|
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 |
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 9:00 am Post subject: |
 |
|
There is a god, and Maddox is his prophet.
| Maddox wrote: |
I've been getting a lot of email lately from people sending me this stupid 9/11 conspiracy video called "Loose Change." I've tried to ignore it for months now, but you morons keep forwarding it to me, and I keep having to add more email addresses to my spam filter. The ironic part is that I'm a huge conspiracy nut, and even I can't stomach this bullshit. For example, I believe that there is a small, reptile-like creature called Chupacabra that sucks the blood of goats in Mexico. Area 51? Hell yes. Roswell? Pass me the Kool-Aid. But "Loose Change" elevates bullshit to an artform. Watching this video is like being bukakked with stupid.
Unlike others who debunk 9/11 conspiracy theories, or "cons" for short, I'm not going to bother with going through intricate point-by-point rebuttals, or pointing out the hundreds of factual inaccuracies and outright lies in this "documentary," because I don't need to. In fact, I can debunk the entire story with one simple observation: |
See Mith's link for the rest.
And Mith, is it safe to assume you've pointed the link out Uomo Universale already?
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jinglejangle
Joined: 19 Feb 2005
Location: Far far far away.
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 9:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
What a great article.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 3:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Conspiracy theories are good examples of the danger of a little education and a lot of free speech. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
deadman
Joined: 27 May 2006
Location: Suwon
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 3:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Conspiracy theories are good examples of the danger of a little education and a lot of free speech. |
"Conspiracy theories" exist because Governments and the media lie.
"Conspiracy theories" are as diverse as the people who propose them, some good, some bad, some right, some wrong.
Debate each one on it's merits by all means, but if your definition of conspiracy theory includes the fact that it is false (as yours apparently does), then it implies that the Government could not possibly lie, and that everything you see on the news is true.
If that's what you actually believe, then you are either under educated yourself, or just intellectually lazy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leslie Cheswyck
Joined: 31 May 2003
Location: University of Western Chile
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 3:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What Ya-ta means, deadman, is that one must take these conspiracy theories with not a grain of salt, but whole truckloads.
By the way, would you say that the one presented by the OP is "on the money"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
deadman
Joined: 27 May 2006
Location: Suwon
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leslie Cheswyck wrote: |
| What Ya-ta means, deadman, is that one must take these conspiracy theories with not a grain of salt, but whole truckloads. |
I agree, but I believe you should treat official info with the same degree of suspicion you would treat some unverified conspiracy theory on the internet. Hold it to the same standards of proof. The stuff we see on the media, official versions of events, political news put out for public consumption, is heavily, heavily filtered by people and systems with various agendas.
Most vocal critics of "conspiracy theories" begin with an assumption that a conspriracy theory is false, and the official line true. You see it all the time, with people being dismissed as conspiracy theorists, without regard for whether what they're suggesting is true or not. The motivating force behind these "debunkers" is not to find out the TRUTH, it's to assert or reinforce the party line, regardless of whether it is true or not.
Conspiracy speculation being presented as fact oversteps the bounds of reason in the opposite direction, and they deserve to be taken to task on the particular shortfalls of their position. However, disproving conspiracy specifics put forward by someone, eg loose change, does not prove that the official version is true - just that they took a firm position that proved untenable or erroneous. In this case, doubt will always remain as long as the government keeps secrets for national, or party, security. Proof that the govt position is true needs to be held to the same standard of proof that would be required to prove that it is false.
Doubt is a natural condition in these circumstances, but some people take offence to that and see it as their personal mission to make sure everyone conforms unquestioningly to the party line. It infuriates them that whever they chop one over zealous head off the conspiracy hydra another two grow back. They get angry, call people names, use logically fallacious arguments (eg ad hominem attacks "that was on rense.com so it must be false) and other sloppy reasoning, such as relying on arguments like "that would never happen", "they would never do that" or"why would they do that?". Hardly proofs.
IMO, 9/11 at the moment boils down to: cant prove they did it, can't prove they didn't. It may be proved otherwise in the future, but for the moment, We don't know.
| Quote: |
| By the way, would you say that the one presented by the OP is "on the money" |
I don't think the OP presented a consiracy theory, just a critique of "Loose Change". I haven't actually seen it myself, so I can't comment on any specifics, but I will say - if its shown to be complete and utter lies - it doesn't follow that therefore, the government must be telling the truth.
The link, if it is even supposed to be more serious than humorous, which I doubt, is a classic case of an enthusiastic "debunker" putting forward poor and illogical arguments with plenty of name callling.
To be specific (feel free to disagree):
1. Argument: This guy is still alive, therefore loose change is bullshit.
Even if Loose change were true in every detail (i'm perfectly happy with the idea its not), the idea that those responsible would automatically kill him is an unjustifiable assumption - you just don't know! Here are some suggestions why they might not a) that would attract attention to him, and give him a credibility he could not hope to get otherwise, b) overt action is riskier that covert - they may not want to push their luck c) there a very effective social mechanism for self censorship - ridicule - as we see in the linked website, or d) they've used up their assassination budget for the financial year.
If the conclusion is based on a faulty premise, it is invalid.
Ok, I've just disproved his argument. Does that prove that the govt perpetrated 9/11? Of course not. Similarly, does any disproof of Loose Change or any other specific claim (such as the ones in the Popular Mechanics article) prove that they DIDN'T do it? Again, no.
IMO, doubt, and asking more questions, not less, is the only reasonable position to take on this issue at this point in time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
|
| 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
