I am Proud of Being a Conspiracy Theorist

banie01 · 29-12-2022 12:57pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120043316#Comment_120043316

So a conspiracy theory, that is evidenced, plausible and likely true?

Isn't in your opinion a conspiracy theory, because it's "factual"?

What is it you think a conspiracy theory actually is? If not the former? A collection of circumstances, evidence, inference and coincidence that form a plausible basis to extrapolate a cause or aim?

Or are they fairy tales for adults, to be discussed without challenge?

Dohnjoe · 29-12-2022 12:59pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120043316#Comment_120043316

Depends on the case. With the Skripal poisonings, there were suspects, evidence, etc, but there hasn't been a court case so it can't be definitively described as solved. Technically it's still a conspiracy theory, albeit a strong one.

greenspurs · 29-12-2022 1:12pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120043361#Comment_120043361

So its a graduated scale then?

You need a court case to copper fasten the facts?

Or its just not proven ? - Like most Theories? but its a strong one ....

Wibbs · 29-12-2022 1:15pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120042124#Comment_120042124

The earth wasn't "created" 6,000 years ago, we knew this in the 18th century.

Actually there were rumblings against the 6000 year old earth before that. Leonardo DaVinci discussed it in his notebooks. While working in Milan on diffeerent projects, many never finished, as was too usual with him, oul Leo was fond of taking walks in the hills observing the topography and geology to both make better paintings and to sate his constant hunger for direct observation. When he was working in Milan one day a local farmer had brought him seashells from the mountains thinking this would interest him. They did and he investigated further. One day he found a fossil of a "great fish"(likely an eocene whale) in a cave high in the mountains and he wasn't just interested in the "fancy" stuff, he also observed trace fossils, the burrows of animals in the rock.

He came to the conclusion these animals and traces were "petrified". That the flood tale couldn't begin to adequately explain the layer after layer after layer of such things found nearly everywhere he looked. That water was one of the strongest driver of landscape change but was mostly impossibly slow. That all these layers couldn't be explained by a sudden biblical flood, or there had been uncountable floods over time. Therefore the time this all took was far longer than believed.

Sadly Leo never published his stuff so his ideas(and not jus this) didn't transmit until centuries later. Oddly too as he was smack bang in the middle of the printing revolution. He did do a frontispiece for a mate's book as a favour, but printing itself didn't interest him. It would be like he was living today and didn't have an internet connection.

And long before Leo, Aristotle had written about how big geological processes were too slow for a human lifetime, or many lifetimes. In Roman times Pliny had figured out that amber was fossilised tree sap. In the Middle Ages Persian and Chinese thinkers thought similarly about the slow processes of geology and that it had taken a very very long time.

This 6000 year old stuff is entirely down to branch of literalist Judeo-Christian commentators and took off mostly post Reformation in the face of increasing science of the Enlightenment.

greenspurs · 29-12-2022 1:24pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120043355#Comment_120043355

You and the few others are the ones bleating on about "FACTS" .....

I havent harped on about CT's as being definitive proof. As i have stated in the CT forum MANY times, i just read what people thought/felt happened. Im not expecting anyone in there to find a second shooter, or the cameraman that filmed the moon set , or the man the detonated the Twin Towers - i read them as entertainment.

The ones that are laughable , i laughed at . The ones with some substance , i read through.

i never engaged until the threads were disrupted continually and became unreadable .... and then they were unbearable.

"conspiracy theory, an attempt to explain harmful or tragic events as the result of the actions of a small powerful group. Such explanations reject the accepted narrative surrounding those events; indeed, the official version may be seen as further proof of the conspiracy."

https://www.britannica.com/topic/conspiracy-theory

I dont get offended/triggered that people dont have factual evidence, i just read them for what they are - A persons OPINION.

They DONT HAVE to provide the facts , evidence etc ... They really dont, even if being bullied and ridiculed.

and if people dont like that, they really dont have to engage/return/say anything....... But......... They will.

King Mob · 29-12-2022 1:33pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120043233#Comment_120043233

It's very very strange that we're being told that creationism is a good example of conspiracy theorist thinking. And that we are being told that we have to accept it without question because "experts" with "high IQs" have decreed it so with math. We aren't allowed to doubt them or ask questions.

banie01 · 29-12-2022 1:37pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120043428#Comment_120043428

You are the one who bemoaned an actual Conspiracy as not being a CT because of facts.

For something to be a theory, rather than an idea. It requires an evidential basis, it needs as cognitive dissident describes it a "kernel of truth".

Yet, in over 15 years of popping in and out of the CT forum? That kernel of truth has yet to be provided,never.

So, I ask you plainly. What is the purpose of the CT forum you'd prefer to see if you had your way?

A repository of urban legends and trust me bro stories, a safe space to share "you won't believe this BS?

Or would you prefer to actually engage in discussion to test the strength of a theory?

I note that Cognitive Dissident has made a very clear delineation between what is crackpot, 9/11, Sandyhook and so on, and creationism/intelligent design supporting theory. That is at least an effort I can appreciate even while I disagree with his core belief in intelligent design.

Dohnjoe · 29-12-2022 1:43pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120043394#Comment_120043394

It's subjective. Information also evolves and comes to light.

For example if I say, the government secretly gave a guy cancer to punish him - sounds like a conspiracy theory

However that happened with Litvinenko, but it just hasn't been proven in any formal sense.

Dohnjoe · 29-12-2022 1:48pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120043428#Comment_120043428

You can read them as entertainment and laugh at them, but the people spreading them can believe they are facts, as we often see here.

That can have consequences. Imagine losing a kid to a tragedy, then having to move house multiple and never being able to visit your child's grave because online conspiracy theorists claimed you were an actor and systematically harassed you and your family.

Would you find it entertaining then? No. That's harmful.

There's never anything wrong with exposing lies.

greenspurs · 29-12-2022 1:53pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120043316#Comment_120043316

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120043485#Comment_120043485

"You are the one who bemoaned an actual Conspiracy as not being a CT because of facts."

No i didnt , i meant if something is a FACT - would that stop it being a theory then??

Wouldnt a theory contain one or more/numerous facts but a fact would not contain a theory.?

A theory never becomes a fact?. It is an explanation of one or more facts.

Do you believe the theory that "an old dog cant learn new tricks" ? - I dont.

astrofool · 29-12-2022 2:05pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120043436#Comment_120043436

And yet in each of the cases seized upon by those pushing against evolution, it always fit the evolutionary theory model when fully investigated. As you said, this is a complex area, hiding evidence to push an alternate will never go far and saying "math proves otherwise" doesn't do anything either without bringing the complexity into the discussion (which again will be impossible if data gets constantly hidden and whatabouted as typically happens when someone is trying to push their own vague theory, usually intelligent design).

Evolutionary biologists themselves don't claim to know everything, which makes it an interesting field to be in (there are virtually infinite studies to be done from a human time perspective).

This is going off topic here, but if you genuinely want to discuss this and delve into the math, I would recommend to create a thread accordingly.

Calling people mid-wits while parroting creationist arguments won't lead to good discussion either, it's best to assume everyone else is at least your intellectual equal or greater until proven otherwise.

astrofool · 29-12-2022 2:11pm

@Big Bag of Chips one suggestion may be to do something similar to the "superthreads" on other forums, a thread which follows the old forum rules in spirit where theories aren't questioned but expanded upon instead. Rules could be fairly relaxed on topic and level of proof needed, "Don't push medical misinformation, racisim, anti-semitism, nazi's".

And even this could be relaxed, saying xx politician is secretly controlled by nazis wouldn't be allowed, nazis escaped to a moon base and this is evidence of their existence could be allowed, vaccines hurt pregancy wouldn't be allowed, vaccines are used as mind control for the masses would be allowed (as examples).

King Mob · 29-12-2022 2:12pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120043524#Comment_120043524

How would the conspiracy theory of holocaust denial fit into this definition I wonder.

Why would that be a fun thing to make stuff up about?

banie01 · 29-12-2022 2:17pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120043534#Comment_120043534

You'd be far better served in any discussion of a conspiracy, theoretical or otherwise to discuss the chains of causation underpinning your support or belief in a hypothesis.

Causation, evidence and where the evidence can allow inference? Even that is perfectly rational in a model of discussion that actually addresses any underlying rationale.

Why is that so hard for you to accept? That in a discussion board,that when an idea, theory or hypothesis is tested on its relative merits? That you see it as anathema?

Now I do note that you agree a theory is an explanation of 1 or more facts. So you clearly agree that any discussion of a conspiracy theory, must by the definition of theory, include facts? Yet the discussion always falters when those are sought?

As to your question on what you call a theory of "an old dog can't learn new tricks"? 1st off, I'd call it an aphorism rather than a theory. An aphorism based on a flawed assumption at that. What tricks does the dog already know? Who's seeking to teach the dog a new one? What training methods are being used? And so on. A quick observation could even devolve to the question of, Is the dog failing to learn? Or is the trainer failing to teach and any combination of actions and inference arising from that.

Now if we were to extrapolate from that question, that you were referring to people,and their ability to learn new skills, patterns of behaviour and response? Again all the above threads can be pulled at. But in a short answer? Yes, of course they can but it's a matter of application.

Now, I've done you the courtesy of answering a question you posed, yet I missed your reply to my question of you, apologies if I missed any response to this whilst replying.

So, I ask you plainly. What is the purpose of the CT forum you'd prefer to see if you had your way?

A repository of urban legends and trust me bro stories, a safe space to share "you won't believe this BS?

Or would you prefer to actually engage in discussion to test the strength of a theory?

greenspurs · 29-12-2022 2:44pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120043575#Comment_120043575

Wow...

thats boring ..... 😴 and MASSIVELY condescending ... but that seems to be your style.....

and another reason this place is practically unbearable....

You didnt give the 3rd option?

The one i already explained in the previous post...... 🙄

"As i have stated in the CT forum MANY times, i just read what people thought/felt happened. Im not expecting anyone in there to find a second shooter, or the cameraman that filmed the moon set , or the man the detonated the Twin Towers - i read them as entertainment."

banie01 · 29-12-2022 2:48pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120043642#Comment_120043642

So CTs are for you at least, entertainment. An exercise in fictional narrative but you see any questioning of that fictional narrative as troubling?

greenspurs · 29-12-2022 2:52pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120043653#Comment_120043653

Nope. not the questioning , per se.

Its the attitude.

Its the badgering.

Its the insulting (knuckle draggers /Tin foil hats/ stupid cnuts)

Its the self entitlement - you must answer me... you must ... you must..

Its the condescending attitude...

Its the passive aggressive/Sly digs nature of the questioning - just in yours for example "you see any questioning of that fictional narrative as troubling?"

banie01 · 29-12-2022 2:56pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120043662#Comment_120043662

If you don't like my posts? Feel free to add me to your ignore tab.

There's nothing passive/aggressive in my labelling the narrative you find entertaining as fictional. As without an underlying basis, and you said yourself that

Wouldnt a theory contain one or more/numerous facts but a fact would not contain a theory.?

So what's wrong with seeking those facts? A theory needs facts, a fictional narrative doesn't.

CGI_Livia_Soprano · 04-01-2023 7:03pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119985033#Comment_119985033

I remember just after the economic crash some FF people had "independent" on their election posters but in the small print it had "Fianna Fáil" on the poster.

That didn’t happen.

banie01 · 04-01-2023 10:38pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120065767#Comment_120065767

I can't recall any of the FF crew running in that manner in a local or a GE myself.

I do though remember Brian Crowley branding his MEP election very much in Blue/Yellow and the Fianna Fail branding being a bit hard to find during his 2014 Euro election.

Attached is a flyer but I do remember posting at the time that his actual posters were almost passing him off as a FG candidate.