What is more incorrect? Believing everything is a conspiracy or believing conspiracies never happen?

What is more incorrect? Believing everything is a conspiracy or believing conspiracies never happen?

What do you think?

reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman


Both.

John_Rodger_Cornman
What is more incorrect? Believing everything is a conspiracy or believing conspiracies never happen?

Extremes are bad, ok.

Of course conspiracies occur. In a million ways, all around the world every day, people are having private discussions about all sorts of topics, and keeping these discussions secret from various people.

But you cannot then extrapolate this truth to "ALL claims of conspiracy are true".

reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman


are they still following you by any chance?

You would have to be naive to believe there are no conspiracies at work in this world but to believe everything is a conspiracy would send you insane, it would be impossible to state one is more incorrect than the other, obviously the answer lies somewhere in the middle.

reply to post by alfa1


So you do agree that conspiracies do occur quite often on a regular basis just like non-conspiratorial social agreement happen all the time?

Do you also agree that people knowingly executing a conspiratorial act will do so in secret or right out in public view subject to public scrutiny?

Who benefits more from a conspiracy to commit a crime,abuse an elected office or breach established procedure/policy, a powerful individual or a not-so-powerful individual?

reply to post by alfa1


Agreed. Do some conspiracies exist? Without a doubt. We have a very, very long history of conspiracies throughout history. Heck, technically, the assassination of Julius Caeser was a conspiracy back in the day. Bank robbers conspire. John Wilkes Booth conspired against Abraham Lincoln. It's kind of human nature to conspire really when you think about it.

However, that does not mean that everything is a conspiracy. I'd hazard that the larger part of "what's out there" is basically the collision of various self-interests of a variety of entities. The major defining point for a conspiracy is the agreement to do illegal acts for that goal.

reply to post by TechniXcality


No one is following me.

I say a lot of things for effect. Doesn't mean I believe it.

reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman


i do

Both ends of the spectrum are equally incorrect. To believe everything is a conspiracy is incorrect because there is no way everything can be a conspiracy. On the flip side to be completely blind and deny that conspiracies happen and have been proven to exist in our past is down right purposefully ignorant.

A healthy mind can entertain all possibilities without believing them fully and will use reason and logic to determine the most likely cause based on facts and data, be it conspiracy or otherwise.

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
- Aristotle

This is the signature line for another ATS member. I don't remember who has it though, so i apologize in advance for not giving credit where credit is due. This quote has stuck with me because it hits the nail on the head, especially here on ATS

DC

reply to post by TechniXcality


do what?

alfa1

John_Rodger_Cornman
What is more incorrect? Believing everything is a conspiracy or believing conspiracies never happen?

Extremes are bad, ok.

"Everything in excess, moderations is for monks!" (a quote from someplace). BTW, Perfect Paranoia is Perfect Awareness ;-)

Cheers - Dave

xDeadcowx
Both ends of the spectrum are equally incorrect. To believe everything is a conspiracy is incorrect because there is no way everything can be a conspiracy. On the flip side to be completely blind and deny that conspiracies happen and have been proven to exist in our past is down right purposefully ignorant.

A healthy mind can entertain all possibilities without believing them fully and will use reason and logic to determine the most likely cause based on facts and data, be it conspiracy or otherwise.

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
- Aristotle

This is the signature line for another ATS member. I don't remember who has it though, so i apologize in advance for not giving credit where credit is due. This quote has stuck with me because it hits the nail on the head, especially here on ATS

DC

Exactly I totally agree.

I don't trust anything unless I was there in person and observed it with my own eyes and listened to it with my own ears.

There is too much fraud and "entertainment" nowadays.

I think a closed mind is an ignorant mind ....but one too open sees your brains fall out and plop on the floor and that's just rude.

So, both extremes are bad.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Define what is "too open"?

What does that mean?
How closed minded do you have to be?
How do you measure that?

reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman


Well, I would keep it simple here to say that 'too open' would be believing things which don't sound logical or personally make sense without getting more sources and being sure. Generally also believing much of anything which isn't reasonable on the face of it, or by a real small circle of people someone comes to trust in life ..without at least 2 sources.

Call me cynical.....I am these days.

Both probably because either end of that spectrum is close minded.

I prefer to always evaluate the evidence and make my decisions that way.. problem is there's rarely good evidence provided, but lots of conjecture and assuming.

Both equal the same amount of frustration in me, the person who is blatantly ignorant and unwilling to believe that such things are very real, is just as crazy as the person who thinks everything is a conspiracy in my opinion.

The balance is hard though, talk about information overload, it's never clear cut, so do I blame the non believer for his/her seeming ignorance? or the paranoid believer his/her paranoia?

No I don't!

Go the middle course.

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman

 

Well, I would keep it simple here to say that 'too open' would be believing things which don't sound logical or personally make sense without getting more sources and being sure. Generally also believing much of anything which isn't reasonable on the face of it, or by a real small circle of people someone comes to trust in life ..without at least 2 sources.

Call me cynical.....I am these days.

Ok.
so if I believe in things that are written in academic journals, seminars,whitepapers,autobiographies, a .mil site or a .gov site that is a valid source right?

I mean if some large number of elected official claims they want to end national sovereignty and usher in world governance, is it Ok to believe in a coming world government?