Exposure To Conspiracy "May Have Negative Effect"

a reply to: Astyanax

Hardly I just avoid such blanket statements athta are incoreect and proven so Time and time again.
BUT HEY if need to hide from it by all means keeo running.
THE rest of us will continue to keep our eyes open and watch these things.
10 YEARs and NEVER have seen one...wow.
MONARCH comes to mind and THAT was listed too...but TO YOU it never happened right?

a reply to: cavtrooper7

I have already explained the difference between a conspiracy and a conspiracy theory. Sorry if you're not getting it.

a reply to: Astyanax

So long as you seek to insist on self defining terms not applicable to all, ONE of us isn't getting something.

a reply to: Astyanax

Pardon the delay in responding. Frankly, I will admit to some skepticism about the nature of your repeated request. I suspect there is a sophistic play at work, and I find it an unnecessary trapping in a real discussion.

What you ask for is, in my humble understanding, a theory which includes a conspiracy... but that there can be no proof; no antecedents, no correlations... A simple conspiracy theory.... well here's one for you. You.

It's smarmy and pedantic, I know, but you have insisted for a response and I propose that you set out to use this idea of someone offering up any theory which was identified as a conspiracy theory..., but there can be no one alleging anything or corroborating anything - because that would be proof of a conspiracy, and thus the theory was not a theory but was instead a fact, thus there was no conspiracy theory per se.

This, I believe is the idea I feel you propose.

A young misguided soldier was entrusted in his duty to secure classified information, he found the information conspiratorial and alarming, so he "leaked it." His leaked information did shake up some bad folks, but in the end, it mattered not. His was a conspiracy theory; which may or may not have been true. Does the implied fact that there was no resolution for the conspirators mean there was no theory?

Now, of course, I would have been tempted to comment on the so-called Chemtrail conspiracy, or UFO coverups, or heaven forfend, the Illuminati... just for the exercise itself... but I don't know that you are actually interested in a discussion of that nature... I just don't get that 'feel' from our discussion.

In closing, I would urge you to accept that this is not meant as malice, or a nasty thing to say; but to presume that all conspiracy is hatched deep and dark in some bubble, and isn't observed by anyone prior to it's public discovery seems idealistic and argumentative.

M

a reply to: Maxmars

Gosh, that was very formal.

No, I'm not trying to trap anyone in a logical double-bind. I will say that the difficulties you, cavtrooper7 and others are having in making this out do seem to hint at how and why some people become susceptible to conspiracy theories. I am actually rather surprised at your incomprehension; it all seems straightforward enough to me.

Your hypothetical scenario, though, should help illustrate more precisely the difference I am pointing out.

A young misguided soldier was entrusted in his duty to secure classified information, he found the information conspiratorial and alarming, so he "leaked it." His leaked information did shake up some bad folks, but in the end, it mattered not. His was a conspiracy theory; which may or may not have been true. Does the implied fact that there was no resolution for the conspirators mean there was no theory?

There was no theory. There was a real conspiracy, which he uncovered, to no effect. At no time did this young soldier devise a conspiracy theory; he had the fact to hand, so he had no need to.

Do you see the difference now? Conspiracy theories don't begin with solid evidence of conspiracy, uncovered by someone in contact with the conspirators or in close proximity to them. Those aren't theories.

Conspiracy theories begin with what looks like evidence of a conspiracy to someone not connected with the supposed conspirators — evidence usually obtained from the media, or through folklore or hearsay. On closer examination, this 'evidence' almost always turns out to be spurious, which is why I say that all conspiracy theories are false.

To presume that all conspiracy is hatched deep and dark in some bubble, and isn't observed by anyone prior to it's public discovery seems idealistic and argumentative.

But, as you see, I am not presuming that.

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Nice man :/ I let the world and my own will power get me down early in life and wasn't able to build a foundation. I'm not sure how it will work out for me, but if I stop aspiring to be like the big boys maybe I'll get somewhere. Or I could just become a terrorist. Whatever happens.

a reply to: c0gN1t1v3D1ss0nanC3

Definitely, History got me into conspiracy actually. I always read about how the Us was in with Iraq when I was a kid, but never understood it all. Eventually I watched a documentary on 9/11 and I woke up like crazy. Now I try to change the world one word at a time, because authority pretty well controls every other aspect of our lives. Words are all we have. Words are power.

a reply to: Astyanax

Hey dude. As someone above already mentioned - The "Conspiracy" theories you're arguing about are normally muddied up by idiots like myself. Most of you skeptic people are all science-loving, mind controlled, (Insert clever insult here), so it makes sense you cling to authority and the fake truths that happen to spew from it's mouth.

However - maybe I'm wrong - maybe you don't trust authority but at the same time you refuse information that sounds different and or appalling to you.

After all, psychology WOULD suggest that.

I like you though. You're trying. It may be that you're trying to disprove "Conspiracy theories" but at least you're trying your own thing.

a reply to: soulwaxer

originally posted by: Astyanax
ATS would be nothing without people like me.

originally posted by: soulwaxer
It would be heaven!

Yes. A fools' Paradise.

I reserve judgement for the actual study, which might have a legitimate point, although these types of studies always have some kind of problem and it takes time to check them and cross check them with other studies to cover some of the problems.

However this looks like it might be part of the propaganda stereotyping conspiracies. They put out so many irrational conspiracies and mix them up with the more rational ones then they stereotype them all.

However it is depressing when the government is so reluctant to respond to real disclosure. At the same time, they are doing so when large numbers of people speak up. This is slow and it isn't being reported by the media anymore than the more rational media but it is happening.

There is also evidence to indicate that even though the most irrational conspiracies are all seriously flawed there is something bigger going on and regardless of the results of the study it is peoples best interest to keep an open mind with real rational skepticism.