Why do people think conspiracy theorist is a synonymous with "irrational person"?

Who else knows what we know, Jerry?
User avatar
gorgeous
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5652
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Why do people think conspiracy theorist is a synonymous with "irrational person"?

Post by gorgeous » Fri Aug 28, 2015 2:35 am

fake shooting evidence -----
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28009
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Location: sometimes

Re: Why do people think conspiracy theorist is a synonymous with "irrational person"?

Post by scrmbldggs » Fri Aug 28, 2015 2:55 am

There we go folks, inability to string more than three words together, argumentum ad youtubeum and ad nauseam... it must be true!

No doubt about it - it's an "IP".
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Why do people think conspiracy theorist is a synonymous with "irrational person"?

Post by Matthew Ellard » Fri Aug 28, 2015 4:25 am

gorgeous wrote:fake shooting evidence -----
Hey Gorgeous. why did you have to make this stupid post three times in a row? Do you "get off" by seeking attention for yourself, jumping on someone else's misery?

I can see why you are a total bitch, have no friends and have to troll science forums to get your cheap thrills.

User avatar
gorgeous
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5652
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Why do people think conspiracy theorist is a synonymous with "irrational person"?

Post by gorgeous » Fri Aug 28, 2015 12:22 pm

sure...when a loved has been murdered what you do is immediately do non-stop interviews for days, tell how you posted your 'undying love' on facebook as soon as you heard of the shooting---the 'fiance' said this exact stupid thing...then he talked at length for the need for gun control and asked for money for the token memorial fund, not once did he act devastated or cry....he doesn't have time...he has a meeting with the governor and more interviews to do.................
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23844
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Why do people think conspiracy theorist is a synonymous with "irrational person"?

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Fri Aug 28, 2015 1:21 pm

Image
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

djembeweaver
Regular Poster
Posts: 589
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 8:53 pm

Re: Why do people think conspiracy theorist is a synonymous with "irrational person"?

Post by djembeweaver » Fri Aug 28, 2015 3:50 pm

gorgeous wrote:fake shooting evidence -----
So the argument is that the shooting is a hoax because the victim's father was on Broadway? Bit of a leap there...and what has that to do with the original question (unless it's an example of irrationality)?

djembeweaver
Regular Poster
Posts: 589
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 8:53 pm

Re: Why do people think conspiracy theorist is a synonymous with "irrational person"?

Post by djembeweaver » Fri Aug 28, 2015 4:01 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
gorgeous wrote:fake shooting evidence -----
Hey Gorgeous. why did you have to make this stupid post three times in a row? Do you "get off" by seeking attention for yourself, jumping on someone else's misery?

I can see why you are a total bitch, have no friends and have to troll science forums to get your cheap thrills.
Even when someone says something that seems preposterous ad hominem responses are never helpful...

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23844
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Why do people think conspiracy theorist is a synonymous with "irrational person"?

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Fri Aug 28, 2015 4:08 pm

Unless there's nothing left to said to a Poe/troll/idiot.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
gorgeous
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5652
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Why do people think conspiracy theorist is a synonymous with "irrational person"?

Post by gorgeous » Fri Aug 28, 2015 4:25 pm

see more evidence on Allison Parker thread under politics..
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: Why do people think conspiracy theorist is a synonymous with "irrational person"?

Post by supervitor » Fri Aug 28, 2015 7:07 pm

djembeweaver wrote:
I wasn't suggesting that the CIA had absolute control over the usage but it does seem to be the case that the expression came into popular parlance after the Warren commission and the CIA played a big part in that. It is a fact that it is used pejoratively to discredit.
No, it doesn't. You gave nothing to make it "seem to be the case". Who the {!#%@} knows where expressions come from? It's even difficult to establish where names of cities come from, all you get is silly stories and zero evidence to support it. You introducing "government agencies" into your theory just tells me you like to explain the world like that: big things, powerful institutions "playing a part" on such silly things like conotations. You introducing now "to discredit", means you are trying to attribute intentionality, even if it is in a sneaky way. Trust me, you're very very paranoid, or else you wouldn't write that last sentence.
Far from being paranoid I would say it is rather naive to think that the security services do not exert considerable influence on public opinion.
I can assure you, they don't define meanings by decree
It is now a matter of public record that the CIAs Bin Laden unit (Alec station) were tracking several of the 9/11 hijackers in the USA prior to the hijackings and that they actively blocked the sharing of this information with the FBI. It has since come to light that 40 CIA agents were involved in this and its subsequent cover up. This satisfies most definitions of 'conspiracy' yet calling it a 'conspiracy theory' implies that it is an irrational belief that is not supported by evidence when in fact it is entirely rational since it is supported by a mountain of evidence (yes I can dig out references if required).

Personally I am equally skeptical of every theory until they can can be properly evaluated on the basis of evidence.
So, you don't trust the official story of 9/11. So what? Nothing wrong with that, son, I come across with people disconnected from reality on a daily basis. Right here on this forum.

User avatar
gorgeous
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5652
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Why do people think conspiracy theorist is a synonymous with "irrational person"?

Post by gorgeous » Fri Aug 28, 2015 7:35 pm

reality is the govt was behind 911....controlled demolition, no plane found at the pentagon or PA field...fake...
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28009
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Location: sometimes

Re: Why do people think conspiracy theorist is a synonymous with "irrational person"?

Post by scrmbldggs » Fri Aug 28, 2015 7:43 pm

:yawn:


But I'm sure Khjj is pleased to be getting an indubitable answer to this topic.
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

djembeweaver
Regular Poster
Posts: 589
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 8:53 pm

Re: Why do people think conspiracy theorist is a synonymous with "irrational person"?

Post by djembeweaver » Fri Aug 28, 2015 9:55 pm

supervitor wrote:
djembeweaver wrote:
I wasn't suggesting that the CIA had absolute control over the usage but it does seem to be the case that the expression came into popular parlance after the Warren commission and the CIA played a big part in that. It is a fact that it is used pejoratively to discredit.
No, it doesn't. You gave nothing to make it "seem to be the case". Who the {!#%@} knows where expressions come from? It's even difficult to establish where names of cities come from, all you get is silly stories and zero evidence to support it. You introducing "government agencies" into your theory just tells me you like to explain the world like that: big things, powerful institutions "playing a part" on such silly things like conotations. You introducing now "to discredit", means you are trying to attribute intentionality, even if it is in a sneaky way. Trust me, you're very very paranoid, or else you wouldn't write that last sentence.
Far from being paranoid I would say it is rather naive to think that the security services do not exert considerable influence on public opinion.
I can assure you, they don't define meanings by decree
It is now a matter of public record that the CIAs Bin Laden unit (Alec station) were tracking several of the 9/11 hijackers in the USA prior to the hijackings and that they actively blocked the sharing of this information with the FBI. It has since come to light that 40 CIA agents were involved in this and its subsequent cover up. This satisfies most definitions of 'conspiracy' yet calling it a 'conspiracy theory' implies that it is an irrational belief that is not supported by evidence when in fact it is entirely rational since it is supported by a mountain of evidence (yes I can dig out references if required).

Personally I am equally skeptical of every theory until they can can be properly evaluated on the basis of evidence.
So, you don't trust the official story of 9/11. So what? Nothing wrong with that, son, I come across with people disconnected from reality on a daily basis. Right here on this forum.
I came to this forum hoping for thoughtful and intelligent debate. If you disagree with any of the points I have made I would expect you address them with logical argument and evidence. So many things happened on that day that I don't think it makes much sense to talk of 'the' official story. There are many claims and counter claims, some of which will turn out to be true and others false. What I have said about the CIA blocking the sharing of information with the FBI has now been admitted by many CIA and FBI insiders and reported on by many mainstream news outlets so I suppose that now makes it part of the official narrative:

http://www.salon.com/2011/10/14/insider ... s_cia_911/

http://www.newsweek.com/2015/01/23/info ... 99148.html

Regarding your allegation that I am very very paranoid...one man's paranoid is another's reasonable suspicion but I tell you this: If you do even a little reading on the activities of security agencies like GCHQ, Mossad, CIA, NSA and so on you realize that influencing public opinion is part of their remit. For example Glenn Greenwald published a GCHQ presentation that revealed the existence of a group called the Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group (JTRIG) along with details of how they seek to infiltrate different groups online and destroy people's reputations. Glenn Greenwald writes:
Among the core self-identified purposes of JTRIG are two tactics: (1) to inject all sorts of false material onto the internet in order to destroy the reputation of its targets; and (2) to use social sciences and other techniques to manipulate online discourse and activism to generate outcomes it considers desirable. To see how extremist these programs are, just consider the tactics they boast of using to achieve those ends: “false flag operations” (posting material to the internet and falsely attributing it to someone else), fake victim blog posts (pretending to be a victim of the individual whose reputation they want to destroy), and posting “negative information” on various forums.
Here is a link to an article that has the full PowerPoint presentation:

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140 ... ions.shtml

If, after reading the articles I have referred to, you still think I am very very paranoid to think that the CIA might use certain phrases to discredit detractors then you are either very very naive, or are taking cognitive dissonance to new heights...

Now then, if you choose to reply then please make it a reasoned, logical and evidence-based argument rather than a sniping ad hominem diatribe...

Either way, all the best ;)

User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: Why do people think conspiracy theorist is a synonymous with "irrational person"?

Post by supervitor » Fri Aug 28, 2015 10:30 pm

djembeweaver wrote:
supervitor wrote:
djembeweaver wrote:
I wasn't suggesting that the CIA had absolute control over the usage but it does seem to be the case that the expression came into popular parlance after the Warren commission and the CIA played a big part in that. It is a fact that it is used pejoratively to discredit.
No, it doesn't. You gave nothing to make it "seem to be the case". Who the {!#%@} knows where expressions come from? It's even difficult to establish where names of cities come from, all you get is silly stories and zero evidence to support it. You introducing "government agencies" into your theory just tells me you like to explain the world like that: big things, powerful institutions "playing a part" on such silly things like conotations. You introducing now "to discredit", means you are trying to attribute intentionality, even if it is in a sneaky way. Trust me, you're very very paranoid, or else you wouldn't write that last sentence.
Far from being paranoid I would say it is rather naive to think that the security services do not exert considerable influence on public opinion.
I can assure you, they don't define meanings by decree
It is now a matter of public record that the CIAs Bin Laden unit (Alec station) were tracking several of the 9/11 hijackers in the USA prior to the hijackings and that they actively blocked the sharing of this information with the FBI. It has since come to light that 40 CIA agents were involved in this and its subsequent cover up. This satisfies most definitions of 'conspiracy' yet calling it a 'conspiracy theory' implies that it is an irrational belief that is not supported by evidence when in fact it is entirely rational since it is supported by a mountain of evidence (yes I can dig out references if required).

Personally I am equally skeptical of every theory until they can can be properly evaluated on the basis of evidence.
So, you don't trust the official story of 9/11. So what? Nothing wrong with that, son, I come across with people disconnected from reality on a daily basis. Right here on this forum.
I came to this forum hoping for thoughtful and intelligent debate. If you disagree with any of the points I have made I would expect you address them with logical argument and evidence.
I did disagreed with your point and I made a logical argument against it, your suggestion of involvement of the CIA on the establishment of a negative conotation for the pejorative conotation of the expression "conspiracy theory". Here, I'll quote my argument so you can address it this time, you seem to have missed it the first time:
me wrote: No, it doesn't. You gave nothing to make it "seem to be the case". Who the {!#%@} knows where expressions come from? It's even difficult to establish where names of cities come from, all you get is silly stories and zero evidence to support it.
So many things happened on that day that I don't think it makes much sense to talk of 'the' official story. There are many claims and counter claims, some of which will turn out to be true and others false. What I have said about the CIA blocking the sharing of information with the FBI has now been admitted by many CIA and FBI insiders and reported on by many mainstream news outlets so I suppose that now makes it part of the official narrative:

http://www.salon.com/2011/10/14/insider ... s_cia_911/

http://www.newsweek.com/2015/01/23/info ... 99148.html
You seem to want to drag me into a silly 9/11 issues discussion, even after I signaled to you I'm not interested (on the grounds of being silly). Sorry, son, I don't care about that.
Regarding your allegation that I am very very paranoid...
Exactly, that was my second point. You being paranoid.
one man's paranoid is another's reasonable suspicion
Is that an argument?
but I tell you this: If you do even a little reading on the activities of security agencies like GCHQ, Mossad, CIA, NSA and so on you realize that influencing public opinion is part of their remit.
Nobody argued against state power wanting to or able to influencing public opinion. I argued against their ability or even willingness to decree meanings of words, expressions. You are paranoid and silly for even suggesting it, that's what I'm saying. I can go deeper on justifying this, if you wish me to.
For example Glenn Greenwald published a GCHQ presentation that revealed the existence of a group called the Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group (JTRIG) along with details of how they seek to infiltrate different groups online and destroy people's reputations. Glenn Greenwald writes:
Among the core self-identified purposes of JTRIG are two tactics: (1) to inject all sorts of false material onto the internet in order to destroy the reputation of its targets; and (2) to use social sciences and other techniques to manipulate online discourse and activism to generate outcomes it considers desirable. To see how extremist these programs are, just consider the tactics they boast of using to achieve those ends: “false flag operations” (posting material to the internet and falsely attributing it to someone else), fake victim blog posts (pretending to be a victim of the individual whose reputation they want to destroy), and posting “negative information” on various forums.
Here is a link to an article that has the full PowerPoint presentation:

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140 ... ions.shtml

If, after reading the articles I have referred to, you still think I am very very paranoid to think that the CIA might use certain phrases to discredit detractors then you are either very very naive, or are taking cognitive dissonance to new heights...
See? You move off topic again. You quoted Greenwald's investigation on JTRIG, mainly on using disinformation and "passing themselves as their victims to discredit them", to justify your silly idea of government agencies inventing meanings of words. I'll tell you where you went wrong and tried to insert something that wasn't on Greenwald's work. here:
where you inserted something that wasn't there, to try to make your point, but failed, miserably wrote: that the CIA might use certain phrases to discredit detractors
That "use certain phrases", you made that up.
Now then, if you choose to reply then please make it a reasoned, logical and evidence-based argument rather than a sniping ad hominem diatribe...

Either way, all the best ;)
Sure.

djembeweaver
Regular Poster
Posts: 589
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 8:53 pm

Re: Why do people think conspiracy theorist is a synonymous with "irrational person"?

Post by djembeweaver » Fri Aug 28, 2015 11:03 pm

supervitor wrote:
djembeweaver wrote:
supervitor wrote:
djembeweaver wrote:
I wasn't suggesting that the CIA had absolute control over the usage but it does seem to be the case that the expression came into popular parlance after the Warren commission and the CIA played a big part in that. It is a fact that it is used pejoratively to discredit.
No, it doesn't. You gave nothing to make it "seem to be the case". Who the {!#%@} knows where expressions come from? It's even difficult to establish where names of cities come from, all you get is silly stories and zero evidence to support it. You introducing "government agencies" into your theory just tells me you like to explain the world like that: big things, powerful institutions "playing a part" on such silly things like conotations. You introducing now "to discredit", means you are trying to attribute intentionality, even if it is in a sneaky way. Trust me, you're very very paranoid, or else you wouldn't write that last sentence.
Far from being paranoid I would say it is rather naive to think that the security services do not exert considerable influence on public opinion.
I can assure you, they don't define meanings by decree
It is now a matter of public record that the CIAs Bin Laden unit (Alec station) were tracking several of the 9/11 hijackers in the USA prior to the hijackings and that they actively blocked the sharing of this information with the FBI. It has since come to light that 40 CIA agents were involved in this and its subsequent cover up. This satisfies most definitions of 'conspiracy' yet calling it a 'conspiracy theory' implies that it is an irrational belief that is not supported by evidence when in fact it is entirely rational since it is supported by a mountain of evidence (yes I can dig out references if required).

Personally I am equally skeptical of every theory until they can can be properly evaluated on the basis of evidence.
So, you don't trust the official story of 9/11. So what? Nothing wrong with that, son, I come across with people disconnected from reality on a daily basis. Right here on this forum.
I came to this forum hoping for thoughtful and intelligent debate. If you disagree with any of the points I have made I would expect you address them with logical argument and evidence.
I did disagreed with your point and I made a logical argument against it, your suggestion of involvement of the CIA on the establishment of a negative conotation for the pejorative conotation of the expression "conspiracy theory". Here, I'll quote my argument so you can address it this time, you seem to have missed it the first time:
me wrote: No, it doesn't. You gave nothing to make it "seem to be the case". Who the {!#%@} knows where expressions come from? It's even difficult to establish where names of cities come from, all you get is silly stories and zero evidence to support it.
So many things happened on that day that I don't think it makes much sense to talk of 'the' official story. There are many claims and counter claims, some of which will turn out to be true and others false. What I have said about the CIA blocking the sharing of information with the FBI has now been admitted by many CIA and FBI insiders and reported on by many mainstream news outlets so I suppose that now makes it part of the official narrative:

http://www.salon.com/2011/10/14/insider ... s_cia_911/

http://www.newsweek.com/2015/01/23/info ... 99148.html
You seem to want to drag me into a silly 9/11 issues discussion, even after I signaled to you I'm not interested (on the grounds of being silly). Sorry, son, I don't care about that.
Regarding your allegation that I am very very paranoid...
Exactly, that was my second point. You being paranoid.
one man's paranoid is another's reasonable suspicion
Is that an argument?
but I tell you this: If you do even a little reading on the activities of security agencies like GCHQ, Mossad, CIA, NSA and so on you realize that influencing public opinion is part of their remit.
Nobody argued against state power wanting to or able to influencing public opinion. I argued against their ability or even willingness to decree meanings of words, expressions. You are paranoid and silly for even suggesting it, that's what I'm saying. I can go deeper on justifying this, if you wish me to.
For example Glenn Greenwald published a GCHQ presentation that revealed the existence of a group called the Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group (JTRIG) along with details of how they seek to infiltrate different groups online and destroy people's reputations. Glenn Greenwald writes:
Among the core self-identified purposes of JTRIG are two tactics: (1) to inject all sorts of false material onto the internet in order to destroy the reputation of its targets; and (2) to use social sciences and other techniques to manipulate online discourse and activism to generate outcomes it considers desirable. To see how extremist these programs are, just consider the tactics they boast of using to achieve those ends: “false flag operations” (posting material to the internet and falsely attributing it to someone else), fake victim blog posts (pretending to be a victim of the individual whose reputation they want to destroy), and posting “negative information” on various forums.
Here is a link to an article that has the full PowerPoint presentation:

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140 ... ions.shtml

If, after reading the articles I have referred to, you still think I am very very paranoid to think that the CIA might use certain phrases to discredit detractors then you are either very very naive, or are taking cognitive dissonance to new heights...
See? You move off topic again. You quoted Greenwald's investigation on JTRIG, mainly on using disinformation and "passing themselves as their victims to discredit them", to justify your silly idea of government agencies inventing meanings of words. I'll tell you where you went wrong and tried to insert something that wasn't on Greenwald's work. here:
where you inserted something that wasn't there, to try to make your point, but failed, miserably wrote: that the CIA might use certain phrases to discredit detractors
That "use certain phrases", you made that up.
Now then, if you choose to reply then please make it a reasoned, logical and evidence-based argument rather than a sniping ad hominem diatribe...

Either way, all the best ;)
Sure.

Wow...I really don't understand why you are being so vitriolic.
You seem to want to drag me into a silly 9/11 issues discussion, even after I signaled to you I'm not interested (on the grounds of being silly). Sorry, son, I don't care about that
There is nothing to debate since what I have stated is fact. It has been admitted by those involved and reported on by mainstream news agencies. End of story. I'm not sure what aspect you find 'silly'. By the way, do you call everyone 'son' or is it meant to imply that I am young or immature (I am 44...)
one man's paranoid is another's reasonable suspicion
Is that an argument?
Yes. It is implying that what I consider to be a reasonable suspicion, you consider to be paranoia.
Nobody argued against state power wanting to or able to influencing public opinion. I argued against their ability or even willingness to decree meanings of words, expressions. You are paranoid and silly for even suggesting it, that's what I'm saying. I can go deeper on justifying this, if you wish me to.
I did not mean to imply that they decree meanings of words. I simply suggested that the term 'conspiracy theory' was used to discredit critics of the Warren Commission.
See? You move off topic again. You quoted Greenwald's investigation on JTRIG, mainly on using disinformation and "passing themselves as their victims to discredit them", to justify your silly idea of government agencies inventing meanings of words. I'll tell you where you went wrong and tried to insert something that wasn't on Greenwald's work. here:
where you inserted something that wasn't there, to try to make your point, but failed, miserably wrote: that the CIA might use certain phrases to discredit detractors
That "use certain phrases", you made that up
I never claimed that was in Greenwald's piece. I was simply trying to make the point that if groups like JTRIG exist and engage in the activities described then it is not paranoid to suspect the CIA of using the term 'conspiracy theory' to discredit their detractors. That's all I meant by 'certain phrases': I was referring to my previous point about the phrase 'conspiracy theory'

I have obviously annoyed you for some reason but I really didn't intend to. I honestly came here looking for high quality debate not to get bogged down in slanging matches.

If I have made some sort of 'skepticforum faux pas' then I wholeheartedly apologize...

User avatar
Monster
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5577
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:57 pm
Location: Tarrytown, NY, USA

Re: Why do people think conspiracy theorist is a synonymous with "irrational person"?

Post by Monster » Fri Aug 28, 2015 11:17 pm

djembeweaver wrote: I have obviously annoyed you for some reason but I really didn't intend to. I honestly came here looking for high quality debate not to get bogged down in slanging matches.

If I have made some sort of 'skepticforum faux pas' then I wholeheartedly apologize...
supervitor isn't very nice.
Listening twice as much as you speak is a sign of wisdom.

djembeweaver
Regular Poster
Posts: 589
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 8:53 pm

Re: Why do people think conspiracy theorist is a synonymous with "irrational person"?

Post by djembeweaver » Fri Aug 28, 2015 11:29 pm

Monster wrote:
djembeweaver wrote: I have obviously annoyed you for some reason but I really didn't intend to. I honestly came here looking for high quality debate not to get bogged down in slanging matches.

If I have made some sort of 'skepticforum faux pas' then I wholeheartedly apologize...
supervitor isn't very nice.
Thanks for that. It's not just me then? Was starting to think I'd broken some unwritten rule...

User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: Why do people think conspiracy theorist is a synonymous with "irrational person"?

Post by supervitor » Sat Aug 29, 2015 12:11 am

djembeweaver wrote:
Wow...I really don't understand why you are being so vitriolic.
It's just style. Don't worry about it.
You seem to want to drag me into a silly 9/11 issues discussion, even after I signaled to you I'm not interested (on the grounds of being silly). Sorry, son, I don't care about that
There is nothing to debate since what I have stated is fact. It has been admitted by those involved and reported on by mainstream news agencies. End of story. I'm not sure what aspect you find 'silly'. By the way, do you call everyone 'son' or is it meant to imply that I am young or immature (I am 44...)
It's meant to imply you're being naive. As you should know naiveness is not necessarily related with age.
What's silly is what you select to post to try to make your points:
Uau!! A former FBI agent says the CIA didn't share information with him!!! uau!! I wonder what that is about!
Why even mention this if you are not trying to imply something out of the ordinary?
If you must know my view on this, {!#%@} that FBI agent and his silly paranoid suspicions.
one man's paranoid is another's reasonable suspicion
Is that an argument?
Yes. It is implying that what I consider to be a reasonable suspicion, you consider to be paranoia.
See? In here you are not afraid of assuming the implications of what you write or chose to bring into the table. Why not doing the same to your other implications?

You are paranoid, for thinking these kind of stuff is reasonable.. Words get meanings by the use people give to them. State power is not yet that powerful.
Nobody argued against state power wanting to or able to influencing public opinion. I argued against their ability or even willingness to decree meanings of words, expressions. You are paranoid and silly for even suggesting it, that's what I'm saying. I can go deeper on justifying this, if you wish me to.
I did not mean to imply that they decree meanings of words. I simply suggested that the term 'conspiracy theory' was used to discredit critics of the Warren Commission.
That's your sneaky way to put it and you running away from the implications of what you write. If you don't mean it, why do you write about it, why that link to "something from the cia", why the suggestions? Pointless posts? Just assume yourself or if you don't agree with it, don't post stuff whose logical implication is that.
See? You move off topic again. You quoted Greenwald's investigation on JTRIG, mainly on using disinformation and "passing themselves as their victims to discredit them", to justify your silly idea of government agencies inventing meanings of words. I'll tell you where you went wrong and tried to insert something that wasn't on Greenwald's work. here:
where you inserted something that wasn't there, to try to make your point, but failed, miserably wrote: that the CIA might use certain phrases to discredit detractors
That "use certain phrases", you made that up
I never claimed that was in Greenwald's piece. I was simply trying to make the point that if groups like JTRIG exist and engage in the activities described then it is not paranoid to suspect the CIA of using the term 'conspiracy theory' to discredit their detractors. That's all I meant by 'certain phrases': I was referring to my previous point about the phrase 'conspiracy theory'
Exactly the same point as before. If you're not implying, why post Greenwald's work? And you are confusing time. Now you are trying to argue that the CIA used "conspiracy theory" as a derogatory term("to discredit"), before the term had acquired that conotation.
I have obviously annoyed you for some reason but I really didn't intend to. I honestly came here looking for high quality debate not to get bogged down in slanging matches.
No, you haven't, don't be silly.
If I have made some sort of 'skepticforum faux pas' then I wholeheartedly apologize...
No need to apologize to me, I probably violate more skepticforum unwritten rules, on a weekly basis, than you'll ever will.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 34978
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: prostrate spurge
Location: Transcona

Re: Why do people think conspiracy theorist is a synonymous with "irrational person"?

Post by Gord » Sat Aug 29, 2015 12:13 am

djembeweaver wrote:
Monster wrote:
djembeweaver wrote: I have obviously annoyed you for some reason but I really didn't intend to. I honestly came here looking for high quality debate not to get bogged down in slanging matches.

If I have made some sort of 'skepticforum faux pas' then I wholeheartedly apologize...
supervitor isn't very nice.
Thanks for that. It's not just me then? Was starting to think I'd broken some unwritten rule...
No, we have a lot of {!#%@} around here. ;)

Oh, and gorgeous is a right nutbar. Arguing with that, or even expecting something rational, is a pastime at best, a waste of time at worst.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: Why do people think conspiracy theorist is a synonymous with "irrational person"?

Post by supervitor » Sat Aug 29, 2015 12:29 am

To remind of what you have written, this is your first post here, the one I objected to:
djembeweaver wrote:I think that there is a relatively simple answer to this question: The phrase 'conspiracy theory' is intentionally pejorative and was brought into use by those wishing to discredit certain people who hold certain views. In particular it seems to have been popularized by the CIA to discredit criticism of the Warren Commission report (http://www.discip.crdp.ac-caen.fr/angla ... 35-960.htm).

User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: Why do people think conspiracy theorist is a synonymous with "irrational person"?

Post by supervitor » Sat Aug 29, 2015 12:35 am

supervitor wrote:
djembeweaver wrote:
If I have made some sort of 'skepticforum faux pas' then I wholeheartedly apologize...
No need to apologize to me, I probably violate more skepticforum unwritten rules, on a weekly basis, than you'll ever will.
Monster wrote:supervitor isn't very nice.
Gord wrote: No, we have a lot of {!#%@} around here.
See? I have sort of a reputation around..

djembeweaver
Regular Poster
Posts: 589
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 8:53 pm

Re: Why do people think conspiracy theorist is a synonymous with "irrational person"?

Post by djembeweaver » Sat Aug 29, 2015 12:43 am

supervitor wrote:To remind of what you have written, this is your first post here, the one I objected to:
djembeweaver wrote:I think that there is a relatively simple answer to this question: The phrase 'conspiracy theory' is intentionally pejorative and was brought into use by those wishing to discredit certain people who hold certain views. In particular it seems to have been popularized by the CIA to discredit criticism of the Warren Commission report (http://www.discip.crdp.ac-caen.fr/angla ... 35-960.htm).
There you go! I suggested that it was 'popularized' by the CIA. I never implied they invented it...

User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: Why do people think conspiracy theorist is a synonymous with "irrational person"?

Post by supervitor » Sat Aug 29, 2015 12:47 am

djembeweaver wrote:
supervitor wrote:To remind of what you have written, this is your first post here, the one I objected to:
djembeweaver wrote:I think that there is a relatively simple answer to this question: The phrase 'conspiracy theory' is intentionally pejorative and was brought into use by those wishing to discredit certain people who hold certain views. In particular it seems to have been popularized by the CIA to discredit criticism of the Warren Commission report (http://www.discip.crdp.ac-caen.fr/angla ... 35-960.htm).
There you go! I suggested that it was 'popularized' by the CIA. I never implied they invented it...
You wrote "intentionally pejorative and was brought into use by those wishing to discredit certain people who hold certain views.", besides your ungrounded suggestion. What do you think that means to the reader?

djembeweaver
Regular Poster
Posts: 589
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 8:53 pm

Re: Why do people think conspiracy theorist is a synonymous with "irrational person"?

Post by djembeweaver » Sat Aug 29, 2015 12:58 am

supervitor wrote:
djembeweaver wrote:
supervitor wrote:To remind of what you have written, this is your first post here, the one I objected to:
djembeweaver wrote:I think that there is a relatively simple answer to this question: The phrase 'conspiracy theory' is intentionally pejorative and was brought into use by those wishing to discredit certain people who hold certain views. In particular it seems to have been popularized by the CIA to discredit criticism of the Warren Commission report (http://www.discip.crdp.ac-caen.fr/angla ... 35-960.htm).
There you go! I suggested that it was 'popularized' by the CIA. I never implied they invented it...
You wrote "intentionally pejorative and was brought into use by those wishing to discredit certain people who hold certain views.", besides your ungrounded suggestion. What do you think that means to the reader?
I meant that I think it has always been used to discredit by anyone wishing to do so. By using the phrase 'In particular' I imply that it's use by the CIA is an example of this general phenomenon. It is not my fault if you cannot deconstruct a well-written sentence. Considering some of the garbled nonsense you produce I'm surprised you have the audacity to criticize. For example, what on earth is the following meant to imply?
See? In here you are not afraid of assuming the implications of what you write or chose to bring into the table. Why not doing the same to your other implications?
Garbled nonsense my friend.

User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: Why do people think conspiracy theorist is a synonymous with "irrational person"?

Post by supervitor » Sat Aug 29, 2015 1:41 am

djembeweaver wrote:
supervitor wrote:
djembeweaver wrote:
supervitor wrote:To remind of what you have written, this is your first post here, the one I objected to:
djembeweaver wrote:I think that there is a relatively simple answer to this question: The phrase 'conspiracy theory' is intentionally pejorative and was brought into use by those wishing to discredit certain people who hold certain views. In particular it seems to have been popularized by the CIA to discredit criticism of the Warren Commission report (http://www.discip.crdp.ac-caen.fr/angla ... 35-960.htm).
There you go! I suggested that it was 'popularized' by the CIA. I never implied they invented it...
You wrote "intentionally pejorative and was brought into use by those wishing to discredit certain people who hold certain views.", besides your ungrounded suggestion. What do you think that means to the reader?
I meant that I think it has always been used to discredit by anyone wishing to do so. By using the phrase 'In particular' I imply that it's use by the CIA is an example of this general phenomenon. It is not my fault if you cannot deconstruct a well-written sentence.
Actually I can easily read your implications, and that's what has cornered you. What you're doing now is trying to move the focus from where I want it to be. You wrote:
The phrase 'conspiracy theory' is intentionally pejorative
That's what you have to explain.
Considering some of the garbled nonsense you produce I'm surprised you have the audacity to criticize. For example, what on earth is the following meant to imply?
See? In here you are not afraid of assuming the implications of what you write or chose to bring into the table. Why not doing the same to your other implications?
Garbled nonsense my friend.
It means what it says, son. When I cornered you on your implied meanings you tried a cop-out strategy, saying the implications were not there, but in that particular case, you were not afraid to assume what you implied. Now, focus on what I asked you to explain, ok?

User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: Why do people think conspiracy theorist is a synonymous with "irrational person"?

Post by supervitor » Sat Aug 29, 2015 1:48 am

what you have to explain wrote: The phrase 'conspiracy theory' is intentionally pejorative

Come on, son. I don't have all night.

User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: Why do people think conspiracy theorist is a synonymous with "irrational person"?

Post by supervitor » Sat Aug 29, 2015 1:56 am

How does a term becomes intentionally pejorative? Maybe because someone had that intention.. If I talk now about the CIA discrediting enemies, maybe my point is crossed..

Hmmm

User avatar
Jeff_36
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5094
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: Why do people think conspiracy theorist is a synonymous with "irrational person"?

Post by Jeff_36 » Sat Aug 29, 2015 2:31 am

phpBB [video]

This is why.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 34978
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: prostrate spurge
Location: Transcona

Re: Why do people think conspiracy theorist is a synonymous with "irrational person"?

Post by Gord » Sat Aug 29, 2015 3:19 am

djembeweaver wrote:
supervitor wrote:See? In here you are not afraid of assuming the implications of what you write or chose to bring into the table. Why not doing the same to your other implications?
Garbled nonsense my friend.
His english ain't so goodish.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: Why do people think conspiracy theorist is a synonymous with "irrational person"?

Post by supervitor » Sat Aug 29, 2015 3:44 am

Gord wrote:
djembeweaver wrote:
supervitor wrote:See? In here you are not afraid of assuming the implications of what you write or chose to bring into the table. Why not doing the same to your other implications?
Garbled nonsense my friend.
His english ain't so goodish.
And yet, he's the one making sense.

Bang!! Supervitor wins again. And he's inches away of making the skeptic forum gang taking the side of a "truther"!

:lol:

User avatar
Jeff_36
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5094
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: Why do people think conspiracy theorist is a synonymous with "irrational person"?

Post by Jeff_36 » Sat Aug 29, 2015 3:52 am

people who claim "conspiwaccyyy" or "Joooooo cwonspiwacyyyyyy" after every singgle tragic event seem to have far too much time on their hands. Sometimes a cigar is a cigar, a duck is a duck, and a kardashian is a kardashian.

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Why do people think conspiracy theorist is a synonymous with "irrational person"?

Post by Matthew Ellard » Sat Aug 29, 2015 5:16 am

djembeweaver wrote:Even when someone says something that seems preposterous ad hominem responses are never helpful...
We just got rid of three trolls, last week, by doing exactly that.

Why should we be nice to a mental retard, who spams every thread with "the wisdom of Seth", the channelled spirit from another galaxy? She doesn't actually ever respond to questions. Have a go yourself.

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Why do people think conspiracy theorist is a synonymous with "irrational person"?

Post by Matthew Ellard » Sat Aug 29, 2015 5:19 am

supervitor wrote: Bang!! Supervitor wins again. And he's inches away..........
Try making that about 1000 kilometres and a one way trip. Thanks. :D

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 34978
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: prostrate spurge
Location: Transcona

Re: Why do people think conspiracy theorist is a synonymous with "irrational person"?

Post by Gord » Sat Aug 29, 2015 6:16 am

supervitor wrote:Bang!! Supervitor wins again.
Also, he plays his own games, by himself, with his own rules.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Why do people think conspiracy theorist is a synonymous with "irrational person"?

Post by Matthew Ellard » Sat Aug 29, 2015 7:13 am

Gord wrote:
supervitor wrote:Bang!! Supervitor wins again.
Also, he plays his own games, by himself, with his own rules.
her rules. It's Norma Blum, trolling under a sock puppet name and pretending to be young. Remember, Norma is in pain and wears magical magnetic pain removers. She came back as Supervitor, when we found out our self appointed "super skeptic" believes in magic.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Magnetic-Therap ... B00ENAR0SS

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Why do people think conspiracy theorist is a synonymous with "irrational person"?

Post by Matthew Ellard » Sat Aug 29, 2015 7:22 am

gorgeous wrote:fake shooting evidence -----
The video has been deleted by You tube as offensive. Prove to us that you are not a mindless troll. Answer the following questions.

1) Who exactly do you claim organised "the faking" of the shooting? What is your evidence for this?

2) Did you deny Bryce Williams shot and killed Alison Parker and Adam Ward? What is your evidence for this?

3) Did you simply claim the shooting is fake because you are an internet troll trying to seek attention? What is the evidence this is not the case?

I know exactly what you are doing. You are taking cheap holidays in other people's misery.


djembeweaver
Regular Poster
Posts: 589
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 8:53 pm

Re: Why do people think conspiracy theorist is a synonymous with "irrational person"?

Post by djembeweaver » Sat Aug 29, 2015 9:16 am

supervitor wrote:
Gord wrote:
djembeweaver wrote:
supervitor wrote:See? In here you are not afraid of assuming the implications of what you write or chose to bring into the table. Why not doing the same to your other implications?
Garbled nonsense my friend.
His english ain't so goodish.
And yet, he's the one making sense.

Bang!! Supervitor wins again. And he's inches away of making the skeptic forum gang taking the side of a "truther"!

:lol:
I take back the ad hominem criticism. You are clearly an idiot and / or troll & I can't be bothered to waste good logic on you. To call someone a truther for questioning a couple of aspects of the whole 9/11 saga is the same as using the phrase 'conspiracy theory' pejoratively to discredit btw. Kind of my point in the first place.

I am a bit disappointed by the bitching and sniping I've found here. I expected real skepticism and good argument...

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 34978
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: prostrate spurge
Location: Transcona

Re: Why do people think conspiracy theorist is a synonymous with "irrational person"?

Post by Gord » Sat Aug 29, 2015 10:26 am

djembeweaver wrote:I am a bit disappointed by the bitching and sniping I've found here. I expected real skepticism and good argument...
Well, the skepticism is mostly real, anyway.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

djembeweaver
Regular Poster
Posts: 589
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 8:53 pm

Re: Why do people think conspiracy theorist is a synonymous with "irrational person"?

Post by djembeweaver » Sat Aug 29, 2015 11:28 am

Gord wrote:
djembeweaver wrote:I am a bit disappointed by the bitching and sniping I've found here. I expected real skepticism and good argument...
Well, the skepticism is mostly real, anyway.
I have seen some good threads so I won't give up just yet because of one idiot. Also this exchange serves as a good example of how phrases such as 'conspiracy theory' and 'truther' are used pejoratively to discredit

User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: Why do people think conspiracy theorist is a synonymous with "irrational person"?

Post by supervitor » Sat Aug 29, 2015 11:32 am

djembeweaver wrote:
supervitor wrote:
Gord wrote:
djembeweaver wrote:
supervitor wrote:See? In here you are not afraid of assuming the implications of what you write or chose to bring into the table. Why not doing the same to your other implications?
Garbled nonsense my friend.
His english ain't so goodish.
And yet, he's the one making sense.

Bang!! Supervitor wins again. And he's inches away of making the skeptic forum gang taking the side of a "truther"!

:lol:
I take back the ad hominem criticism. You are clearly an idiot and / or troll & I can't be bothered to waste good logic on you. To call someone a truther for questioning a couple of aspects of the whole 9/11 saga is the same as using the phrase 'conspiracy theory' pejoratively to discredit btw. Kind of my point in the first place.

I am a bit disappointed by the bitching and sniping I've found here. I expected real skepticism and good argument...
Not really calling you anything, son, if you notice I used quotation marks to express my point of view. Using a classification like "truther" was just to be understood by the forum bullies, the real targets of that post.

As to you, I'm happy with demonstrating your paranoid traits, my initial point to you.