|
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 |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
 Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 9:49 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
[deleted]
Last edited by Gopher on Sun Jun 11, 2006 12:17 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
deadman
Joined: 27 May 2006
Location: Suwon
|
| Posted: Sat May 27, 2006 8:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
I just read the whole thread from start to finish - it's truly epic. A lot of ground has been covered.
Good work back in the early days, Some waygug-in, you really shouldered the burden of being the devils advocate (some would consider that to be a literal term, I'm sure). Nowhere man - I like your style; Clear, commonsense and restrained.
If I may just pull it back to a broader focus than the last few posts, I'd like to make a few points.
First off - Does your definition of the term "conspiracy theory" include the provision that it must be false, that it cannot be true? If it does, then it follows that you must always believe the official story to be true. That the news you see on TV would never lie, and that if a government offical or spokesperson says it this way, then thats the way it is, period. You don't have to look too far to see that that is not the case. If you can't see that, I would suggest your social conditioning is extremely strong and you should at least be aware of it, if you want to claim to be able to think for yourself.
Can we agree to use the term in an unbiased way, or choose another term?
Some see the division of opinion on these matters as being binary. Those who believe the official version of events without question; and conspiracy theorists, moonbats, whackos etc. I see a third group in the middle: free thinking, open minded, individuals who make up their own minds according to the information they have and believe. I believe this middle group to be by far the majority. There are aberrant and biased individuals at either end of the bell curve, but it's a mistake and a gross failure of reason to lump everybody who doesn't agree with you into one of the extreme opposing categories.
Just as there is an enormous diversity of individuals, so there is a diversity of opinions. I contend that in American mainstream media, there is very little diversity of opinion, which leaves the internet as the sole outlet for the rest - no surprise that these conspiracy sites contain such an enormous amount and variety of information. It's plainly wrong to discredit all information here because they appear in a site that has a link to someone who suggests the truth is not being told about the holocaust (JOO!), but we need to be careful we don't apply a less obvious form of the same reasoning to dismiss something out of hand that may have some validity.
If the standard of truth we apply to mainstream and non mainstream sources is different, then we are biased. Nothing wrong with that, no-one is free from bias of some kind, but we should be aware of it. If you accept what you see on the news without question, it's unreasonable to dimiss alternative theories because they can't provide absolute rock hard proof. We should treat them both as working hypotheses, perhaps to different degrees. Why can't a free thinking and intelligent individual consider a problem from more than one point of view? The only certain thing in these murky territories is that we can't be certain, so surely, the more points of view you can apply to a particular issue (even paradoxical ones, if your brain can handle it), the better your understanding will be.
Son of the dark stranger said
| Quote: |
| It's clear that some people want, or need, to believe in such things. And they will twist the evidence around anyway they like in their minds. It's essentially a matter of faith. Of needing to believe. |
Definitely true, but it applies to people at both ends of the spectrum. Without doubt, there are individuals within the conspiracy community, mentally balanced or otherwise, who have a need to believe in this or that for whatever reason. On the other hand, that would apply to MOST people who automatically accept only the official, sanctioned, sanitised version of any issue. They are NOT comfortable with more than one point of view, because to start even considering the alternatives would open a Pandora's box of things too terrible to comprehend. (Not sure what I mean? Google "depleted uranium" and observe your reaction to that info).
SonofaDS - of the people arguing on this thread, there are closed minded defenders of dogma, and others advocating an open minded approach. I think your criticism of the latter applies only to the former. I also think the motivating force behind the passionate and unreasoned rejection of "conspiracy theories" is fear. Fear of the unknown, fear of losing your way and your mind in a morass of deeply disturbing and unverifiable opinions. Fair enough. If you start, it's really a question of how far you want to go down the rabbit hole.
Igothtisguitar - with that in mind I think you come on a bit too strong. What you point out is all out there, but if Joo isn't ready for it and you force it on him, you may cause him severe psychological damage. But there's no harm in him being a LITTLE more flexible and open minded!
*edit - incorrect reference - change "Bulsajo" to "Joo"*,
Joo,you made several references to alternative points of view to the official line as being enemy propaganda. I contend that the enemy doesn't have a monopoly on propaganda. The current administration are MASTERS of spin and propaganda. We wonder these days how the German people allowed the Nazi govt to commit such horrendous atrocities in their name - perhaps one tool at their disposal was to discredit any objection was to discredit objections as enemy propaganda. It's a dangerous argument to make. Governments can, and do, do things they shouldn't, especially when given carte blanche by their own citizens.
That enough for now.
Cheers
deadman
Last edited by deadman on Sat May 27, 2006 8:13 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat May 27, 2006 11:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
[deleted]
Last edited by Gopher on Sun Jun 11, 2006 12:17 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
deadman
Joined: 27 May 2006
Location: Suwon
|
| Posted: Sat May 27, 2006 5:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gopher wrote
| Quote: |
| "Conspiracy theories" are usually based on the weakest of foundations: circumstantial evidence, innuendo, and, lastly, just straightforward, and oftentimes shrill, allegations out of thin air (e.g., Neil Armstrong on the Moon, JFK, 9/11, and of course many others). |
Of course, some are, but some aren't, as you admit by using the term "usually". It's funny you mention JFK. I would have thought thats a good example of the official line being the one with the credibility problems. You don't have to believe in every individuals speculations about an event to suspect that the official line might not be telling the whole truth.
| Quote: |
| Conspiracy theories are never supported by direct evidence-- and, typically, this is conveniently brushed aside with objections like "well there wouldn't be any evidence because the masterminds are very good at covering their tracks." |
Really? The example of Northwoods has already been made. Until those documents were released under the Freedom of Information Act, that would have been well within conspiracy territory. Now we have the hard evidence, and it turns out they WERE good at covering their tracks. It was many years ago, but thats just the length of time it takes this sort of information to enter the mainstream. Thats what a lot of this conspiracy theory activity is about - getting accountability for government crimes NOW, not in 60 years, if crimes have been committed. As for the fact that Northwoods never happened - well, they certainly conspired to do it, and I'm sure it wasn't a sudden attack of conscience by the planners which prevented it. Elements within governments CAN plan and perpetrate crimes against others or their own people. You should accept this is a POSSIBILITY.
| Quote: |
| This mischarachterizes and presents a simplistic false dilemma |
All I've seen from defenders of the official line is simplistic false dilemmas. "You can't prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt, therefore everything the gov't says is 100% true."
What I said was "If you believe all conspiracy theories must be false by definition, then you must believe all of the official line to be 100% true". The second part only applies if the first part is true, and if it is, then you placed yourself into a simplistic false dilemma, not me.
| Quote: |
| if we are inclined to sometimes give some people the benefit of the doubt until shown otherwise, this does not make us socially-conditioned or unable to think for ourselves, as you suggest above. |
Everyone is socially conditioned to a degree. It's part of who we are as social animals (It governs how we behave towards other people, how we respond to a particular situation, etc) I contend that if you defend the govt line to an unreasonable degree, or in spite of reasonable evidence against it (it's out there on many issues - don't fixate on the most obviously incredible) then you have a strong social conditioning of a particular kind, and, yes, conditioning is an automatic mental reflex, so you aren't thinking for yourself if that is governing your behaviour. Instictive attack of a percieved threat is one example of such behaviour, and that is what most of the official line defenders arguments come down to. Don't forget - your opponents on this thread are only advocating having an open mind. You are the ones insisting others accept your point of view despite suspect evidence. That's exactly the spirit this thread was started it - the onus of proof is on YOU if you want us to believe what you say. I'm not asking YOU to accept a specific theory, just pointing out that the evidence you present in support of your own the PM article in the OP and everything since is insufficent to convince me.
| Quote: |
| As for myself, I have not seen any credible evidence that would lead me to believe that 9/11 was contrived by anyone except bin Laden and his band of merry men. |
Fine, to each his own, but the evidence presented in favour of the official line is far from credible, as the satirical piece linked to in the earlier thread pointed out. (sorry, can't find it)
deadman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat May 27, 2006 6:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[deleted]
Last edited by Gopher on Sun Jun 11, 2006 12:17 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat May 27, 2006 7:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| deadman wrote: |
Bulsajo, you made several references to alternative points of view to the official line as being enemy propaganda. |
Really?
Could you please quote me specifically for reference?
I certainly don't view "alternative points of view to the official line" as being "enemy propaganda."
Are you certain you haven't confused me with somebody else?
I never believed that, don't believe it, and furthermore I am pretty certain I never said any such thing.
[However, I have been told that it is entirely possible that my words may have been altered by an A.I. algorthym which searches the internet for certain keywords and edits/changes the meanings of sentences in which they are found for disinformation purposes; it is unclear whether these AI programs are under the direction of the CIA, the NSA, Islamic hackers based in Manchester, Canadian Conservatives based in Calgary, or Space Aliens based in Area 51].
Perhaps that is simply your attempt to paraphrase my various statements and pigeonhole them into one unifying position?
If that's the case, then I have to tell you that you're very much off the mark.
Perhaps we differ on the definition of enemy?
Or perhaps not...
But to be on the safe and just to clarify-
I see the folks who are responsible for the first WTC attack, the bombings of the US Embassies in Africa, the attempts at sinking warships culimnating in the attack on the USS Cole and the MV Limburg, 9/11/2001 (New York), the bombing of the nightclub in Bali, 3/11/2004 (Madrid), and 7/7/2005 (London)
[i.e. those responsible for the murder of thousands upon thousands of innocent and unsuspecting of civilians over a the past 10 years]
as being the enemy.
I do view the wilder conspiracy theories as pathetic attempts of frail minds to make sense of the scary world they find themselves powerless in, and furthermore I believe that the wilder conspiracy theories divert people from examining and dealing with REAL problems- i.e. we should be looking at (for example) what Bush and Cheney Rumsfeld knew about Valerie Plame and who they told, the same goes for Abu Ghraib, etc. rather than (for example) trying to figure out where all the passengers are that the CIA spirited away from commercial flights in order to put a missle into the pentagon or a 747 loaded with explosives into the WTC or what have you, or how demolition explosives were expertly and secretly placed in the WTC towers before 9/11 and perfectly timed to go off after the planes hit, or for that matter, where the secret set and props that NASA used to film the fake the Apollo landings are hidden.
| Quote: |
I contend that the enemy doesn't have a monopoly on propaganda. |
Bravo, incredible deduction; How long did it take you to reach that conclusion?
| Quote: |
| The current administration are MASTERS of spin and propaganda. |
I contend that they are masters of misjudging, stonewalling, lying, and covering up, which is sort of the saying the same same thing really, isn't it?
Except saying it without the implied insidious evil genius master plan theories...
| Quote: |
| We wonder these days how the German people allowed the Nazi govt to commit such horrendous atrocities in their name - perhaps one tool at their disposal was to discredit any objection was to discredit objections as enemy propaganda. It's a dangerous argument to make. Governments can, and do, do things they shouldn't, especially when given carte blanche by their own citizens. |
Glad you managed to get a Nazi reference in there. That's very important. Do you view the Bush admin as on the same level of evil as Nazis, or slightly better? Or much worse?
Cheers (and love and rockets),
Joo (just kidding)
Last edited by Bulsajo on Sat May 27, 2006 8:42 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat May 27, 2006 8:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
A conspiracy theory attempts to explain the ultimate cause of an event (usually a political, social, or historical event) as a secret, and often deceptive, plot by a covert alliance of powerful persons (sometimes described as "an unseen power elite") rather than as an overt activity or as natural occurrence.
While history has shown that crimes carried out by a group of people (a "conspiracy") are not uncommon, the term "conspiracy theory" is usually used by scholars and in popular culture to identify a type of folklore similar to an urban legend, having certain regular features, especially an explanatory narrative which is constructed with certain naive methodological flaws. The term is also used pejoratively to dismiss allegedly misconceived, paranoid or outlandish rumors...
Allegations exhibiting several of the following features are candidates for classification as conspiracy theories. Confidence in such classification improves the more such features are exhibited:
Initiated on the basis of limited, partial or circumstantial evidence;
Conceived in reaction to media reports and images, as opposed to, for example, thorough knowledge of the relevant forensic evidence.
Addresses an event or process that has broad historical or emotional impact;
Seeks to interpret a phenomenon which has near-universal interest and emotional significance, a story that may thus be of some compelling interest to a wide audience.
Reduces morally complex social phenomena to simple, immoral actions;
Impersonal, institutional processes, especially errors and oversights, interpreted as malign, consciously intended and designed by immoral individuals.
Personifies complex social phenomena as powerful individual conspirators;
Related to but distinct from it, deduces the existence of powerful individual conspirators from the 'impossibility' that a chain of events lacked direction by a person.
Allots superhuman talents or resources to conspirators;
May require conspirators to possess unique discipline, unrepentant resolve, advanced or unknown technology, uncommon psychological insight, historical foresight, unlimited resources, etc.
Key steps in argument rely on inductive, not deductive reasoning;
Inductive steps are mistaken to bear as much confidence as deductive ones.
Appeals to 'common sense';
Common sense steps substitute for the more robust, academically respectable methodologies available for investigating sociological and scientific phenomena.
Exhibits well-established logical and methodological fallacies;
Formal and informal logical fallacies are readily identifiable among the key steps of the argument.
Is produced and circulated by 'outsiders', often anonymous, and generally lacking peer review;
Story originates with a person who lacks any insider contact or knowledge, and enjoys popularity among persons who lack critical (especially technical) knowledge.
Is upheld by persons with demonstrably false conceptions of relevant science;
At least some of the story's believers believe it on the basis of a mistaken grasp of elementary scientific facts.
Enjoys zero credibility in expert communities;
Academics and professionals tend to ignore the story, treating it as too frivolous to invest their time and risk their personal authority in disproving.
Rebuttals provided by experts are ignored or accommodated through elaborate new twists in the narrative;
When experts do respond to the story with critical new evidence, the conspiracy is elaborated (sometimes to a spectacular degree) to discount the new evidence, often incorporating the rebuttal as a part of the conspiracy.
The conspiracy is claimed to involve just about anybody;
Conspiracy tales grow in the telling, and can swell to world-spanning proportions. As the adherents struggle to explain counter-arguments, the conspiracy grows even more (see preceding item). Conspiracy theories that have been around for a few decades typically encompass the whole world and huge portions of history.
The conspiracy centers on the "usual suspects";
Classical conspiracy theories feature people, groups or organsations that are discriminated against in the culture where the story is told. Jews and foreigners are a common target. Likewise, organisations with a bad or colorful reputation feature prominently, such as the templars, the nazis and just about any secret service... |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory
Last edited by Gopher on Sun Jun 11, 2006 12:18 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
deadman
Joined: 27 May 2006
Location: Suwon
|
| Posted: Sat May 27, 2006 8:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bulsajo - I stand corrected - I meant Joo, and have edited the post to reflect that.
Mentioning Nazis was in response to Joo repeatedly invoking the Holocaust as a means to discredit opposing arguments. I stand by my comments that ignorant citizens giving a govt carte blanche paves the way for abuses to be committed in their name. Dissent, opposing views should be encouraged if the democracy is to remain healthy.
Wild conspriacy theories do certainly obsruct the truth, if only by giving easy targets for self appointed thought police to discredit ALL opposing arguments. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat May 27, 2006 8:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| deadman wrote: |
Mentioning Nazis was in response to Joo repeatedly invoking the Holocaust as a means to discredit opposing arguments. |
Yeah, I could see how that might work if you were wanting to engage Joo in debate.
| Quote: |
| I stand by my comments that ignorant citizens giving a govt carte blanche paves the way for abuses to be committed in their name. Dissent, opposing views should be encouraged if the democracy is to remain healthy. |
No doubt, but I don't really believe anyone has seriously argued otherwise, I think you may have extrapolated that from something else said (but I could be wrong I certainly can't recount everything said here).
| Quote: |
| Wild conspriacy theories do certainly obsruct the truth, if only by giving easy targets for self appointed thought police to discredit ALL opposing arguments. |
Agreed. When the wildest theories are given serious consideration then ANYTHING is possible and we lose all perspective. Believing the US govt may still be hiding some key info on 9/11 due to culpability is a far cry from saying the US govt deliberately planned and executed the events of that day. This is what pisses me off about IGTG (among others), he appears to entertain these two theories equally as if they are both deserving of the same serious thought, consideration, and investigation.
If the Bush Admin really did engineer 9/11, if the US really went into Iraq simply for oil, if the Zionists/Freemasons/Skull and Bones really do secretly control the US govt and all the banks and financial institutions of the world, well then my friends we are all well and truly *beep* ed, and we might as well abandon civilization and just concentrate on getting our own piece of fun in the sun, whether it be through embezzling work, defrauding friends and neighbours, or going 'fity-cent' and selling drugs and robbing banks. I'm going out right now and buying a metal dector, a shotgun and a geiger counter. (I'll make the tinfoil beanie later).
Last edited by Bulsajo on Sat May 27, 2006 8:44 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat May 27, 2006 8:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[deleted]
Last edited by Gopher on Sun Jun 11, 2006 12:18 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat May 27, 2006 8:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
Embarrassment is much more likely than "culpability," which remains very much, at best, an outside or perhaps even a fringe possibility |
Certainly 'culpability' was an example of one of many possiblities, but I think a strong enough case could be made that the administration has already been shown to be culpable of negligence (although not neccessarily criminal negligence) and I wouldn't be surprised if they have been withholding details which would stengthen their cuplability. But sure, embarrassment could be another possiblity, as could the legitimate possiblity withholding details due to national security... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat May 27, 2006 8:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
I think you should also consider taking a hunter safety course first, before loading it and going out to sell your drugs |
Hmm, you might be on to something there, I briefly entertained the idea of loading the drugs and snorting the shot... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat May 27, 2006 9:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[deleted]
Last edited by Gopher on Sun Jun 11, 2006 12:19 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
deadman
Joined: 27 May 2006
Location: Suwon
|
| Posted: Sat May 27, 2006 9:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
| If the Bush Admin really did engineer 9/11, if the US really went into Iraq simply for oil, if the Zionists/Freemasons/Skull and Bones really do secretly control the US govt and all the banks and financial institutions of the world, well then my friends we are all well and truly *beep* ed, and we might as well abandon civilization and just concentrate on getting our own piece of fun in the sun, whether it be through embezzling work, defrauding friends and neighbours, or going 'fity-cent' and selling drugs and robbing banks. I'm going out right now and buying a metal dector, a shotgun and a geiger counter. (I'll make the tinfoil beanie later). |
Well, thats it right there. The fear that keeps most people from wanting to open the Pandora's Box and where that will lead. It's a very real and legitimate fear. The whole house of cards could come tumbling down, with worldwide economic chaos, millions starving, anarchy everywhere if the hand of the unseen forces was... forced. Maybe its better to allow things to take their natural course to a worldwide global government with a nice safe, controlled microchipped population (is that a conspiracy theory?), where you can enjoy a safe and productive life, as long as you do exactly what they tell you. Is there any alternative? I don't know. All I can do is look after my own mind, find peace and happiness in my own life right now, and if things get too bad, live in peace in some remote part of Southeast Asia |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat May 27, 2006 9:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[deleted]
Last edited by Gopher on Sun Jun 11, 2006 12:19 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| 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
