Questioner
Senior Member
- Nov 26, 2019
- 1,593
- 84
- 50
- Banned
- #1
Conspiracy theories, are of course, a historical and contemporary fact and reality, whether Watergate, or something older such as the business plot, or one of the few outlandish ones such as MK Ultra (and its alleged ties to Ted Kaczynski, or the Unabomber).
Now of course, not all conspiracy theories are equally valid or believable, some are patently absurd by the nature of them (usually ones which involve something highly outlandish such as "Illuminati", and tend to be of the veign that 'everything', not just some things, are conspiracy theories).
Regardless, I frequently see the moronic just use and abuse this term in reference to stereotypical outlandish or absurd things akin to shows like the X-files, rather than real conspiracy theories as the ones I mentioned above.
Some being so insipid as to not know basic things such as the difference between a scientific theory and a 'conspiracy theory', or what the silly used and abused term "debunked" actually means; as in nothing, it merely means a person made an argument against something on the basis of some facts or logic, not that counter-arguments, often better in facts and substance to begin with can't be made in reprisal.
(As an example, often a silly website, such as Snopes.com or something is sourced in regards to making an argument on the basis of said facts or information, in reality of course the website is just one of many blogs out there making an argument, which some people tend to favor for some reason or another, despite likely not even knowing or being able to follow the logic of the argument to begin with, as opposed to merely posting it as a source of argument, when of course it has no more inherent authority outside of whatever actual merits there are in regards to the argument or arguments themselves than any other website or attempt at argumentation does.
Often something as simply and easily refutable as a simple ad populum or other childish argument from authority fallacy or sorts, showing that the idiots who so often use this term don't seem to even grasp the basic fats or processes of debate or Aristolean logic to begin with.
Now of course, not all conspiracy theories are equally valid or believable, some are patently absurd by the nature of them (usually ones which involve something highly outlandish such as "Illuminati", and tend to be of the veign that 'everything', not just some things, are conspiracy theories).
Regardless, I frequently see the moronic just use and abuse this term in reference to stereotypical outlandish or absurd things akin to shows like the X-files, rather than real conspiracy theories as the ones I mentioned above.
Some being so insipid as to not know basic things such as the difference between a scientific theory and a 'conspiracy theory', or what the silly used and abused term "debunked" actually means; as in nothing, it merely means a person made an argument against something on the basis of some facts or logic, not that counter-arguments, often better in facts and substance to begin with can't be made in reprisal.
(As an example, often a silly website, such as Snopes.com or something is sourced in regards to making an argument on the basis of said facts or information, in reality of course the website is just one of many blogs out there making an argument, which some people tend to favor for some reason or another, despite likely not even knowing or being able to follow the logic of the argument to begin with, as opposed to merely posting it as a source of argument, when of course it has no more inherent authority outside of whatever actual merits there are in regards to the argument or arguments themselves than any other website or attempt at argumentation does.
Often something as simply and easily refutable as a simple ad populum or other childish argument from authority fallacy or sorts, showing that the idiots who so often use this term don't seem to even grasp the basic fats or processes of debate or Aristolean logic to begin with.
