|
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 |
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
some waygug-in
Joined: 25 Jan 2003
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 3:03 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| some waygug-in wrote: |
| But are you and others not placing all your eggs on the side of conventional wisdom, rather than giving some consideration to "the truth that's out there"? |
All right, let's see if I can get back to this discussion. 
some waygug-in,
Well, I don't think getting at the truth involves having to choose only one hypothesis or the other. Of course governments BS us on a daily basis - let me count the ways - but that doesn't automatically mean "the truth that's out there" is real either.
Incidentally, the expression "out there" can be interpreted in more than one way.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 3:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ernie wrote: |
| it is a mistake to lump all "conspiracy theorists" together and dismiss both the plausible and ridiculous in one fell swoop... there is certainly a difference between those who question the "single shooter theory" and those who claim that the moon landings never happened... you cannot address different claims with the same argument... |
ernie,
I would suggest the two are similar in that while both kinds of conspiracy theories attempt to raise doubts about the generally-accepted explanation of an historical event, the advocates of these theories generally try to avoid providing a coherent and testable alternative hypothesis to explain the events in question. In other words, they like to blow smoke and raise doubts, but don't provide substitute explanations that are testable.
And the advocates of these theories seem to exhibit a preference for the novel and the bizarre. It's as though the real world is not interesting enough, so it's fun to contemplate the the bizarre explanations and pretend this is how things really work.
I suppose you have a point, though, in addressing the Kennedy assassination as a historical event distinct from other conspiracy theory explanations of historical events, in that there are a lot of issues related to forensic data and how it is collected and interpreted. However, like explanations of the collapse of the World Trade Center towers, this seems to relate to methodological issues and interpretation of technical data, rather than the necessity of explanation-via-conspiracy. There is probably a lot of contradictory forensic data relating to the events of that day, but that goes to issues of how well advanced Forensic Science was in 1963, and how well such data was collected and interpreted.
I'm sure that when it comes to methodology, Forensic Science and Civil Engineering have a lot of open questions and sometimes exhibit characteristics of being an art more than a science. But we need not resort to conspiracies to address those open questions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 3:37 pm Post subject: Re: 9/11 was no conspiracy |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
Getting the picture yet of how capitalism works, the schemes, the plots? 9/11 was no conspiracy, it was simply business as usual for the rulers. It is not a question of management by conspiracy, but rather the ruling class has to operate in conspiratorial fashion. So, Eisenhower's opposition to the military-industrial complex was conjoined to counterrevolution on the cheap: terror squads, coup d'etats, assassinations, and putsches, the same formula the Kennedy brothers used in Laos with the Phoenix program of the Green Berets. Counterposing that to massive military intervention with hundreds of thousands of troops that a wing of pentagon favors but which jeopardizes the stability of the dollar, this debate is about the means of survival by way of maintaining the imperium. There is nothing out there for the rest of us.
This is a crisis of capitalism addicted to permanent war, a facade of public relations types bought and paid for, a millionaires' club that fronts for a concentrated structure of power. If we do not grasp this, or provide a strategy for struggle based upon the essential recognition of the nature of our society, we will but perpetuate its rule, and prevent ourselves from reaching out to our own constituency.
This has been condensed from 070918 Six Years After 9/11: Where Do We Go From Here? available for download from http://takingaimradio.com/shows/audio.html |
bacasper,
There is no doubt that many aspects of the US government's response to 911, and the response of large capitalist organizations, can be addressed from a Marxist perspective. I think, however, it is useful to draw a distinction between how 911 was used by certain organizations to advance their goals, versus whether or not 911 was actually caused by anyone other than Al-Quaeda. I don't doubt that a lot of security corporations and professional bureaucrats took advantage of 911 to advance their careers and expand their personal empires; I also don't doubt that there are probably financial supporters of al-Quaeda in the Middle East, who do so out of personal or capitalist self-interest.
There have been a lot of social and legal changes in society since 911, not just in the United States, and not always desirable, that are - and should be - open questions. Are the rigorous check-in and security controls at airports nowadays, for example, finely-tuned to address security issues, only, or are there issues of bureaucratic control and regimentation of people's freedom as well?
If one man waiting in line makes an offhand joke to his friend about having a bomb and a security guard overhears this, is it really necessary to arrest this individual and submit him to a cavity search? Is this security, or power-tripping? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 3:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jinju wrote: |
| For me its rather obvious. The internet has allowed the anti social to gravitate to each other. Its sort of a paradox, but its true. A bunch of anti social losers, who in the real world would have trouble forming a sentence in the presence of a warm body are gravitating to each other. Strenght in numbers combined with anonymity? I suppose. As far as conspiracy theories go, theyve been around for ages. It allows certain dellusional rejects to feel like they have some power over those they were rejected by. Its like "you may think Im a lsoer and you humiliated me in highschool but look who is laughing now, I know something big you dont know and that makes me better". The internet just gives them a forum. |
This may be the real "truth that is out there". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 3:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ernie wrote: |
i didn't say anything about the truth of any conspiracy theory...
i said that if you think it doesn't matter what happened to JFK, you're a defeatist loser... |
What I originally meant was, being preoccupied with the details of the JFK assassination doesnt help you, and probably distracts people, from careful analysis of contemporary politics. It was, after all, almost 50 years ago. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 3:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| deadman wrote: |
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"... |
deadman, a couple of things:
1. First of all, why are you starting out by being so rude to me? 
It's just a discussion, as this is a discussion forum. I didn't say anything rude about your mother or anything. If you disagree with what I've said, you can say so without resorting to insults and epithets.
2. Second, you go on to say:
| deadman wrote: |
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! |
Aren't you being rather pedantic here? Yes, it's true perhaps I should have started out by more explicitly and carefully offering an operational definition of "conspiracy theory". I do this later on when I respond to loose_ends. But that is just less-than-perfect wording; I'm perfectly willing to admit that my thesis is a work in progress.
| Quote: |
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. |
Well, no, I was just trying to encourage loose_ends to participate in a discussion more deeply, by encouraging him to go beyond just asking questions, and getting him to formulate and organize his own ideas and examples. Which he did, later on in the thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 4:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As I mentioned above, I think the following definition from Wikipedia is a lot more precise and useful:
"A conspiracy theory usually attributes the ultimate cause of an event or chain of events (usually political, social, pop cultural or historical events), or the concealment of such causes from public knowledge, to a secret, and often deceptive plot by a covert alliance of powerful or influential people or organizations. Many conspiracy theories imply that major events in history have been dominated by conspirators who manipulate political happenings from behind the scenes."
And I think the following quote, from the same source, is also quite useful:
"The US academic Noam Chomsky contrasts conspiracy theory as more or less the opposite of institutional analysis, which focuses mostly on the public, long-term behaviour of publicly known institutions, as recorded in, e.g. scholarly documents or mainstream media reports, rather than secretive coalitions of individuals." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
deadman
Joined: 27 May 2006
Location: Suwon
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 4:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
deadman, a couple of things:
1. First of all, why are you starting out by being so rude to me?
|
Good question.
You're quite right. The tone is hostile, even though the content is neutral, because when I wrote it I considered you to be a rude pr1ck. In this thread:
http://forums.eslcafe.com/korea/viewtopic.php?p=1376560&highlight=#1376560
I posted a detailed reply to a lengthy post from you. Your response was
| Quote: |
| Whatever. I just copied and pasted from Wikipedia. |
That accounts for the tone.
As for the content, your "theories" about "conspiracy theories" are based on absurdly vague generalisations, and a such can never be more than just your opinion.
I will pursue you rigorously until you admit that, but consider me a friendly adversary.
I hope to help you clean up and refine your opinions on conspiracy theories, or at the very least show that it's not just conspiracy theorists who twist and turn to hold on to a pet theory in spite of valid argument against! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
deadman
Joined: 27 May 2006
Location: Suwon
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 4:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
As I mentioned above, I think the following definition from Wikipedia is a lot more precise and useful:
"A conspiracy theory usually attributes the ultimate cause of an event or chain of events (usually political, social, pop cultural or historical events), or the concealment of such causes from public knowledge, to a secret, and often deceptive plot by a covert alliance of powerful or influential people or organizations. Many conspiracy theories imply that major events in history have been dominated by conspirators who manipulate political happenings from behind the scenes."
And I think the following quote, from the same source, is also quite useful:
"The US academic Noam Chomsky contrasts conspiracy theory as more or less the opposite of institutional analysis, which focuses mostly on the public, long-term behaviour of publicly known institutions, as recorded in, e.g. scholarly documents or mainstream media reports, rather than secretive coalitions of individuals." |
I support both those definitions (as quoted). Neither of them contain a judgment about the truth or falsity of the theory. If someone were to read that and think "..therefore they are false", that would be where the error creeps in.
That judgment can only be done on the level of an individual theory.
I think a consistent error in your thinking is to bring truth/falsity in at the level of definition.
I don't have a problem when you make arguments about specific theories. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 5:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forgetit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
deadman
Joined: 27 May 2006
Location: Suwon
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 5:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
Forgetit. |
Eyeroll?
You're pretty good at spouting half baked theories, but your ability to effectively defend them is apparently nonexistent.
Go on, tell us more of your opinions:
In MY opinion, every conspiracy theory is FALSE!
It's true!! My gut tells me so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
deadman
Joined: 27 May 2006
Location: Suwon
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 7:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
(MOS - pardon my resumption of a hostile tone, but you confirmed my initial opinion)
If your sig is supposed to be a statement of fact, or one of your theories, it's pretty idiotic.
| MOS's sig wrote: |
| Conspiracy theories are designed to undermine public participation in the political process. When lead to believe that "everything" was an "inside job", ordinary people are induced to withdraw from public life. |
What you're saying is:
1. All conspiracy theories have no basis in fact, but are consciously designed specifically to undermine public participation in the political process.
That's retarded.
2. All conspiracy theories claim that "everything" was an "inside job".
You take a very simplified view. Are you ill-informed about the nature of your enemy?
3. When this happens all ordinary people withdraw from public life.
That's not unreasonable, but what makes you think they would do that, instead of the opposite - get more proactively involved? Or even react in different ways, not uniformly?
Here is a counter example: Ron Paul supporters.
Would you agree that the majority of them are "conspiracy theorists"?
They are not apathetic. Far from it. They are motivated, energetic and outspoken. Win or lose, Ron Paul is doing a service to democracy by encouraging debate on various issues which had not been addressed by mainstream candidates, and because of his energetic support, he is being heard.
I put it to you that conspiracy theories are essential and beneficial to a healthy democracy. (and I even gave you an example)
Last edited by deadman on Wed Nov 07, 2007 7:59 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 7:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If it's WRONG, the "official" conspiracy theory on 9/11 would be a bit of problem  |
|
| 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
