I'm not sure why you love the idea of a conspiracy. I think that most people who sign onto conspiracies do so because it is where the most credible evidence leads... not because they have some innate desire to spin a yarn as Michael Shermer may rationalize. Typically, any alternate theory sinks or swims with the empirical evidence, or lack thereof, that would bolster it.
George Orwell wrote: Who controls the past, controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past. This means that those people who disseminate what we see, eg news outlets, politicians, government, popular culture outlets have a distinct advantage in shaping how we collectively view the world. Is there desire to maintain their status as the purveyors of reality compatible with a healthy skepticism? If you think not... then you may just be a whacko conspiracy theorist... despite the much maligning the moniker bears.
Come on Miguel... you're going to have to give some examples if you are going to generalize this way. I'll grant you that a number of conspiracies are overblown, but to reason that some being overblown suggests that most or all are is a fallacious argument. Without listing examples, no one may take your assessment to task on a case by case basis... as any so called "conspiracy theory" should be paid consideration... on its own merits. For what it is worth... I have been very open in acknowledging the so called "conspiracy" theories I promote and I invite any takers to argue and make their case as to how I may be embellishing or mistaken for that matter at my posts or questions. Popular sentiment is anathema to truth.
Again, I am saying that every argument should be evaluated on its own merits. It is folly to reason that because there are some preposterous... unsubstantiated claims made implicating a conspiracy, most dissident views are therefore unfounded. I think that there are many valid reasons to suspect certain state funded conspiracies and whenever I make the argument, I provide the accompanying evidence for scrutiny. Why shouldn't an opposing viewpoint offer up any supporting examples? I am not insinuating that Miguel lacks examples... but perhaps his examples may better illustrate the point I am making.
I like conspiracies too, but they don't go much else from there. Conspiracies, to me, are usually based on a small piece or no evidence at all and they blow it out of proportion.
I dunno if there is just something enjoyable about finding someone to blame or if it's because of how logical it looks at first glance but conspiracies are fun to look at but they're not good for much else.
hmmm im really interested in those 9/11 conspiracy's...
seen the one about the news stations (cnn and pals) were broadcasting the same footage but with altered digital backgrounds....
now that one seems real.... ill PM you the doc if you want XD
Yea I think we like the idea of them because they are entertaining and cool. I think humans are just destined to always have an enemy and whats cooler, crazier and more intriguing than a corporation or administration on the inside?
oh, my mistake, theirs so many meaning for conspiracy..Lol oh umm, in that case you should hear my brother hes obsessed with those kind of stuff..
Because its the idea of actually finding answers beyond the common mind that intrigues you! in other words, your not going to be fooled!
you make a good point but I don't think he has to give examples. I mean we can't think of any but we know it's true.
I mean like a government-based conspiracy y'know like in shows and stuff... it's cool I don't know why...
Does it have to do with more then one person join to commit such an action?
Because it is tricky and requires genius to create one :-)