posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 02:50 PM
Reviewing a lot of the posts, it appears that a great many people here have an interest in "truth". We were told in my first year of German studies
that truth does not exist, there is only the search for the truth, and that is always noble. (I think that's paraphrasing Goethe.)
Official history has some truth, perhaps, and many lies. So this site begs an ontological question about whether truth can be objectively defined.
Do witnessess in a text prove its veracity, even if they are sorely lacking outside those texts? (Like most religious people try to prove the veracity
of their scriptures). Do social truths prove knowledge, rather than giving cures for cancer that provably work, or for other diseases? (No text that
claims "knowledge" can provide this without major, problematic conditions.) How can we define a conspiracy site, when the "average Joe" still
believes in past racial/gender stereotypes that are now delineated from currently defined theory into extreme politics? Food for thought, I suppose.
And then, how does society change its views on what is socially acceptable, why is it no longer polite to conspirate on race, but with gay/gender
issues any Tom, Dick or Harry can pull out some verse and hateful opinion? Enjoy the banquet!