|
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 |
regicide
Joined: 01 Sep 2006 Location: United States
|
Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 8:20 pm Post subject: Trolls versus Conspiracy Nuts |
|
|
JMO wrote: "In Regicides case I was genuinely interested but only because I thought Regicide was a complete conspiracy nut and these type of people fascinate me."
In reponse to the accusations of him being a "troll", JMO wrote this. He feels the need to defend himself by pointing the blame back in my direction with his derogatory comments. These are directed at me hoping to deflect the blame elsewhere.
Where you really open to reason, JMO? Do medical doctors routinely lie about what they see? Are THEY ( the Parkland Hospital Doctors) conspiracty nuts? Why don't you use that example? Who cares about the London study?
If you enter into a discussion, you should be willing to accept evidence that is contrary to what your pre-concieved notions of the matter are.
Otherwise you are a Troll.
Everyone has heard, and has probably used the term "conspiracy theorist," and the fact of the term being in common use, also indicates that we generally agree on what it means. I saw a movie by that name, and the title character was a raving lunatic who kept his food in thermoses with combination locks to reduce his chances of being poisoned by imaginary enemies.
Regardless of how the stupid movie turned out, what's important here is the common perception people have of someone to whom that label is applied, and just as important, is who it is that applies the label. The common perception is that someone who is labeled a "conspiracy theorist" is suffering from some type of psychological disorder, and that label is usually applied to people by our government, and our news media. The next thing to consider, is that the label is applied to anyone who questions our government's version of events in any matter. Doesn't it logically follow that the media are teaching us to assume that anyone who questions the government is insane? When that label is applied to a person, doesn't it become easy to dismiss everything they say without even hearing it? How convenient for them.
I think the label first became widely used to slander people who questioned the details surrounding the JFK assassination, and forty years later, there aren't too many thinking people who still believe the Warren Commission's "lone gunman" explanation. That explanation is doubted by everyone who has taken the time to look into the details, and believed only by people who refuse to.
Which is "theory" and which is fact? In the absence of a full confession, this can only be decided by a preponderance of evidence, and it would be silly to come to a conclusion on any matter without looking at all the evidence available. This is only common sense, just as it is safe to assume some degree of guilt or complicity on the part of anyone who lies about an event, or tries to hide, plant, or destroy any type of evidence.
Conspiracy theories arise from evidence. After the government releases an explanation of a particular event, a conspiracy theory is only born because evidence exists to disprove their explanation, or at least call it into question. There's nothing insane about it, unless you define sanity as believing whatever the government tells you. In light of the fact that our government lies to us regularly, I would define believing everything they tell you as utter stupidity. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
JMO

Joined: 18 Jul 2006 Location: Daegu
|
Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 11:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ok I'll take this point by point.
Quote: |
JMO wrote: "In Regicides case I was genuinely interested but only because I thought Regicide was a complete conspiracy nut and these type of people fascinate me." |
Yea I thought this and you confirmed it.
[quote]Where you really open to reason, JMO?
I am open to reason.
Quote: |
Do medical doctors routinely lie about what they see? |
I don't know.
Quote: |
Are THEY ( the Parkland Hospital Doctors) conspiracty nuts? |
Originally you referred to one doctor, whose colleagues questioned his credibility. Is this a different case? I don't know if they are conspiracy nuts.
Quote: |
Who cares about the London study?
|
You cited the london time's study. I looked it up and and found a letter of apology from the Times saying the study had been critically flawed. You then said this was an example of a goverment cover up. this a great example of your line of reasoning. Any evidence that back ups your claim, you accept. Any evidence that contradicts your claim or previous evidence is a sign of a coverup, tampering etc
Quote: |
If you enter into a discussion, you should be willing to accept evidence that is contrary to what your pre-concieved notions of the matter are.
Otherwise you are a Troll.
|
What evidence? No evidence you presented was compelling. I'll give you a rundown from th past thread.
1 an article about an umbrella weapn which contained no actual evidence that such a weapon was used.
2 Dr Crenshaw's verdict. He is a doctor but is still only one man. One guys opinon is not proof of a conspiracy especially wen his colleagues doubt him also.
3 59 witnesses of the shooting say JFK was shot from the front. Eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. Also how would they know. They are not experts on hown a gunshot from a certain direction would effect a body.
and repeat and repeat.
You bring up anomalies, questions, witnesses. None of these add up to a case. You do not explain how so many people could be involved in such a conspiracy and how it could have been kept quiet.
You cannot expect me to believe that so many people were involved(hundreds, maybe thousands) and it was kept quiet to this day. The logical conclusion is that there was either no conspiracy or a much smaller conspiracy. I could believe in a muchsmaller conspiracy. For example Oswald could have been working for someone else.
Quote: |
Which is "theory" and which is fact? In the absence of a full confession, this can only be decided by a preponderance of evidence, and it would be silly to come to a conclusion on any matter without looking at all the evidence available. . |
If there were so many people involved I don't see how a confession of one's part in it would be so hard to find. One policeman, one FBI agent, one guy on his death bed. Really I have to believe that nobody would speak? That is stretching credibility.
Ok I apologise for calling you a conspiracy nut. I would say that a majority of people would agree with you on this one. I just need alot of evidence to believe that that many people are involved in such a conpiracy and it just isn't there.
Quote: |
Conspiracy theories arise from evidence |
No they don't. Conspiracy theories arise from mistrust in the goverment and a basic human need for there to be a meaning or plan behind tragedies. Humans are natural conspiracy theorists.
Quote: |
In light of the fact that our government lies to us regularly, I would define believing everything they tell you as utter stupidity. |
You can't say because the goverment lies to us regularly, therefore this conspiracy theory is correct. I don't believe everything I hear. I just don't believe in massive conspiracies as they would be impossible to keep secret. |
|
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
|
|