Conspiricy hinders Truth

[The Gentleman Scamp]

A conspiricy theorist to the truth is no different to Richard Dawkins to the truth when confronted with the subject of religion which is another example of the masses letting other people do their thinking for them or having it controlled by authority.

The difference (in my opinion) being that Rickard Dawkins has the respected title of professor but, for instance, Michael Moore (for want of a better example) is a conspiricy theorist among other things and a conspiricy theorists biggest burden is his or her title.

A friend once asked why the government don't kll Michael Moore and I said because they probably love him, the government is higher and they can make him look stupid and wrong because he is just a fat film maker on a lone quest and we are the government. If they had him killed that would prove him right.

Conspiricy Theory is just a couple of words which unfortunately have this stigma attached, which the powers that be just love because it pidgeonholes conspiricies in the same room as eccentrics and loonies, therefore allowing them to do what they do safe in the knowledge that those who know what they are up to are few and harmless thanks to these two words.

I don't like the word 'conspiricy' for this very reason, there's the truth and there is the lie, nothing else - and 'conspiricy' is just a word which the perpetrators conveniently use because it is less sobering than the word 'truth'. The word conspiricy doesn't have many friends and wears a silly hat.

Unfortunately, people don't want to believe the truth, they want to believe what they want to believe is the truth because that is easier, that is what the majority thinks and that is more accepted.

The less intelligent and the poor are in the lead in terms of reproduction, more and more people are watching television and so any hope of truth can be forgotten, and that's no conspiricy, that's sad but TRUE.

Or am I talking crap again?

[Lily]

Or am I talking crap again?

Pretty much!

[The Gentleman Scamp]

Well my point is there is a stigma attatched to the word which is a hinderance to the whole point of seeking the truth.

[stroller]

Well my point is there is a stigma attatched to the word

Which word? The word of Scampy?

[NickA]

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
con·spir·a·cy /kənˈspɪrəsi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kuhn-spir-uh-see] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun, plural -cies.

1.the act of conspiring. 2.an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot. 3.a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government. 4.Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act. 5.any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.
[Origin: 1325–75; ME conspiracie, prob. < AF; see conspire, -acy; r. ME conspiracioun; see conspiration]

[The Gentleman Scamp]

Oh well, back to the drawing board - just my 2 pesos worth.

[Baphomet]

Too many judgmental words within the definition of conspiracy. Shouldn't we be more practical and isn't it all relative? I think Scampy has a better "feel" for the word. I just want humans to like me.

[stroller]

Oh well, back to the drawing board - just my 2 pesos worth.

Sorry for my off-hand remark.
Couldn't quite make out what you were on about.

If you mean to say that those speculating about conspiracies are viewed at somewhat unfavourably by others - yes, I agree.
So, what about "conspiricy" itself, how does that hinder the truth? I suppose an implicit purpose of conspirating is to disguise the fact that this is happening, ie hinder the truth to be revealed.

Or what is it you want to discuss, what's this topic about?

[The Gentleman Scamp]

Or what is it you want to discuss, what's this topic about?

Good point, it's a bit of a non starter I suppose, something I could have pointed out in a post rather than start a thread on it.

Something we could continue on however is anti conspiricy theories, particularly 9/11. I lean toward the belief that 9/11 was something far more sinister than what we have been told yet somebody recently came up with a logical explanation r.e. the hole in the pentagon in that the wings would not have penetrated the tough exterior and that most of the debris would have been sucked into the hole.

This I thought was reasonable, but how would the anti-conspiricists (if there is such a word) takle all the other mysteries surrounding that day?

There is a site somewhere with all of these things listed, I couldn't find it but I was going to paste it and give the 'realists' , or those who believe the media, a chance to disprove all those other facts, if indeed they are facts - such as the WTC having 'workmen' turning up a week or so before that were supposedly installing something, the way the towers fell, building 7 just falling down in the late afternoon, the gold bullion dissapearing, the suspicious number of workers who were absent - I'm open to hear the answers to these questions that ARE NOT the controversial ones that we have seen on websites and found in our junkmail.

In hindsight perhaps that would have been a better thread with the OP merely a contributing post.

[NickA]

^better if you would spell conspiricy(sic) correctly...as was the point of my first post.

[The Gentleman Scamp]

I think it's time to find another forum, I seem to be forever reaping.

[danbo]

They do say that you reap what you sow.

[stroller]

There is a site somewhere with all of these things listed, I couldn't find it but I was going to paste it and give the 'realists' , or those who believe the media, a chance to disprove all those other facts

There are a few threads on this stuff, one is just a little further down on the Issues main page.