Due to the current postings of 9/11 conspiracy theories, I Googled why people believe conspiracy theories, and found this rather interesting article. I am posting the link, and hope you enjoy it as much as I did.
How Conspiracy Theories Work
by XJW4EVR 27 Replies latest social current
-
-
Sad emo
I think this is a conspiracy to get us to stop believing in conspiracy theories
Seriously, thanks for the link, it looks good. I'll have a good read when I get home from work.
-
badwillie
Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues."--H. Michael Sweeney
-
XJW4EVR
Glad to see that you learned how to link your quotes. Oh, and I am still awaiting proof that you authored the article you posted.
Now, in regards to this:
Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs' , 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates' , and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues."-- H. Michael Sweeney
Labels and name calling doesn't bother. One of the benefits of growing up JW in a very Catholic community, is that I developed a thick skin when it comes to that nonsense, and often return namecalling with humor. However, one merely has to go back to your previous posts on this topic, and the article that you allegedly wrote to see the nasty and vile namecalling you engaged in. But I understand why you do it. You do it for the same reasons most of us did it in our past life as J-Dubs. We were so convinced in our rightness, that we could not fathom that someone would have valid reasons for disagreeing with us. We had "facts" on our side, and we were taking on the "mother of all harlots." We began to think of those that stood against us as fools, or liars.
As I mentioned before, I have looked at the data and evidence, and I am convinced that there was no U.S. government plot on 9/11. If that makes me an idiot, complacent, comforatableor a coward, then so be it. I refuse to make something true because I believe it. I would rather believe something becasue it is true.
-
under_believer
> As I mentioned before, I have looked at the data and evidence,
> and I am convinced that there was no U.S. government plot on 9/11.
> If that makes me an idiot, complacent, comforatable or a coward,
> then so be it. I refuse to make something true because I believe
> it. I would rather believe something because it is true.
I have to agree 100%. I'm no civil engineer, architect, aviations expert, avionics expert, explosives expert, foreign policy expert, or any other expert of interest in this debate, but I know how to access the opinions of those who are. -
needproof
"But the Governing Body would never do anything like that"
-
badwillie
LMAO!!! @ needproof. great.
-
XJW4EVR
"But the Governing Body would never do anything like that"
This is an interesting line of thought, and something that I think is akin to guilt by association. The poster seems to be saying that unless you believe the way he believers you are still in a JW mindset. I don't think that is the case in this situation.
When I wanted to debunk the WT$ doctrine, I began to research who were the top Biblical scholars regardless of their position, liberal or conservative, to find out what was in the details of the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. Why? Because I am a layperson in those areas, and I must rely on the expert's opinion on what Scripture says, and how doctrine evolved within Christianity. In the same way, when I began to hear the various conspiracy theories thrown out on the 'Net, and on Coast to Coast, I turned to the structural engineers, architects, and other experts in the various fields that had understanding of the events that occured on that fateful day.
In short, the one thing I am looking for is the smoking gun, the memo, the unimpeachable source that confirms, beyond a reasonable doubt, that these dastardly events took place with the knowledge and blessing of the U.S. government.
-
needproof
XJW, you seem to know so much about everything, please, sir, if you would, initiate us into your wise teachings.
-
Leolaia
Logical fallacies in popular conspiracy theories:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Qhoi9E0iew
Excerpt:
"When you argue something like Saeed Sheikh is given money and there's this weird piece of evidence here about how the buildings collapsed, those two things aren't related by any chain of actual logic, there's nothing that makes it if Saeed Sheikh is corrupt, then that means that World Trade Center 1 and 2 were brought down with demolitions, that's an entirely fallacious argument and the assumption that these things have anything whatsoever to do with one or another is absurd.... Tying in with the gambler's fallacy is the tactic of "heap of evidence", where you've got a million unrelated claims that are all suspicious and taken together, "Wow, it's just overwhelming!", but look at it individually none of them have anything to do with the other thing, as like I just said. In a real case where people actually convince people of something, there is a chain of evidence, "This is true, therefore this is true, therefore this is true, therefore this is true." Not, "This is true, and then this is also true, and this is also true, and this is also true, and this is also true, therefore ... conspiracy!" That's not a valid argument structure, and that's why skeptics like myself sit around puzzling over how you can be so convinced when there is no chain of logic, it's just isolated things that you take together and look at and say well, there must be a conspiracy because they all look a "little crazy to me".... If you look at any event with the sort of scrutiny you're applying, you can find these coincidences. There were all kinds of guys on board the Titanic who had connections to the Masons, in fact there was a guy who had just come from a meeting with the Vatican, who was on board. So basically any event you want to take and look at, there's strange coincidences. Everytime you get dealt a hand in cards, it's a strange coincidence. You get a six of clubs, a seven of hearts, a three of diamonds, a King of diamonds, and an ace of spades. What were the chances, what are the actual chances you're going to get that hand? Does that mean you weren't dealt that hand? When you look at it as this heap of weird coincidences, you're not looking at the events for what they are. The tendency for debunkers to actually look at one event at a time is because you want to avoid red herrings. Because as soon as you kind of chip away at somebody's arguments about explosives in Tower 7, they'll shift it over to something like, "Why did NORAD do this?" "Why was this happening?" "Why was this?" because they don't want to actually be defeated on one point, and if it was a real argument, that one point would actually dissolve a chain of logic and you wouldn't be left with an argument if you can actually disprove any point. But if I disprove even 50 of the things that are claimed by various people in the "Truth" movement, there's still another 50 claims and I'm sure they can come up with another 50 more that they're still going to say, "Well what about this?" "Well, what about this?" "Well, what about this?" So it doesn't even matter trying to attack the entire bundle of weird things that you don't understand or just refuse to understand, you can't ever engage anything like that. You have to deal with everything point by point."
The same guy also presents a satire conspiracy theory on the Titanic using these same tactics: