|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
deadman
Joined: 27 May 2006
Location: Suwon
|
 Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 9:37 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Comments on the original post, in response to this invitation:
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
If my hypothesis is of merit, it can stand on its own, it doesn't need to be supported with links. And, if you feel there is a flaw in my argument, you should be able to disprove it without resorting to links.
|
First of all, most, if not all of your arguments are polluted by your failure to define , or at least use consistently, the terms "conspiracy theory", "conspiracy theorist" and "conspiracist".
Your confusion about the matter is evident.
You later clarify:
| Quote: |
Second, I have suggested a hypothesis about the effects of conspiracy theories on democracy and public policy. The fact that they consist of false infomation is a given.
|
So, really, your hypothesis has an unspoken initial assumption, either
1. "This hypothesis applies only to conspiracy theories that consist of false information", or
2. "This hypothesis applies to all conspiracies; all conspiracies consist of false information".
I will rule out (2) because in a post which follows shortly after you say:
| Quote: |
| But it is a given that most conspiracy theories are nonsense. |
So, given that your hypothesis applies only to false conspiracy theories, in your hypothesis and subsequent discussion we must substitute the term "false conspiracy theory" wherever you use the term "conspiracy theory".
Not only that, you then come out with this:
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| These theories and theorists are intended to deliberately mislead people and confuse them about what is going on in the real world. |
Really? All of them? Or are you just being intellectually lazy again?
So now your hypothesis applies to only theories that are false and intended to deliberately mislead?
Every time you are forced into a clarification, you put more and more conditions on your hypothesis, narrowing it's applicability down more and more, and making it more and more a simple statement of the obvious: "False conspiracies propagated with malicious intent are bad".
Yet you still seem to imagine you're come up with a Grand Unifying Theory of Conspiracies!
So after you have narrowed down your theory to apply to a very small, or non existent, number of significant conspiracy theories, when someone politely asks you for examples, you haughtily inform them:
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| loose_ends wrote: |
it would help if you used some examples. your theory may not be applicable to all conspiracy theories. |
Well then, if it doesn't apply to certain or even all conspiracy theories, go ahead and demonstrate how. It's not up to me to do your research for you. |
Classy.
In Summary
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| Ok, if you don't like the hypothesis, prove that it's wrong. |
My counter-argument:
Your hypothesis is rendered void due to serious limitations imposed on the subject under discussion by poor definition of terms.
Specifically, your theory only applies to "conspiracy theories" that are false and "intended to deliberately mislead (and confuse) people".
The second clause is the limiting factor on your argument, since (I don't doubt it is your opinion) is is difficult to prove, and you have make no attempt to do so.
Your argument presents this as fact. It relies on it. Therefore your hypothesis is false.
Suggestion: rephrase your argument to IF <conspiracy theories are what I believe> THEN <insert dire consequences for democracy here>.
Then we can talk. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 10:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
Actually, no it doesn't. It raises two possibilities:
- Oswald physically could not have fired all three shots;
- by some quirk of nature, on this one occasion he was able to do so. Physically near-impossible is not the same as completely impossible. |
It is a fact that disinformation is a tactic used by intelligence agencies to manipulate public opinion.
It is physically near-impossible, though not completely impossible, for all the oxygen molecules to move to one side of this room and suffocate those here. However, the possibility of that happening is so remote that it does not even warrant consideration.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| Being a Canadian, I view the institution of the US Presidency from a different perspective than you do. |
How do you know how I view the US Presidency? |
Being a Canadian, I view the institution of the US presidency from a different perspective than you do. If you feel my statement is wrong, go ahead and prove so. |
Just as you cannot know, unless I tell you, my view of the US presidency, I cannot know yours unless you first tell me (which you haven't, you have only alluded to it) so I shall not attempt to prove that.
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| Quote: |
| As I stated, I shy away from opinions and stick to facts. |
Actually no you don't, which I demonstrate in my next comment.
| Quote: |
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| Quote: |
| There is no "debate" here unless you want to claim that fire HAS brought down a steel building. If there is some other point you would like to debate, please state it clearly. |
There are and have been detailed engineering analyses and debates as to what happened to the two towers of the World Trade Center, that caused them to collapse. I'm not an engineer, so I'm not qualified to analyze or judge the explanations and analyses that have been offered. |
|
|
My statement referred to every other steel building EXCEPT the towers. Refer me to a serious engineer who maintains that fire has brought down a steel building before or after 9/11.
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| In any case, how does that prove that 911 was an "inside job"? |
You lost me here. Please refer me to where I said this. (I didn't.) In fact, I have specifically said 9/11 was no conspiracy. (See next post.) |
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
You brought it up, I didn't. You said:
| bacasper wrote: |
| It is a fact that no fire has brought down a steel building before or since the WTC attacks, convoluted pseudoexplanations to the contrary notwithstanding. |
This thread is about conspiracy theories and their effect on democracy. If this sentence has got nothing to do with conspiracy theories, why did you bring it up? |
|
A conspiracy does not have to be an "inside job." It can also be an "outside job."
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| Incidentally, your sentence is an opinion, not a fact. An opinion that the engineering analyses that have been done to explain the collapse of the two towers are "convoluted pseudoexplanations". It demonstrates that reasonable explanations of what happened to the two buildings have been offered by qualified engineers, and you reject them out of hand. |
OK, if you want to parse every little detail, yes, I admit that there is an element of opinion in the subordinate clause of that sentence but not in the main clause. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that, "No fire has brought down a steel building before or since the WTC attacks" is a fact as a standalone sentence.
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| Quote: |
| It is a fact that Bush Sr. and bin Laden Sr. were partners in the Carlyle Group, a private investment firm that profits from war. |
Yes, and it is a fact that, bin Laden Sr. and Bush watched the collapse of the WTC towers from the same television, before bin Laden flew home. The explanation for this is very simple: the utter failure of the US press, the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, and the US electorate to hold Bush accountable for the people with whom he was associated. If this had happened in Canada, Bush would have resigned in disgrace within a month. |
You start out well here, with a "fact," but then go straight into your opinion, or personal "conspiracy theory," which, in any event, does not explain what they were doing together in the first place. Doesn't it creep anyone else out that these two families are in bed together? (N.B. This is a question asking specifically for an opinion.) |
It's hardly a conspiracy theory. It's an opinion on the sorry state of accountability in the US political system, supported by a fact, a fact you yourself pointed out. It would be a conspiracy theory to allege that because of the close ties between these two families, one can conclude that either 911 was an "inside job", or the Bush family colluded to protect bin Laden from being captured. |
While we may have different names to call this one, the substance is something we agree on.
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| And those who would lie to the electorate, mislead the gullible, and induce the free to believe they have no say or stake in their polity are as great a danger as any foreign power. |
Don't be vague. I have given you very specific names, dates, etc. Please give me the courtesy of doing the same. |
Again, you are taking my statement out of context. You said:
| bacasper asked MOS a specific question when he wrote: |
| Thomas Jefferson said, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." Was he a conspiracy theorist?(my italics - MOS) |
|
| ...and in specific response to that question, MOS wrote: |
| He didn't limit the parameters of that vigilance. He didn't say, "eternal vigilance against big government", "eternal vigilance against foreign military powers", he said 'vigilance', period. |
Well, I am afraid that here, you are simply wrong. If you read his statement in context, he was not referring to vigilance of potential outside enemies of the country, he was referring to vigilance of our own elected leaders. Look it up.
| Quote: |
| And those who would lie to the electorate, mislead the gullible, and induce the free to believe they have no say or stake in their polity are as great a danger as any foreign power. |
At least. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mosley
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 10:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
For bacasper: You said: "That site says nothing of Marxism."
You are pulling our legs, right? If you aren't then you must be either obtuse or disengenuous. You really don't recognize the jargon & buzzwords of the Marxist camp?!
Let's sample just a very few of the highlighted gems from your cited site & I'll add a brief commentary in case you never bothered with(or flunked) Poli Sci 101. A primer, if you will.
"The Global CLASS War Targets Working People"(caps are mine)
-Are you kidding me? "Class" is the heart & soul of Marxism. You've never heard of "class struggle"?!
"Crisis of capitalism"
-Of course. Capitalism is always in "crisis". Its downfall is the necessary pre-condition for revolution. Capital is concentrated in the hands of fewer & fewer as capital is accumulated in the mistaken belief(in Marxist theory)that profit can be extracted from machinery & technology rather than from labour. This leads to an "accumulation crisis." Eventually, this facilitates proletarian revolution.
"Crony Capitalism"
-see above.
"Dictatorship and the dysfunctional capitalist state"
-Before & during "crisis" "...the executive of the modern State is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the bourgeoisie." -Karl Marx
"Ruling Class"
-In the capitalist mode of production, the bourgeoisie is the "ruling class".
"Class War at Home"
-'nuff said?
"Zionism & Israel: The Genocidal Invasion of Palestine"
-One of the milder anti-Semitic rants included. Why not marry Marxism w/THE PROTOCOLS OF THE ELDERS OF ZION? A good frothy, flatulent mix of 2 great conspiracy theories-hatred par excellence.
Your site posted, bacasper, is the handiwork of Ralph Schoenman and Mya Shone. They can be found here:
http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/document/mideast/hidden/author.htm
See you at the barricades, comrade. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 10:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| what kind of actions can they participate in that neither ignores their strong and supported beliefs or sacrificies democracy? |
| Quote: |
| what is the responsible thing to do? |
| Quote: |
ok. so lets assume the have:
1. taken a closer look at both sides and come to the conclusion that the 'conspiracy' theory has much stronger support in evidence
2. looked at the 65% and believe they are being misled by bad science and spotty government reports
3. don't want to accept that they are wrong because everything is telling them they are right.
4. have determined that they are being intellectually honest
what is the responsible thing to do next? |
More to the point, loose_ends, what do you think is the next thing to do? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 11:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| what kind of actions can they participate in that neither ignores their strong and supported beliefs or sacrificies democracy? |
| Quote: |
| what is the responsible thing to do? |
| Quote: |
ok. so lets assume the have:
1. taken a closer look at both sides and come to the conclusion that the 'conspiracy' theory has much stronger support in evidence
2. looked at the 65% and believe they are being misled by bad science and spotty government reports
3. don't want to accept that they are wrong because everything is telling them they are right.
4. have determined that they are being intellectually honest
what is the responsible thing to do next? |
More to the point, loose_ends, what do you think is the next thing to do? |
wait your turn |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 7:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| loose_ends wrote: |
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| loose_ends wrote: |
| "3. don't want to accept that they are wrong because everything is telling them they are right." |
Try again.  |
is that the best you can do?
ok, i'll change it then,
3. will not come to the conclusion that they are wrong because evidence suggests that they aren't.
now add that back in. |
Sorry. It was 1:00 at night when I read that.
C'mon. In light of our conversation, it did come out kinda ironic.  I'm not in Korea right now, I'm in Canada; 12 hours behind you. Friday afternoon here right now as I write, and I have an exam in 3 hours. Will get back to you.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 7:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| deadman wrote: |
Specifically, your theory only applies to "conspiracy theories" that are false and "intended to deliberately mislead (and confuse) people". |
I think unverifiable conspiracy theories taken as more likely true than not end up as dangerous to democracy. By 'unverifiable' I mean conspiracy theories that take on a life of their own, and can't be disproven by any sum of reasonably available evidence. By 'conspiracy theory' I mean any description of an important event in which 'accident' is discarded as a major cause. Additionally, by 'conspiracy theory' I mean any description of an important event in which the deception of a few towards the many becomes the underlying goal of the few in organizing and carrying out the important event. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 7:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mosley wrote: |
For bacasper: You said: "That site says nothing of Marxism."
You are pulling our legs, right? If you aren't then you must be either obtuse or disengenuous. You really don't recognize the jargon & buzzwords of the Marxist camp?!
Let's sample just a very few of the highlighted gems from your cited site & I'll add a brief commentary in case you never bothered with(or flunked) Poli Sci 101. A primer, if you will.
"The Global CLASS War Targets Working People"(caps are mine)
-Are you kidding me? "Class" is the heart & soul of Marxism. You've never heard of "class struggle"?!
"Crisis of capitalism"
-Of course. Capitalism is always in "crisis". Its downfall is the necessary pre-condition for revolution. Capital is concentrated in the hands of fewer & fewer as capital is accumulated in the mistaken belief(in Marxist theory)that profit can be extracted from machinery & technology rather than from labour. This leads to an "accumulation crisis." Eventually, this facilitates proletarian revolution.
"Crony Capitalism"
-see above.
"Dictatorship and the dysfunctional capitalist state"
-Before & during "crisis" "...the executive of the modern State is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the bourgeoisie." -Karl Marx
"Ruling Class"
-In the capitalist mode of production, the bourgeoisie is the "ruling class".
"Class War at Home"
-'nuff said?
"Zionism & Israel: The Genocidal Invasion of Palestine"
-One of the milder anti-Semitic rants included. Why not marry Marxism w/THE PROTOCOLS OF THE ELDERS OF ZION? A good frothy, flatulent mix of 2 great conspiracy theories-hatred par excellence.
Your site posted, bacasper, is the handiwork of Ralph Schoenman and Mya Shone. They can be found here:
http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/document/mideast/hidden/author.htm
See you at the barricades, comrade. |
Once again, we see someone unable to respond to the substance of a post or refute the facts presented resort to labelling and name-calling.
The impression I get from Ralph Schoenman and Mya Shone is that they monitor just about every newspaper and broadcast in the world every day. They do not make a statement without the documentation to back it up, and each of their hour-long radio programs is filled with tons of information. What makes their claims so powerful is that they arise from publicly available information if people would just make the effort to look for it.
The website Mosley gave is not theirs so who is being disingenuous now? By all means, everyone ought to check out the archive at the correct website, [url]takingaimradio.com[/url]. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 10:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| I'm wondering if you've read Conor Cruise O'Brien's essay against Jefferson... |
I have not. But I would certainly link McVeigh to Jefferson and the antiFederalists (two different groups, incidentally; Jefferson opposed the Federalist party but not necessarily federalism).
Many in the media and many who cite his name probably have forgotten Jefferson's radicalism and how deep it ran. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 10:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Many in the media and many who cite his name probably have forgotten Jefferson's radicalism and how deep it ran.
|
You really should read The Atlantic piece. I don't think it's on-line any more, but here's a summary...
| Quote: |
in the cover piece of the current Atlantic Monthly, Conor Cruise O'Brien puts forth a controversial -- hell, heretical -- argument: that Thomas Jefferson should be disqualified from civic sainthood because he was a radical libertarian who cheered the worst excesses of the French Revolution, and a racist even when compared with his fellow slaveholders. In "Thomas Jefferson: Radical and Racist," O'Brien writes that the only Americans who might properly keep alive the cult of Jefferson are lunatic-fringe militia groups attracted to his nihilistic notions of liberty and his unwavering belief in the supremacy of whites. And O'Brien's certainly not afraid to drive the point home: he identifies Timothy McVeigh as Jefferson's true ideological descendant.
|
And you don't have to worry about being subjected to the usual humanities department droning about Jefferson's racism. O'Brien is a conservative, albeit more of the Tory variety, and his critique has some fairly original elements.
http://www.salon.com/media/media961014.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 1:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| deadman wrote: |
| First of all, most, if not all of your arguments are polluted by your failure to define , or at least use consistently, the terms "conspiracy theory", "conspiracy theorist" and... |
You know, I'll bet you even money that when deadman talks, he sounds like a Valley Girl. He's probably one of these pretentious-sounding, stuffy twentysomethings that ends every phrase of three or more words with a rising intonation.
He probably sounds like this:
| deadman wrote: |
First of all, most? If not all? Of your arguments are polluted by your failure? To define? Or at least use consistently? The terms "conspiracy theory"? "conspiracy theorist"? And "conspiricist"??
Your confusion about the matter is evident??
Your hypothesis is rendered void? Due to serious limitations imposed on the subject under discussion? By poor definition of terms?? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 1:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm just asking because it seems more useful to get the opinion of someone who has already gone through the process you mentioned and has (probably) arrived at a conclusion than to ask someone who has not gone through the process and must imagine himself in that situation.
That, and you mentioned the 'r' word on another thread on the same topic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 4:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| deadman wrote: |
| First of all, most, if not all of your arguments are polluted by your failure to define , or at least use consistently, the terms "conspiracy theory", "conspiracy theorist" and... |
You know, I'll bet you even money that when deadman talks, he sounds like a Valley Girl. He's probably one of these pretentious-sounding, stuffy twentysomethings that ends every phrase of three or more words with a rising intonation.
He probably sounds like this:
| deadman wrote: |
First of all, most? If not all? Of your arguments are polluted by your failure? To define? Or at least use consistently? The terms "conspiracy theory"? "conspiracy theorist"? And "conspiricist"??
Your confusion about the matter is evident??
Your hypothesis is rendered void? Due to serious limitations imposed on the subject under discussion? By poor definition of terms?? |
|
personal attacks now?
get some sleep and study for that exam...when you are feeling good get back to me on my question.
eagerly waiting |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 4:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
I'm just asking because it seems more useful to get the opinion of someone who has already gone through the process you mentioned and has (probably) arrived at a conclusion than to ask someone who has not gone through the process and must imagine himself in that situation.
That, and you mentioned the 'r' word on another thread on the same topic. |
i know my plan of action.
however i want op's suggestion as to how to persue the truth without getting in the way of democracy.
we'll talk when he answers |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
deadman
Joined: 27 May 2006
Location: Suwon
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 4:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| deadman wrote: |
| First of all, most, if not all of your arguments are polluted by your failure to define , or at least use consistently, the terms "conspiracy theory", "conspiracy theorist" and... |
You know, I'll bet you even money that when deadman talks, he sounds like a Valley Girl. He's probably one of these pretentious-sounding, stuffy twentysomethings that ends every phrase of three or more words with a rising intonation.
He probably sounds like this:
| deadman wrote: |
First of all, most? If not all? Of your arguments are polluted by your failure? To define? Or at least use consistently? The terms "conspiracy theory"? "conspiracy theorist"? And "conspiricist"??
Your confusion about the matter is evident??
Your hypothesis is rendered void? Due to serious limitations imposed on the subject under discussion? By poor definition of terms?? |
|
You asked for a formal disproof, so don't complain about the language I had to use to achieve it.
I was hoping you would defend your argument, not cheapen it with such a lame response. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
