reply to post by Schmidt1989
While I agree that one should be open minded but not so open minded that one's brain falls out (in fact I say those exact words A LOT), i disagree
that one should determine their opinion on a conspiracy theory simply on the basis of its respectfulness. In fact, I would hazard that some of the
most questionable conspiracies that have occurred actually relied on respect as a cover for their actions. Respect isn't given; it is earned.
Should we respect the research of scientists simply because they "spent years" on that research? It depends on what that research was. Perhaps I
am misunderstanding your statements but using respect for someone's years of research would seem to excuse such real events like the testing of
amnesia inducing drugs on cancer patients in hospice. (Source: www.intelligence.senate.gov...
) If we were to use respect for
scientific research as a reason to not question whether a conspiracy exists or not, then we would have never had the uncovering of the MK-ULTRA
In fact, I would hazard that the realization that a conspiracy may exist almost requires an inherent disrespect as it is the act of asking those
questions that many would find uncomfortable to ask and against the status quo. Conspiracies exist in areas where acceptance and respect are granted
without question. Using the idea that asking those questions which may be hurtful to another person's years of research or effort as a factor in
deciding whether a conspiracy exists is completely illogical. Accusers of possible steroid use for Lance Armstrong were considered to be immensely
disrespectful both on the basis of all of his years of effort and on the basis of his being a cancer survivor. However, at the end of the day, those
accusers were correct and Armstrong, himself, admitted to the indiscretion. If we all just operated under the appreciation of X years of effort for
everyone, then we all might as well be wearing rose colored glasses for fear of hurting another person's feelings.
Humanity, pockets of groups and individuals can do both great things and horrific things. As an anthropology major, have you read Victims of Progress
by John H. Bodley yet? Do you comprehend that people can spend years of their life working on something or doing something only to have it go
absolutely foul? To operate under the presumption that everyone always acts in a positive way, especially if they are more vested by X years of
effort, risks ignoring both reality and history, itself. Has there ever been a case where a star athlete agreed to throw a game? Absolutely. Has
there ever been a case where a scientist fudged their data? Absolutely.
Have you ever heard the story of Bernie Madoff? Bernie Madoff was the creator and founder of NASDAQ. He might as well have been a god of the
markets. Yet, when people started saying that something was going on with Madoff and began accusing him of possibly operating a Ponzi scheme, those
people were ignored, all the way up through the SEC. So many warnings and complaints went completely ignored because Madoff was so successful
throughout his life. He created NASDAQ, after all. In the end, it took his own sons turning Madoff in for his Ponzi scheme. The sheer unthinkable
act of one's children reporting their father's wrongdoing was the only thing that shook Madoff off of his pedestal, uncovered his crimes and put him
in jail. Everyone else respected Madoff far too much for all that he had done over the years.
When I see people's brains falling out is when they cherry pick evidence while ignoring evidence to the contrary, which is a logical fallacy. Can
years of effort be used to prove that something occurred? Absolutely as it may provide a cohesive timeline of evidence that leads to proving that
something did, in fact, occur. However, to err is human. To think that there is no error in judgment or goodness is to deny our own humanity. That
is just as much a logical fallacy as cherry picking is.