A Question

everittdmickey (73) in conspiracy-theory • 6 years ago

For Conspiracy Theorists.
...................................................................................................................................................................
you say.
The Moon Landing is a Hoax.

The Earth is Flat

.
Vaccines are bad for us.

.
Chemtrails are...er...something.

.
Weather Control

.
GeoEngineering
.
Lizard people from...somewhere

and many other things
.
(there are so MANY theories)

.
You say that the government/big corporations
are
Lying, hiding the information from us.
It's all a lie you say.

OK.

Assume that it is true.
It's all a lie.

How can we know that you aren't lying too?

DeepFake/PhotoShop and CGI comes to mind.

with today's technology almost anyone who wants to
can make a convincing video

are you?

why should we trust YOU?

conspiracy-theory discussion

6 years ago by everittdmickey (73)

$0.81

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!

Sort Order:

Trending

[-]

vimukti-ananda (44) · 6 years ago (edited)

well, actually "conspiracy theorist" is more like a .... "under-belt-punch" (or "hit below the belt") or more particularly like an argumentum ad hominem.
(based on assumption that discrediting a person makes his argument or statement automatically "defeated" too LOL)
it is the easiest trick often employed especially by "scientists", mainstream media and of course politicians.

oh, and BTW, what's that other typical one - "Loaded Question"? ;)
like here: "you, conspiracy theorists, say that ...." - that's a very neat trick! :D
it automatically brands not only those who actually say so, but even anyone who slightly support any of those things - as a "conspiracy theorists".

talking about, trust, convincing ...
normally the "burden of proof" lies on person who accuses other party (i.e. plaintiff or persecution), not other way around (on the one who is accused). thus it is not for all those who are branded as a "conspiracy theorists" (BTW often too hastily, another fallacy of "hasty generalization") to produce the facts and evidences, but rather those who make certain statements, claiming that such and such information is "fake" (or a "conspiracy theory")

there are some online Forums and groups, like one of the most known and popular is "Above Top Secret", where a lot of people regularly do exactly that: prove fake / wrong some various information aka "debunk" it. however they do it precisely with their own FACTS - present their own sufficient proofs, not just make general branding of something what they do not like or simply can't disprove with logic, reasoning and solid facts as a "conspiracy theory" - thinking that it would automatically refute or defeat that thing.

I'm not a supporter of any "theory", but I just wanted to point out these "rules of engagement" sort of, which are a common sense in any serious enough discussion. especially since as I can see - you are well aware of the logical fallacies and try to point out when you think they are being used.

I'm not even talking about different methods of obtaining information / knowledge and accordingly those "evidences". because even so called "scientific method", based on Empirical Evidence (i.e. acquired through direct personal sense perception), is often too questionable, unreliable and most of all can NOT be used by majority of average of ordinary common people. what to talk about some other methods ...

so, what I mean is: MOST of all those subjects mentioned in this post actually beyond abilities of both sides (who may support of those and oppose too) have very little or no any means and facilities to actually prove or disprove any of that!

therefore, IMO, it is useless and may be waste of time to argue about all such things. because neither side would be able to produce sufficient evidences but only rely upon some 3rd (or even 4th, 5th .... Xth) party and practically just believe that.

well, if only may be "just for fun" ? :)

$0.05

1 vote

[-]

everittdmickey (73) · 6 years ago

well, actually "conspiracy theorist" is more like a .... "under-belt-punch" (or "hit below the belt") or more particularly like an argumentum ad hominem

why so?

each and every one of them are about conspiracies to do this or that.
(just ask them...they'll explain in GREAT detail)
each and every one of them are theoretical.
(just ask them...they'll explain in GREAT detail)
what other name would you use?
Perhaps conspiracy speculators?

$0.00

[-]

vimukti-ananda (44) · 6 years ago

because of the reasons I've mentioned already in 1st comment.
(perhaps later I'll make my own detailed post on this subject.
thanks for giving me an idea ! 🙂 )
BTW the phrase "conspiracy theory" is an oxymoron in itself.
also, apart from being used as "ad hominem", it is also sort of "straw-man" and may be in some sense "red-herring" too. 😃
(well, that's interesting that it is related to so many )

what other name would you use?

can use many various names, say: entertainment, fun (or boredom), trolling, promoting / generating traffic / click-baits / eye-catching headlines/ sensitization etc etc - just on such a short notice, list can go on and on...
Yellow press employs many of these different tricks for what, already couple of centuries?
while ordinary users of internet (and social media) are most likely just trying to get more followers / subscribers / likes (votes) etc - which all comes to trying to Earn more.
I doubt it very much that majority of those people who publish all that stuff believe it themselves. LOL

although won't be surprised if there are all sorts of agencies which purposely spread such various info "info-injections" into crowds - for all sort of purposes; most basic one: to divert public attention elsewhere when needed... kinda "Kansas city shuffle" ... like for example now this ongoing "show must go on" all over internet and YT about girl from Dr.Phil's show and that it's apparently a "fake story" (good point about deception mentioned in there)

$0.00

[-]

ironshield (69) · 6 years ago

Everyone has a belief system and will usually only trust those who fit within that belief system.

Posted using Partiko Android

$0.00

1 vote

[-]

krazyuncle (45) · 6 years ago

Which is harder to believe?
That people with great power will use that power to influence things in their favor, or that people with great power would use that power to influence things for the good of all?

In the end it comes down to this... poor people of all races, and creeds have more in common with each other than they do with those people with great power... and yet those with great power work tirelessly to divide the poor along any lines that are convenient -- a divided and distracted people are weakened... just prime for the harvest by those with power...