The Political Fray - Political Forum
Go Back   Political Fray > The Political Fray > Conspiracy Theories

Conspiracy Theories Conspiracy Theory Forum - Discuss conspiracies and underground dealings


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old May 23rd, 2009, 01:48 AM   #21
Representative
 
porsteamboy's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: Philadelphia
Posts: 181

Quote:
Originally Posted by DodgeFB View Post
I don't know. The Bush family photo still hangs in my living room. That said, I would trust Cheney to care for my loved ones. I would not trust Obama to take one of my dogs to the vet. I think that says it for me.
As long as Cheney didn't have a shot gun with him!
porsteamboy is offline  
Old May 23rd, 2009, 09:48 AM   #22
Congressional Leader
 
DodgeFB's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2009
From: Undisclosed
Posts: 2,751

Quote:
Originally Posted by porsteamboy View Post
As long as Cheney didn't have a shot gun with him!
Yes Dick needs a "refresher" course on gun safety.
DodgeFB is offline  
Old August 5th, 2010, 09:15 PM   #23
Senator
 
obtuseobserver's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 862

1) they're fun

2) people be crazy

..............................
obtuseobserver is offline  
Old August 6th, 2010, 11:12 AM   #24
Representative
 
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 123

Quote:
Originally Posted by curious View Post
Why do we always come up with theories about dastardly plots? Is it sort of like religion, we don't understand something so we invent a god or a plot to explain it?

Some are paranoid
Some are bored
Some just have no creative outlet for themselves
Some like the suspense and/or the feeling of being one step ahead of "those in charge"
Just a few reasons I could come up with
connermt is offline  
Old August 8th, 2010, 02:22 PM   #25
Representative
 
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 103

I was born a long time ago. I don?t recall a usage of the term conspiracy theory before the JFK assassination. At the time of the JFK assassination, the official version of the event was not accepted by the majority of the American public. When the Warren Commission?s preliminary report came out, it was meet by skepticism by the public with the majority refusing to accept it fully.
During the propaganda barrage generated to overcome this skepticism, the term conspiracy theorist came into being. This was a convenient tool. No longer was it necessary to address specific objections to official dogma, now anyone who refused to accept the official version was labeled a conspiracy theorist. This saved a great deal of effort on the part of the propagandists. It was such a convenient tool that it was retained. So from then on, if some one suggested that there might be collusion between governmental, corporate, or both of the above, agencies, the suggestion was rejected as a conspiracy theory.
To this day, this handy tool is constantly in use. For example, if someone notes the cooperation between government and corporate interests in supporting illegal immigration, the immediate response from the propagandists or the propagandized is "Conspiracy Theory".
Ignoramus is offline  
Old August 9th, 2010, 07:19 AM   #26
Representative
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: Miami
Posts: 172

A few conspiracy theories are "true." The vast majority (if the few I'm familiar with) are total loonies. The term it self isn't necessarily derogatory because it doesn't really describe whatever evidence supports them.

Area 51 is one of the big ones I've run into and it's verified despite claims otherwise by the US government. Though I seriously doubt the whole UFO stuff with it. From what I've seen it's a military base in the midwest that the government tried, and failed to hide. Others like flat earth, 9/11, and moon hoaxes have some loony stuff in them. Some less loony than others.
Kyuubi is offline  
Old August 9th, 2010, 11:56 AM   #27
Representative
 
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 103

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyuubi View Post
A few conspiracy theories are "true." The vast majority (if the few I'm familiar with) are total loonies. The term it self isn't necessarily derogatory because it doesn't really describe whatever evidence supports them.

Area 51 is one of the big ones I've run into and it's verified despite claims otherwise by the US government. Though I seriously doubt the whole UFO stuff with it. From what I've seen it's a military base in the midwest that the government tried, and failed to hide. Others like flat earth, 9/11, and moon hoaxes have some loony stuff in them. Some less loony than others.
One of the advantages of age is that you don?t need to watch TV to know what things were like in the past. UFOs, flat earthers, rumors about secret agencies, and conspiracy theories such as the plot to get the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor, these things were around before the JFK assassination. I don?t remember anybody using the term conspiracy theorist before the JFK assassination. Yet there were a lot of conspiracy theories around, it was just that nobody called them conspiracy theories. Now the term is used for every ridiculous idea that turns up. After all, why is belief in a flat earth a conspiracy theory? However, by associating the term with nutty ideas, the pejorative nature of it is reinforced, and the propaganda utility is enhanced. Of course, this post can be dismissed as a conspiracy theory. Handy, isn?t it?
Ignoramus is offline  
Old August 9th, 2010, 12:21 PM   #28
Representative
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: Miami
Posts: 172

Conspiracy theory is a term that originally was a neutral descriptor for any claim of civil, criminal, or political conspiracy. (from wiki)

True it may be totally against it's meaning to use the term pejoratively, but even the looniest fall under the category. I do use it in that tone probably more often than is justified, but frankly I keep in mind that there's a fringe to just about any topic, whether it's politics or science. Chances are if I think a "conspiracy theory" is a total whack job I won't just use the namesake as a proxy to market my thought on it. There are better ways to discredit things I don't agree with than simply calling them by a dismissive name


EDIT: If I haven't made it obvious enough yet I technically agree with you...

Last edited by Kyuubi; August 9th, 2010 at 12:51 PM.
Kyuubi is offline  
Old August 9th, 2010, 01:01 PM   #29
Representative
 
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 103

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyuubi View Post
Conspiracy theory is a term that originally was a neutral descriptor for any claim of civil, criminal, or political conspiracy. (from wiki)
After the 1999 CD Edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, I stopped subscribing because it no longer met my requirements. Needless to say, I find the Wiki a bit lacking. I doubt if the chap that wrote that was around before the JFK assassination. I was. I?m sure that someone used the expression somewhere before then. I didn?t notice it. After the JFK assassination, it was everywhere. I doubt if anyone documents that. Why am I not surprised?
I?ll buy that the term was neutral before the JFK assassination. I couldn?t tell because I don?t remember a single usage of it. However, after the JFK assassination, I don?t recall a neutral use. If you know of such an example from the general media, would you be so kind as to call my attention to it?
Ignoramus is offline  
Old August 9th, 2010, 01:17 PM   #30
Representative
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: Miami
Posts: 172

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignoramus View Post
If you know of such an example from the general media, would you be so kind as to call my attention to it?
As I've been saying all along... although I've personally used the term in a dismissive manner before it doesn't mean the case being referred to is always stupid on those grounds. If there's a good case to be made for something I'll give it credit where it's due and if it's not supported by any viable evidence then I won't. Simple as that. I make it a point to emphasize that the term regardless of it's use isn't the sole driving force behind a claims credibility. Is this any clearer? Or would you like me to explain further what I am getting at?
Kyuubi is offline  
Old August 9th, 2010, 02:47 PM   #31
Representative
 
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 103

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyuubi View Post
As I've been saying all along... although I've personally used the term in a dismissive manner before it doesn't mean the case being referred to is always stupid on those grounds. If there's a good case to be made for something I'll give it credit where it's due and if it's not supported by any viable evidence then I won't. Simple as that. I make it a point to emphasize that the term regardless of it's use isn't the sole driving force behind a claims credibility. Is this any clearer? Or would you like me to explain further what I am getting at?
Your position seems to be clear, the problem is relevance. My post regarded general usage. It was not in response to your usage. I don’t recall having charged you with a lack of objectivity. If you believe that to be the case, then farther explanation would be appreciated.

Last edited by Ignoramus; August 10th, 2010 at 12:43 PM.
Ignoramus is offline  
Reply

  Political Fray > The Political Fray > Conspiracy Theories

Tags
conspiracy , theories



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
9/11 Pentagon conspiracy deanhills Conspiracy Theories 80 October 26th, 2013 06:10 PM
Ok I'm not normally into conspiracy theories but this looks very interesting JohnMcJeferson Conspiracy Theories 1 January 4th, 2013 01:01 AM
The Meaning of World 3, and theories of rationality adagio Philosophy 9 August 23rd, 2010 11:17 AM
Conspiracy by the rich in America? deanhills Conspiracy Theories 10 August 17th, 2010 10:48 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2009-2013 Political Fray. All rights reserved.