to authority to begin with. I'm citing an article that makes arguments and cites credible sources like Forbes, Drudge Report, AP, Reuters, BBC, CNBC, The Economist, The Wall Street Journal, etc.

Ok. Please provide those.

Youre an idiot. Youre just regurgitating a talking point touted by so called "skeptics." You can't show me one time where I ever committed the post hoc fallacy.

When you claimed that there is "evidence" that "might indicate a possible illuminati conspiracy" and then concluded that there is a global illuminati conspiracy.

1. No, I didnt make that claim.


Yes you did. Many times.
2. You don't even understand the fallacy you accuse me of committing. Post hoc is false cause, correlation not causation. I never said "this event happened right before this, therefore that event caused this and therefore conspiracy." Never made such fallacious argument.

That's not the only definition; it overarches into jumping to a claim without examining the whole picture.
Mr_Anon
Posts: 103
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2012 3:09:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The fact of the matter is, the chairman of the 9/11 Commission said that the government agreed to lie about 9/11 and that he was shocked at just how different the truth was from the official story.

Source?

I also know that the hi-jackers were trained by the U.S. military at Penescola base ( http://www.scoop.co.nz...). I know about the insiders having foreknowledge and people in high positions being told not to fly that day.

Except that is not a fact: http://www.911myths.com...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2012 5:49:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/3/2012 4:35:16 PM, Mr_Anon wrote:
Meh, why do I bother? It's clear no amount of facts will convince someone as off the deep end as Geolaurite.

You have no knowledge. You don't even know about John Farmer's statements.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Mr_Anon
Posts: 103
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2012 7:14:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/3/2012 5:49:56 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 12/3/2012 4:35:16 PM, Mr_Anon wrote:
Meh, why do I bother? It's clear no amount of facts will convince someone as off the deep end as Geolaurite.

You have no knowledge. You don't even know about John Farmer's statements.

Ah, the classic Geolaurite response. "You have no knowledge", followed/preceded by "you don't know X". A specific person is a little better. Do you have a specific source or statement to back up for your claim? I notice you ignored how I disproved one of your claims.
emj32
Posts: 111
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2012 8:55:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/3/2012 12:07:55 PM, Microsuck wrote:


This video explains a lot about Alex Jones. He'll make very broad predictions that aren't backed up with any evidence, and when they don't come true, he'll never cover it, while his audience has usually forgotten about it by now. I must admit, I use to adhere to Alex Jones and his 'theories' on various subjects(9/11, Bin Laden dead back in 2004, World Governments, FDA poisoning our food, etc.).

Now, i have since then abandoned those far-fetched claims, realizing most of those unsubstantiated assertions never had any factual foundation. However, I find myself believing the JFK assassination was an inside job, especially since E. Howard Hunt (Ex CIA officer) admitted to it. Code-named the 'Big Event', it was ordered by Lyndon B. Johnson and carried out by recruits. I believe 9/11 could of been an inside job, but i'm definitely not as sure.

But yea, as people have said above, the reason conspiracy theorists know more about the government's actions, atheists know more about religion, and Libertarians know more about the two party system is because they're

-More attached/emotional/passionate about their position
-Since their position isn't within the public acceptance, they have a greater burden to substantiate their positions with greater evidence .
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2012 10:25:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/4/2012 8:55:39 AM, emj32 wrote:
This video explains a lot about Alex Jones. He'll make very broad predictions that aren't backed up with any evidence, and when they don't come true, he'll never cover it, while his audience has usually forgotten about it by now.

You don't understand anything about conspiratorial knowledge, you must be new to this.

Alex Jones does make predictions that don't come true, i've witnessed them, for example the false flag attack at the Olympics that never happened.

Alex Jones show is not about predictions, it's about current events, history, books written by powerful people, whistleblowers, knowledge, and government documents. NOT predictions. He always says "i don't know whats gonna happen" but based on what they've done in the past, they might pull this. He's not psychic, doesn't claim to be psychic, but he does give educated guesses, many times he is right, sometimes not. But you wanna fault him for not being psychic? When did he ever claim to be Nostradamus? NEVER.

I must admit, I use to adhere to Alex Jones and his 'theories' on various subjects(9/11, Bin Laden dead back in 2004, World Governments, FDA poisoning our food, etc.).

Now, i have since then abandoned those far-fetched claims, realizing most of those unsubstantiated assertions never had any factual foundation.

Youre an idiot. He doesn't make claims. Everything he says is documented, on record, or confirmed by insiders. The whole premise of his show is him having a stack of mainstream news articles and newly leaked gov't documents, then rants about each article one-by-one. No claims were made up in his own head, he can point to the documentation for everything.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2012 10:30:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/3/2012 7:14:35 PM, Mr_Anon wrote:
At 12/3/2012 5:49:56 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
You have no knowledge. You don't even know about John Farmer's statements.

Ah, the classic Geolaurite response. "You have no knowledge", followed/preceded by "you don't know X". A specific person is a little better. Do you have a specific source or statement to back up for your claim?

http://www.infowars.com...

In there you will find a link to the Washington Post and excerpts from the back cover of his book so don't act like you can dismiss it because of the source. Look what's in it first.

I notice you ignored how I disproved one of your claims.

I haven't had time to examine the rebuttal and refute it.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
iamnotwhoiam
Posts: 171
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2012 11:04:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/3/2012 12:22:53 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

If you wanna see a devastating critique of 9/11, look no further than David Icke's scathing lecture on Youtube called "David Icke tears apart 9/11."

David Icke!

Please tell me you believe in the reptile elite.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2012 11:33:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/4/2012 11:04:24 AM, iamnotwhoiam wrote:
David Icke!

Please tell me you believe in the reptile elite.

Believe? No. It's not about belief. He has a very nuanced position on the Reptilian theory. I personally think he makes a compelling case.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat