| View previous topic :: View next topic |
mexkris
In: Libya
|
|
 |
|
| If you can tell us one conspiracy theory that has turned out to be true (yes, that's right, it's the usual M J Harper Challenge, just one will suffice) then your position is at least tenable. |
Well, it may well be true that most conspiracies only seem to turn up years later in the historical record - those who take part in them are usually very careful about keeping things hidden!
However, at present the evidence that the British government was aware that Saddam Hussein didn't seem to have any WMD at all, and deliberately manipulated reports to gain approval for the invasion of Iraq seems fairly clear.
| the Don't Know position is just as abused |
It would seem however to be the most reasonable default position whilst evidence gathering goes on.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Well, it may well be true that most conspiracies only seem to turn up years later in the historical record - |
Fine. Now just name one. If, as you say, you know for a fact they turn up later in the historical record then you just have to... er...um... you know.... name one that...er...um... you know... turned up later.. It's ever so simple.
| those who take part in them are usually very careful about keeping things hidden! |
Oh right! I see, like as in the English Conspiracy laws. It's a very well-known concept. In every crime there's an attempt to remain hidden on the part of the perpetrator on account they get punished if found out. Or two perpetrators acting together, as in the English Conspiracy laws.
| However, at present the evidence that the British government was aware that Saddam Hussein didn't seem to have any WMD at all, and deliberately manipulated reports to gain approval for the invasion of Iraq seems fairly clear. |
Lummee! That was quick, these things usually take years to emerge in the historical record apparently. We've now had four judicial enquiries on this subject and each one showed reasonably conclusively that HMG weren't aware. Thank God we have amongst us somebody who knows something all these judicial bodies couldn't find out. A red letter day for the AEL and no mistake. Don't tell us what it is, tell us how you became privy to the secret.
the Don't Know position is just as abused
It would seem however to be the most reasonable default position whilst evidence gathering goes on. |
No. For instance if somebody who you suspected had an a priori oppositional point of view towards the British Government on something and, ignoring the plain evidence of four judicial reviews, claimed "not to know" then you would be prolly correct to assume that person was using the Don't Know position as a means for ignoring evidence that didn't suit him or her. Almost always him for some reason.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Personally speaking, I am not bothered one jot...
Whether mex comes forward, with a conspiracy theory, or not.
(Conspiracy theories hold no special status good or bad)
A theory is just that a theory.
A refutation is just that a refutation.
What is the point of wasting time when the theory has been refuted?
It is not of a question of "don't know", "we can't ever fully know" "we can't be 100% sure" ( Boring philosophical argument over subject/object debate)
It is simply a question of that theory now being refuted. No shame in that, of course. Happens all the time.
What is truly strange is when the originator of a theory, insists on trying to pursue a hopeless line of enquiry, (often with increasing intellectual "brilliance") when much simpler more promising explanations are available .
Still, you are human, if you father a beautiful child.....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Still, you are human, if you father a beautiful child..... |
No, that's the whole point. You are all too human if, like Mexie, you insist on fathering somebody else's child. He claims to know that "Blair knew". Now if he were the first to make this claim then he would truly be the father and be commended by the AEL. But he is the 13,475,958th.
In the ordinary way, the AEL would ban conspiracy theories but there are two reasons why we are reluctant to do so:
1. They are undoubtedly of sociological importance and it is difficult to discuss the sociology without allowing in the theories themselves.
2. There is (alas!) a great overlap between revisionists and conspiracy theorists. The 'skills' involved seem to exist in neighbouring parts of the brain. By pointing out the absurdities of conspiracy theories it may lead someone like Mexie to free himself of the burden and then this part of the brain would be not only hugely developed but now ready for some real action.
And reason three is that even shooting fish in barrels keeps ones intellectual guns in working order.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| mexkris wrote: | | However, at present the evidence that the British government was aware that Saddam Hussein didn't seem to have any WMD at all, and deliberately manipulated reports to gain approval for the invasion of Iraq seems fairly clear. |
Really.
Do tell!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Rocky wrote: | | What about the sexual abuse scandal in the Church? Isn't it fair to say that the hierarchy conspired against children, by moving bad priests to different parishes and refusing to get rid of them. The pope still won't take responsibility and continues to blame it on Satan. |
That people conspire is a given. Often, the most obvious solution to a mystery implies conspiracy -- that a group of persons endeavored to to bring about an outcome in secret. In this sense, the fucking D-Day invasion was a conspiracy!
The concept of a "conspiracy theory" is quite something different.
A conspiracy theory is predicated on the notion that the obvious explanation is no explanation at all. It was on this basis that the allies fooled Hitler concerning the nature of the actual D-Day invasion. By feeding false information concerning a second army in Britain led by Patton, they afforded Hitler sufficient evidence for him to rationally conclude that what was obvious was untrue and that what was real was secret.
Why did this deception work?
For the same reasons all conspiracy theories prove seductive: They flatter the intelligence of those who believe them. Intelligent people set themselves apart by their ability to see through the illusions that confuse common men and their ability to comprehend the complexity of the Rube-Goldbergian devices that lie beneath apparent reality.
D-Day was a conspiracy. The notion of a second-invasion was a "conspiracy theory". One that Hitler foolishly believed.
Had he been an Applied Epidemiologist, he could have ruled the world. He would have known that the truth is never secret.
Truth is always obvious.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| nemesis8 wrote: | | A theory is just that a theory. A refutation is just that a refutation. |
That's not how Applied Epistemology works.
That is why you fail.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Let us take a True Conspiracy of Big Government, Watergate. Here there was a small number of conspirators (about twenty in all?) and two people who uncovered it (Hoffman and Redford). The interesting thing was that there were no Conspiracy Theorists! Yes, everybody and his dog thought there was high level hanky-panky as soon as the police revealed the White House phone number on one of the burglars but that is surely the point.... this kind of political chicanery is just par for the course. As Ishmael has pointed out, it doesn't flatter anybody's intelligence to say, "Blimey, they're at it again."
But now comes the AE Law of Large Numbers. Twenty conspirators was, as things turned out, way too many but Fake Moon Landings or blowing up four skyscrapers takes many more than that. On the other hand, as we have seen in the case of Liar Blair, 13,475,958 Bernsteins and Woodwards have managed so far to "follow the money".
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | Still, you are human, if you father a beautiful child..... |
No, that's the whole point. You are all too human if, like Mexie, you insist on fathering somebody else's child. He claims to know that "Blair knew". Now if he were the first to make this claim then he would truly be the father and be commended by the AEL. But he is the 13,475,958th. |
Point taken, but I am assuming that Mex has an added twist....bit like ....Tex-mex.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
The Mexican can of course answer for himself but one of the characteristics of Conspiracy Theorists is that they take pride in not having an added twist, ie NOT being original. After all, they are imagining the whole thing so it becomes vital that each claim is given a provenance and since there cannot be a true provenance they are obliged to quote (slavishly) one another.
The Texan will not only not be able to name a single Conspiracy Theory that turned out to be true but he will not (yes, it's a brand new M J Harper challenge) be able to think up a single original nuance on the entire WMD imbroglio. Here's one: Dr David Kelly was Tony Blair's fag at Bedales.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mick I am sorry to have to spell it out and use capitals but.....
Your problem, is you are far too gullible.
TB was a psychopath.
Haven't you ever noticed the similarities between David Kelly's demise and Robin Cook?
Think about it.
Both died out "walking".
Both died on a remote hill. On MINISTRY of DEFENCE land.
Both were peaceniks who held senior positions in government.
Both were opponents of Iraq war.
Both held information that would destroy Blair at any future enquiry. Blair would also have been prosecuted for war crimes.
Both were small and had beards.
Your dismissal of conspiracy theory is yet another feeble attempt to ingratiate yourself with the establishment.
History will be my judge.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Grant
|
|
|
|
Haven't you ever noticed the similarities between David Kelly's demise and Robin Cook?
Think about it.
Both died out "walking". |
I must admit that's a new conspiracy theory for me. I've always believed that Kelly was murdered, which explains why Blair was in Japan at the time following a hastily arranged meeting. And who can forget the look of complicity on his face when he was asked if he had blood on his hands?
And don't forget that the previous leader of the labour party, John Smith, conveniently died of a heart attack to allow Bliar to take over.
Unfortunately the problem with conspiracy theories is that I have never seen any evidence that the people who are alleged to have carried them out are intelligent or capable enough to have done so. And they most certainly wouldn't have been able to keep it quiet afterwards.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
Nemesis has obeyed the AEL rule and come up with a new and original wrinkle. I assume it is anyway. I was going to say that in order to acquire this originality he had to be ludicrous (as I was with my faggy-tales) but actually....reading it again... it is not too far-fetched to be acceptable by the standards of these things. Nemesis, let us know the Creative Process since this might well be an excellent example of the true origin of all Conspiracy Theories: that if enough reasonably creative people are juggling enough reasonably elastic facts, suspicious patterns will always emerge. Always.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| And don't forget that the previous leader of the labour party, John Smith, conveniently died of a heart attack to allow Bliar to take over. |
Speaking of patterns always emerging we should not forget that both Hugh Gaitskell and Aneuran Bevan 'conveniently died' (they couldn't even find the cause in either case!) allowing Harold Wilson to become a) Labour leader and b) Prime Minister. The only difference was that Wilson was a KGB agent whereas Bliar was a CIA one.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | I was going to say that in order to acquire this originality he had to be ludicrous (as I was with my faggy-tales) but actually....reading it again... it is not too far-fetched to be acceptable by the standards of these things. Nemesis, let us know the Creative Process since this might well be an excellent example of the true origin of all Conspiracy Theories... |
Beginning with the ludicrous may be essential to the creative process. Much of the 9/11 "Truther" movement was inspired by a You-Tube-Only film called "Loose Change". The makers of that movie are heroes of the movement.
However, it is now known that the film-students responsible for making Loose Change initially shopped the concept as the plot of a fictional movie script. Only when it was rejected did they create their documentary film. Moreover, the film contains many outright falsehoods that were obviously known to be false by the film-makers; for example: Photos were cropped to remove photographic evidence that refuted claims made by the narration. This would be unacceptable in a serious documentary but would have been perfectly acceptable for something put together as a piece of performance art.
I strongly suspect this was what the movie-makers believed they were doing when they made the first movie: Creating a piece of art. It was meant to fool some people -- the gullible -- but not intended to fool anyone of consequence. It was in the same genre as the "documentaries" made to promote the film *The Blair Witch Project*.
Have they managed now to convert themselves into believers in their own conspiracy?
I have no idea but they certainly are enjoying their celebrity status.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
