Philosophy bites podcast on conspiracy Theories

Reg'stoy

Interesting podcast from Philosophy Bites

For those who consider themselves CT'ers it's non judgmental(ish), rather it is a look at the mindset and reasons why an individual believes in Conspiracy Theories.
Considering this is the CT forum, I didn't deliberately go looking for this podcast. I had studied Philosophy and like to listen to Podcasts on the subject and this happened to be one of them.
The podcast is about 20mins long and should be of interest to all sides of the this forum. I will say that the interviewer and the interviewee talk in particular about the 9/11 CT but don't concentrate wholly on it.
I'd be interested to see if certain individuals on this forum view the Podcast as an good intellectual discussion on the subject or just another attempt to marginalise CT'ers

http://ec.libsyn.com/p/9/5/b/95b375ab76a173c8/Quassim_Cassam_on_Conspiracy_Theories.mp3?d13a76d516d9dec20c3d276ce028ed5089ab1ce3dae902ea1d06cb8e37d5cc5ef6b5&c_id=8965257

enno99

Reg'stoy wrote: »

Interesting podcast from Philosophy Bites

For those who consider themselves CT'ers it's non judgmental(ish), rather it is a look at the mindset and reasons why an individual believes in Conspiracy Theories.
Considering this is the CT forum, I didn't deliberately go looking for this podcast. I had studied Philosophy and like to listen to Podcasts on the subject and this happened to be one of them.
The podcast is about 20mins long and should be of interest to all sides of the this forum. I will say that the interviewer and the interviewee talk in particular about the 9/11 CT but don't concentrate wholly on it.
I'd be interested to see if certain individuals on this forum view the Podcast as an good intellectual discussion on the subject or just another attempt to marginalise CT'ers

http://ec.libsyn.com/p/9/5/b/95b375ab76a173c8/Quassim_Cassam_on_Conspiracy_Theories.mp3?d13a76d516d9dec20c3d276ce028ed5089ab1ce3dae902ea1d06cb8e37d5cc5ef6b5&c_id=8965257

I read an article somewhere it seemed like a transcript of this I will try find it

Anyway about 2min in he says 911 manifestly false but the evidence only seems to be there ?

Its either there or its not dont you think ? maybe hes not sure either ?

enno99

I think the same guy is getting funded by Cameron in 2016 to do a study to back up Camerons theory that CTres are potential terrorists

Reg'stoy

enno99 wrote: »

I think the same guy is getting funded by Cameron in 2016 to do a study to back up Camerons theory that CTres are potential terrorists

Would you have a link to your claim because he is been funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council to carry out a study.

I find it interesting that rather than comment on the podcast you attempt to discredit the person being interviewed in it; something which you accuse non CT'ers of doing all the time.

enno99

Reg'stoy wrote: »

Would you have a link to your claim because he is been funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council to carry out a study.

I find it interesting that rather than comment on the podcast you attempt to discredit the person being interviewed in it; something which you accuse non CT'ers of doing all the time.

Government run by Cameron

The Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) was established in April 2005 as successor to the Arts and Humanities Research Board and is a British Research Council; non-departmental public body that provides approximately £102 million from the government

Reg'stoy

enno99 wrote: »

Government run by Cameron

The Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) was established in April 2005 as successor to the Arts and Humanities Research Board and is a British Research Council; non-departmental public body that provides approximately £102 million from the government

I'm paraphrasing from the Podcast here "those when given irrefutable proof from a peer reviewed study, will simply state it was a government study and ignore it".

enno99

Reg'stoy wrote: »

I'm paraphrasing from the Podcast here "those when given irrefutable proof from a peer reviewed study, will simply state it was a government study and ignore it".

Irrefutable proof of what ?

enno99

Reg'stoy wrote: »

I
I'd be interested to see if certain individuals on this forum view the Podcast as an good intellectual discussion on the subject or just another attempt to marginalise CT'ers

Just another attempt to marginalise CT'ers I think

Joshua J

There's a skeptic forum for this.. You agree with this because it confirms your bias that all CT'ers think wrong which is what you accuse CT'ers of doing. Funny that. Second week in a row skeppies posting garbage looking for a rise.

Reg'stoy

enno99 wrote:

Irrefutable proof of what ?

Proof that some people are so close minded that even before a study had made a finding they will ignore it because they are so frightened it will show them to be the idiots they actually are.
At least those who debunk nonsense CT's do so based on the evidence or lack of it offered. They don't ignore genuine evidence or indeed PROPER studies because they will not like the outcome.
But I suppose having all of your craziness exposed to natural sunlight rather than the shadows of the idiot forums like Icke's and jone's, would be a pretty terrifying prospect.

Reg'stoy

Joshua J wrote:

There's a skeptic forum for this.. You agree with this because it confirms your bias that all CT'ers think wrong which is what you accuse CT'ers of doing. Funny that. Second week in a row skeppies posting garbage looking for a rise.

Apologies, I just happened to assume that this was a discussion forum where people put forward their opinions in the expectation that other posters would either agree or disagree or indeed enter into an adult discourse based on the post.
I would have assumed that someone would actually have listened to the Podcast before commenting.
So how exactly is it garbage, was he wrong in his accretion that some CT'ers become radicalised, look at the states and anti-government groups. But I suppose they are government plants in your tin foil hat wearing eyes.
What's wrong with some CT'ers is that they are so far down the rabbit hole when they realise that they were wrong, but rather than admit to being wrong and appear stupid, they prefer to be the village idiot because they think the village idiot God love him, is pityed rather than mocked.
I'll admit that I first started posting here in Ct because I genuinely thought that they can't be that f**king dumb, they're just saying that for comedic value. Then much like when I first ventured onto those scary forums of icke and jones and thought woah these fruitcakes actually believe they put cancer in vaccines to kill us all or what ever Jones and icke are attempting to sell them.
Horrible thing is, there are genuine people out there myself included who like to make up their own minds based on their own opinions and not feed at the trough of lunacy.
Do governments tell us the truth; no. Are they trying to kill us off; ffs who even thinks that and why. But the problem is that the loons prevent actual proper discourse on what is actually going on. One real CT I'd like to put forward is this; Governments and big Business actually prey on the bewildered CT'ers feeding them more and more outrageous unbelievable nonsense, knowing full well that they will swallow it hook line and sinker and so hide the truth from a genuinely curious public who fear the taint of idiocy that now attaches to any one who might question their actions. Well played Governments and Big Businesses, well played indeed.

Joshua J

You're here cause you hate CT'ers and your posts drip of it so don't give me any other bull or reasons for being here. This is a forum for the discussion of conspiracy theories which you have zero interest in only having a go at people you consider "idiots". I listened to five minutes. They mentioned a guy called Russo and how he believed people were out to get him as an example of a conspiracy theorist. Then they admit people WERE ACTUALLY OUT TO GET HIM. Skeppy dead brain at its best.

You're interest is conspiracy theorists so go to the skeptic forum or psychology forum if you wanna have a girly gossip about them and leave this forum for people to discuss CT's without having to deal with people like you.

Saipanne

So 'skeppy'... is that a derogatory term?

Overheal

This forum is as much open for theorists as skeptics to contribute to, and there is nothing inherently wrong with a meta-convo about theorists/skeptics. Less of the sweeping generalizations on both sides - Reg you opened this thread under the guise "non-judgemental(ish)" and then started going on about idiots and fruitcakes and f**cking dumb village idiots. Josh J rather than report posts that are substandard, you engaged them.

Lets bring the tone of this conversation back up please. Thanks for your attention.

Reg'stoy

Joshua J wrote: »

only having a go at people you consider "idiots". I listened to five minutes. They mentioned a guy called Russo and how he believed people were out to get him as an example of a conspiracy theorist. Then they admit people WERE ACTUALLY OUT TO GET HIM. Skeppy dead brain at its best.

The gentleman they mentioned was Jean Jacques Rousseau, his written work "The Social Contract" among others were considered 'political' and subversive. As mentioned in the Podcast, some people were indeed out to get him because of his theories on Government or state control. His correct and justified fear that people were out to get him, led him to believe that 'everyone' was out to get him. A perfect example of how someone has allowed a truth to expand beyond its boundaries.

Personally I believe someone who passes comment on something they haven't even bothered to view or read in its entirety, to be close minded and see the highlighted word above. In fairness you have proven one of the points made in the podcast about CT'ers being as I said, close minded and ignoring everything bar the 'truth' they believe.

I will read or view any post or video put forward by someone and wait to pass judgement. In another thread someone had posted a video and it had the david icke name on it, I still watched it, but alarm bells went off. I watched the entire video and researched the person mentioned in it, only to find out he had been jailed for making hoax calls. Based on this evidence I am I believe correct, in discounting the nonsense claims of a known hoax.

Am I wrong to doubt the structural integrity of a house built on sand?

Joshua J wrote: »

You're interest is conspiracy theorists so go to the skeptic forum or psychology forum if you wanna have a girly gossip about them and leave this forum for people to discuss CT's without having to deal with people like you.

I think there may be a wee hint in the title of the forum "theories". Theories are unproven and so up for debunking or not. It would be a very boring forum if every thread was a single post of a CT and everyone was to take it as Gospel.

My original post was made because I thought it would be of interest to some contributors, I knew some would not like it, because it would maybe shine a light on their beliefs. To pass comment on it without having even listened to it in its entirety, well shows you for what you are.

Someone who believes in idiotic theories is an.... nonsensical theories are..... I'm intrigued as to what you mean by girly gossip. Does this show your attitude to the female gender, are arguments won by the person with their fingers in the ears, shouting the loudest.

Overheal

Joshua J wrote: »

I think there may be a wee hint in the title of the forum "theories". Theories are unproven and so up for debunking or not. It would be a very boring forum if every thread was a single post of a CT and everyone was to take it as Gospel.

Actually I had wondered about pushing to rename the forum "Conspiracies" owing to the fact that Conspiracies start as theories and later can be proven or disproven, even if that is not always the case. An example would be CTs about wiretapping which turned out to be very true.

endacl

Saipanne wrote: »

So 'skeppy'... is that a derogatory term?

A skeppy is a sheeple with an opinion.

Saipanne

endacl wrote: »

A skeppy is a sheeple with an opinion.

Double derogatory!

Overheal

So lets not use that again.

Joshua J

Reg'stoy wrote: »

The gentleman they mentioned was Jean Jacques Rousseau, his written work "The Social Contract" among others were considered 'political' and subversive. As mentioned in the Podcast, some people were indeed out to get him because of his theories on Government or state control. His correct and justified fear that people were out to get him, led him to believe that 'everyone' was out to get him. A perfect example of how someone has allowed a truth to expand beyond its boundaries.

Personally I believe someone who passes comment on something they haven't even bothered to view or read in its entirety, to be close minded and see the highlighted word above. In fairness you have proven one of the points made in the podcast about CT'ers being as I said, close minded and ignoring everything bar the 'truth' they believe.

I will read or view any post or video put forward by someone and wait to pass judgement. In another thread someone had posted a video and it had the david icke name on it, I still watched it, but alarm bells went off. I watched the entire video and researched the person mentioned in it, only to find out he had been jailed for making hoax calls. Based on this evidence I am I believe correct, in discounting the nonsense claims of a known hoax.

Am I wrong to doubt the structural integrity of a house built on sand?



I think there may be a wee hint in the title of the forum "theories". Theories are unproven and so up for debunking or not. It would be a very boring forum if every thread was a single post of a CT and everyone was to take it as Gospel.

My original post was made because I thought it would be of interest to some contributors, I knew some would not like it, because it would maybe shine a light on their beliefs. To pass comment on it without having even listened to it in its entirety, well shows you for what you are.

Someone who believes in idiotic theories is an.... nonsensical theories are..... I'm intrigued as to what you mean by girly gossip. Does this show your attitude to the female gender, are arguments won by the person with their fingers in the ears, shouting the loudest.

You seem to be very interested in the motivations of CT'ers I bet you haven't for one minute considered your own motivations. You won't and I can guarantee it cause you won't like what you find just like allthe other dead brains. You have no opinion you didnt read from a book or a podcast and are a one dimensional thinker whose never had an origional thought in there lives and comes in here to act superior and as an ego boost. You don't even know what YOU are yet you try and look down on people who hold different views from yourself. I've never been able to abide bullies. Never.

So you can spout your bull all day cause I don't play your games.

Joshua J

Saipanne wrote: »

Double derogatory!

Sent you packing in the last thread so coming in for a little dig. On your bike.

Reg'stoy

Joshua J wrote:

You seem to be very interested in the motivations of CT'ers I bet you haven't for one minute considered your own motivations. You won't and I can guarantee it cause you won't like what you find just like allthe other dead brains. You have no opinion you didnt read from a book or a podcast and are a one dimensional thinker whose never had an origional thought in there lives and comes in here to act superior and as an ego boost. You don't even know what YOU are yet you try and look down on people who hold different views from yourself. I've never been able to abide bullies. Never.

I'm genuinely at a loss as to what you mean.

What do you mean by an original thought, if by using all available resources as in the Internet, books and God forbid podcasts that I am not giving an informed opinion, as opposed to someone who plucks a theory from the sky without any outside influences in that choice, then yes I will concede, that that is indeed an original thought.

As for bullying, questioning another's opinion is not bullying. If I were to state as a theory, that the premier league is a creation of say the NWO to quieten the great unwashed and you were to argue otherwise would you be bullying me. I could show studies that the IQ's of soccer fans is lower than say rugby fans and that the premier league is a deliberate ploy by government to dull the masses. Personally I do think soccer fans are slightly dim I went to Liverpool to see a Derby match and wow miss world contestants could out debate them, but I digress.

degrassinoel

Erm, what did you think about the podcast Reg? I've not had a chance to see it yet

Joshua J

Reg'stoy wrote: »

I'm genuinely at a loss as to what you mean.

What do you mean by an original thought, if by using all available resources as in the Internet, books and God forbid podcasts that I am not giving an informed opinion, as opposed to someone who plucks a theory from the sky without any outside influences in that choice, then yes I will concede, that that is indeed an original thought.

As for bullying, questioning another's opinion is not bullying. If I were to state as a theory, that the premier league is a creation of say the NWO to quieten the great unwashed and you were to argue otherwise would you be bullying me. I could show studies that the IQ's of soccer fans is lower than say rugby fans and that the premier league is a deliberate ploy by government to dull the masses. Personally I do think soccer fans are slightly dim I went to Liverpool to see a Derby match and wow miss world contestants could out debate them, but I digress.

Posting an inflammatory podcast and following it up calling the users of this forum "idiots" etc is bullying. I'm starting to believe you have some sort of social condition cause if someone IRL called me over and said "Yo idiot I wanna ask you something" I'm not gonna be all like "Why hello good fellow is there something I can help you with"?. No I'm gonna tell him to go f**k himself yet you think you can get away with it here?. Are you deficient in some way?. Were you an only child or too long on the tit?. What makes you think anyone has to dance to your tune the way you went about this thread?.

Like other dead brains I've dealt with before you have no, ZERO, idea what you are. Spend some time doing some self analysis and looking at your own flaws before you look at other peoples. But as I said I don't think you'll like what you see so you compensate by looking down on others. You're only fooling yourself.

Reg'stoy

degrassinoel wrote:

Erm, what did you think about the podcast Reg? I've not had a chance to see it yet

It's only 20mins long and an interesting insight into the mindset of someone who would advocate CT's. As I said not really judgemental just observations on the subject. I did find it interesting that they described them as close minded in that once an opinion is formed, even if new evidence might change their minds they discount it. One opinion offered that the very questioning of a CT would feed it rather than debunk it which seems to hold true here.

Saipanne

Joshua J wrote: »

Sent you packing in the last thread so coming in for a little dig. On your bike.

How childish!

degrassinoel

Reg'stoy wrote: »

It's only 20mins long and an interesting insight into the mindset of someone who would advocate CT's. As I said not really judgemental just observations on the subject. I did find it interesting that they described them as close minded in that once an opinion is formed, even if new evidence might change their minds they discount it. One opinion offered that the very questioning of a CT would feed it rather than debunk it which seems to hold true here.

I'll give it a shot this evening so ta

weisses

Reg'stoy wrote: »

Interesting podcast from Philosophy Bites

For those who consider themselves CT'ers it's non judgmental(ish), rather it is a look at the mindset and reasons why an individual believes in Conspiracy Theories.
Considering this is the CT forum, I didn't deliberately go looking for this podcast. I had studied Philosophy and like to listen to Podcasts on the subject and this happened to be one of them.
The podcast is about 20mins long and should be of interest to all sides of the this forum. I will say that the interviewer and the interviewee talk in particular about the 9/11 CT but don't concentrate wholly on it.
I'd be interested to see if certain individuals on this forum view the Podcast as an good intellectual discussion on the subject or just another attempt to marginalise CT'ers

http://ec.libsyn.com/p/9/5/b/95b375ab76a173c8/Quassim_Cassam_on_Conspiracy_Theories.mp3?d13a76d516d9dec20c3d276ce028ed5089ab1ce3dae902ea1d06cb8e37d5cc5ef6b5&c_id=8965257

I think its a load of waffle ... considering 9/11 they haven't got a f*ckin clue

All the signs of a conspiracy are there

Evidence of dodgy science as well (NIST)

etc .. etc ...

Overheal

Joshua J, do not post in this thread again.

Reg'stoy

weisses wrote:

I think its a load of waffle ... considering 9/11 they haven't got a f*ckin clue

Thanks for the reply Weisses. Just a thought on your post, did the very mention by them, that 9/11 was not a CT and considering the shear scope of those CT's warranting its very own forum, automatically discount in your mind any further listening.
I'm not going to get into another 9/11 circle but can I ask you a question. As mentioned in the podcast, when confronted with strong valid evidence that might debunk some of the CT's that you personally believe to be true, is that evidence automatically false because it comes from a government source/study.
As one poster mentioned earlier, the very person being interviewed was a government plant into studying CT's with the hinted purpose to expose all believers of CT's as possible terrorists. Straight away he discounted the podcast. He neglected to look at what the study was about or indeed what they meant by their claim. It is not that all CT'ers are potential terrorists but that those who were easily radicalised and turned toward terrorism were of a similar mindset as the person who believes in CT's. That mindset being fixated on their truth while ignoring perfectly valid counter evidence, been anti government or believing that their government was 'out to get them'. How nothing can change their path because having formed their opinion, anything attempting to deviate from that truth only increases their belief in the CT. Indeed any contrary evidence is proof positive of the CT, why are they attempting to change my mind; "because I am right".
I posted the podcast because I genuinely thought it might be interesting and that those of us on both sides of the divide might learn something. Sadly I've realised that they are right in one regard, opposition to any CT is considered an insult by some. That in real life opinions are fluid and ever changing based on new information or insight but for some their opinion once formed is set in concrete. To reply to some posters is therefore pointless as every reply is an insult to their very person rather than simply the CT.

Saipanne

Reg'stoy wrote: »

Thanks for the reply Weisses. Just a thought on your post, did the very mention by them, that 9/11 was not a CT and considering the shear scope of those CT's warranting its very own forum, automatically discount in your mind any further listening.
I'm not going to get into another 9/11 circle but can I ask you a question. As mentioned in the podcast, when confronted with strong valid evidence that might debunk some of the CT's that you personally believe to be true, is that evidence automatically false because it comes from a government source/study.
As one poster mentioned earlier, the very person being interviewed was a government plant into studying CT's with the hinted purpose to expose all believers of CT's as possible terrorists. Straight away he discounted the podcast. He neglected to look at what the study was about or indeed what they meant by their claim. It is not that all CT'ers are potential terrorists but that those who were easily radicalised and turned toward terrorism were of a similar mindset as the person who believes in CT's. That mindset being fixated on their truth while ignoring perfectly valid counter evidence, been anti government or believing that their government was 'out to get them'. How nothing can change their path because having formed their opinion, anything attempting to deviate from that truth only increases their belief in the CT. Indeed any contrary evidence is proof positive of the CT, why are they attempting to change my mind; "because I am right".
I posted the podcast because I genuinely thought it might be interesting and that those of us on both sides of the divide might learn something. Sadly I've realised that they are right in one regard, opposition to any CT is considered an insult by some. That in real life opinions are fluid and ever changing based on new information or insight but for some their opinion once formed is set in concrete. To reply to some posters is therefore pointless as every reply is an insult to their very person rather than simply the CT.

You're right, you'll never change their mind once set. That's not unique to CTers, I think. But perhaps close to its most potent here.

weisses

Reg'stoy wrote: »

As mentioned in the podcast, when confronted with strong valid evidence that might debunk some of the CT's that you personally believe to be true, is that evidence automatically false because it comes from a government source/study.

No to me its not ...

But when the requirement from the skeptic site is that everything stand or falls with proper science and the very investigation into 9/11 is all but scientific something which is pointed out with examples then I dig in and do my best to find the flaws in the original story which are all over the place re 9/11,

I had so many discussions here which I backed up with in my view credible sources but most if not all the time that wasn't enough for the skeptics

On the other hand there are some pretty daft CT's out there and also on this forum which I can only laugh at ... IMO that doesn't help the CT community

Just judge a CT on its merits and if it doesn't is up to your standards then just do what I do and don't post in that thread .... I see no benefit in cheap point scoring

weisses

Saipanne wrote: »

You're right, you'll never change their mind once set. That's not unique to CTers, I think. But perhaps close to its most potent here.

True ... They even have a word for it

Pseudo skeptic ... roaming free on these forums as well

Saipanne

weisses wrote: »

True ... They even have a word for it

Pseudo skeptic ... roaming free on these forums as well

No idea what you're on about.

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

But when the requirement from the skeptic site is that everything stand or falls with proper science and the very investigation into 9/11 is all but scientific something which is pointed out with examples then I dig in and do my best to find the flaws in the original story which are all over the place re 9/11,

This is an important comment

Flaw hunting is not the same thing as objective investigation

Every major event will produce witnesses who contradict each other, even lie, conflicting reports, coincidences, people protecting their jobs, differences of opinion from experts, missing evidence/footage/recordings, etc and etc

A good investigator will take all these into account with the rest of the available evidence to build the most accurate sequence of events

A bad one will focus only on the flaws in an attempt discredit the official version of events and often won't attempt to construct a stronger more complete and plausible explanation

The latter is definitely more likely to be affected by pre-held beliefs and world views rather than a genuine desire to seek the truth

Saipanne

Dohnjoe wrote: »

This is an important comment

Flaw hunting is not the same thing as objective investigation

Every major event will produce witnesses who contradict each other, even lie, conflicting reports, coincidences, people protecting their jobs, differences of opinion from experts, missing evidence/footage/recordings, etc and etc

A good investigator will take all these into account with the rest of the available evidence to build the most accurate sequence of events

A bad one will focus only on the flaws in an attempt discredit the official version of events and often won't attempt to construct a stronger more complete and plausible explanation

The latter is definitely more likely to be affected by pre-held beliefs and world views rather than a genuine desire to seek the truth

Very well said. I look forward to the riposte...

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

This is an important comment

Flaw hunting is not the same thing as objective investigation

Every major event will produce witnesses who contradict each other, even lie, conflicting reports, coincidences, people protecting their jobs, differences of opinion from experts, missing evidence/footage/recordings, etc and etc

A good investigator will take all these into account with the rest of the available evidence to build the most accurate sequence of events

A bad one will focus only on the flaws in an attempt discredit the official version of events and often won't attempt to construct a stronger more complete and plausible explanation

The latter is definitely more likely to be affected by pre-held beliefs and world views rather than a genuine desire to seek the truth

I knew it was flawed and found plenty of evidence pointing out it was flawed and why it was flawed

I did not go out there to discredit NIST ..They did a perfect job doing that themselves

If the official story makes no sense isn't it normal to investigate that and point out what exactly is wrong ?

weisses

Saipanne wrote: »

Very well said. I look forward to the riposte...

was that one to your liking ?

Reg'stoy

weisses wrote: »

If the official story makes no sense isn't it normal to investigate that and point out what exactly is wrong ?

Excellent point, but in the above quote remove "official story" and replace it with conspiracy theory.

Both phrases are laced with innuendo, story like theory is somehow not quite fact.

Bill Gates did not with a slip of his tongue, state for the record that vaccines will kill millions of people, but one sentence from a TED Talks has been cherry picked to show proof of a theory. That proof is total for the person who deliberately ignores the whole talk he gave, because we who point out that error, forget that Bill Gates did say "VACCINES WILL REDUCE GLOBAL POPULATIONS" I'm shouting because alex jones shouts for EFFECT.

The search and finding of flaws in the reporting of events or indeed just reading between the lines in what governments and corporations release to the public, has been instrumental in turning CT's into fact.

However, this research is sadly lacking in today's CT'ers. They begin from a conclusion and work back cherry picking snippets to prove their CT. Maybe genuine doubting Thomas's should throw off the identity of being a CT'er, that label has been as you said tainted by some of the more outrageous CT's out there.

I move between amusement to wonder to fear at what some people 'believe' is going on. I agree with the need for research into how some people can be radicalised by these beliefs. Is it such a big step for the individual who 'knows for a fact' his government is out to get him, because of all of the CT's he is exposed to and believes in, for him to then 'fight' back against that government or authority figure.

There is as is said in the Podcast, a certain mindset to the person who generally believes in CT's, as they tend to believe in the majority of them. Climate change doubters tend to be 9/11/Sandyhook doubters and so forth. Is it that they doubt everything and everyone, are they socially excluded and so look for a sense of purpose and inclusion in identifying as a CT'er. Is there a gratification from swimming against the tide and so they always take the opposite position no matter what.

degrassinoel

The hosts called the 9/11 theory Hogwash, then delusional belief theory, - jaysis not a very neutral start was it?

Their guest was a lot more neutral in his answers but the questions were biased against conspiracy theorists, and specifically against people who believe in them.

"How do you distinguish a CTheorist from a person who's not a particularly good reasoner?"

That's basically an insult lol


On the other side, the guest had this to say regarding LHO/JFK

"CT's answer a genuine intellectual and emotional need"

Not sure what he meant about emotional as that may just point to American CTheorists or to be precise, Americans of an age old enough to warrant an emotional requirement for that specific theory ie: they were around when JFK was. It's also possible the emotional need might be in relation to 9/11 theories, which i get and that's fair enough.

fairly meh, overall.

CTers think they way they do because they think they way they do.. you cant make them believe what you know is the true version so dont try..

That's pretty much what he was saying, in fairness he's right about some of the mental cases ye see on the likes of the alex jones show, and well, alex jones himself tbh..

However it's tarring all CT'ers with the same brush, what i'd like to know though, is which CT's and CTheorists they had for this poll?
Because it's fairly damning of them. I know they briefly mentioned JFK, but it seemed to be more focused on 9/11 than anything else.

I wonder how different the poll would have been with a different selection of CT's/Theorists, probably very different.

Reg'stoy

degrassinoel wrote: »

The hosts called the 9/11 theory Hogwash

In fairness that CT has grown to include such nonsense that even other CT'ers ridicule some of the more outragous ones.

degrassinoel wrote: »

CTers think they way they do because they think they way they do.. you cant make them believe what you know is the true version so dont try..

Is it not their mindset and the way they 'think' which attracts them to CT's. That's what I got and it is this way of thinking and their attraction to CT's that makes them more likely to be radicalised. I don't mean become terrorist but become more extreme in their views of CT's as a whole.

Would the individual who casts doubt on Sandy Hook or the Boston bombings now believe that their own government would kill school children because of the progression and increase in the radical thinking of CT's from Waco to Oklahoma to 9/11.

Jones and his ilk have wound many American CT'ers up so tightly that they believe their own government is now capable of anything. Jones is a victim of his own success in he has to now question everything and be even more outrageous for his followers not to think that he has become part of the overall CT and so he continues to make money from them.

degrassinoel wrote: »

However it's tarring all CT'ers with the same brush, what i'd like to know though, is which CT's and CTheorists they had for this poll?
Because it's fairly damning of them. I know they briefly mentioned JFK, but it seemed to be more focused on 9/11 than anything else.

I wonder how different the poll would have been with a different selection of CT's/Theorists, probably very different.

Would climate change have gotten different results?

degrassinoel

it's got no specific theories, they just generalised 9/11 and JFK - so i dont know, because i dont know what specific theories and theorists they were talking about.

As far as generalisations go, it was fairly meh which is as much as i can glean from the 20 minutes of it.

Yeah climate change probably would have been entirely different, and again specifics like the actual theory and the theorist, which was avoided in both of the above

Yer man might as well have been saying, all religion is this or that because religious people think that way without telling you he was talking specifically about Marshall Applegate and his Cult.

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

I knew it was flawed and found plenty of evidence pointing out it was flawed and why it was flawed

That's completely subjective. It's easy to find flaws in anything, we can be very tenacious.

Provide a stronger, more credible counter-theory that stands up better than the original, that's the trick

The lack of a genuine desire to do so is pretty much a dead give-away to the intentions of the detractors

Maybe 911 was an inside job, maybe it wasn't, likewise the 7/7 London bombings, the Boston bombings, the US cinema shooting, the Madrid train bombs, the Newtown shooting, the Charlie Hebdo

They all share the same common denominator, a passionate flurry of flaw-hunting, hole-picking, and clue-searching.. by like-minded individuals.. that ultimately produces absolutely nothing of substance (so far)

This is not a one off, this happens repeatedly, we don't need to be psychologists to spot it

That said, we're all guilty of believing stupid **** because our gut instinct/belief can trump logic and reason

enno99

Reg'stoy wrote: »

Thanks for the reply Weisses. Just a thought on your post, did the very mention by them, that 9/11 was not a CT and considering the shear scope of those CT's warranting its very own forum, automatically discount in your mind any further listening.
I'm not going to get into another 9/11 circle but can I ask you a question. As mentioned in the podcast, when confronted with strong valid evidence that might debunk some of the CT's that you personally believe to be true, is that evidence automatically false because it comes from a government source/study.
As one poster mentioned earlier, the very person being interviewed was a government plant into studying CT's with the hinted purpose to expose all believers of CT's as possible terrorists. Straight away he discounted the podcast. He neglected to look at what the study was about or indeed what they meant by their claim. It is not that all CT'ers are potential terrorists but that those who were easily radicalised and turned toward terrorism were of a similar mindset as the person who believes in CT's. That mindset being fixated on their truth while ignoring perfectly valid counter evidence, been anti government or believing that their government was 'out to get them'. How nothing can change their path because having formed their opinion, anything attempting to deviate from that truth only increases their belief in the CT. Indeed any contrary evidence is proof positive of the CT, why are they attempting to change my mind; "because I am right".
I posted the podcast because I genuinely thought it might be interesting and that those of us on both sides of the divide might learn something. Sadly I've realised that they are right in one regard, opposition to any CT is considered an insult by some. That in real life opinions are fluid and ever changing based on new information or insight but for some their opinion once formed is set in concrete. To reply to some posters is therefore pointless as every reply is an insult to their very person rather than simply the CT.

No I told you I had read about his theory elsewhere

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/what-turns-someone-into-a-conspiracy-theorist-study-to-look-at-why-some-are-more-receptive-to-such-theories-10427940.html

http://aeon.co/magazine/philosophy/intellectual-character-of-conspiracy-theorists/

And yes if Camerons government is going to throw 250,000 pounds of taxpayers money to some naval gazer. I bet he will come up with the answer they want to hear

In his speech to the U.N General Assembly, David Cameron said that “non-violent extremism” is just as dangerous as terrorism and must be eradicated using all means at the government’s disposal.

He referenced 9/11 and 7/7 Truthers as examples of the type of extremism that must be dealt in a similar fashion to ISIS

Do you think child abuse survivors should be class as such

Cameron attacked by sexual abuse victims after calling claims of Home Office cover-up a 'conspiracy theory'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2831025/Cameron-attacked-sexual-abuse-victims-calling-claims-Home-Office-cover-conspiracy-theory.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwkOWPauu_A

Sir Edward Heath's Tory Whip Tim Fortescue Told BBC He Could Cover Up 'Scandals Involving Small Boys'

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/08/04/edward-heath-coverup-bbc-documentary-tim-fortescue_n_7933432.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

Reg'stoy

enno99 wrote: »

No I told you I had read about his theory elsewhere

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/what-turns-someone-into-a-conspiracy-theorist-study-to-look-at-why-some-are-more-receptive-to-such-theories-10427940.html

http://aeon.co/magazine/philosophy/intellectual-character-of-conspiracy-theorists/

And yes if Camerons government is going to throw 250,000 pounds of taxpayers money to some naval gazer. I bet he will come up with the answer they want to hear


In his speech to the U.N General Assembly, David Cameron said that “non-violent extremism” is just as dangerous as terrorism and must be eradicated using all means at the government’s disposal.

He referenced 9/11 and 7/7 Truthers as examples of the type of extremism that must be dealt in a similar fashion to ISIS

I'm again at a loss, did you read the two articles you referenced. I ask because you are displaying some of the character traits he mentioned. Close mindedness considering you are discounting the findings of a yet to be carried out study or having read in particular the second article are already attempting to discredit him.

You obviously don't trust any study or evidence which even by six degrees of separation may be linked to government. Again close mindedness.

If you are going to paraphrase someone, the idea is to give a reasonable idea of what they said.

The actual transcript is below

The root cause of this terrorist threat is a poisonous ideology of Islamist extremism.

This is nothing to do with Islam, which is a peaceful region that inspires countless acts of generosity every day.

Islamist extremism believes in using the most brutal forms of terrorism to force people to accept a warped world view and to live in a quasi mediaeval state.

To defeat Isil - and organisations like it - we must defeat this ideology in all its forms.

As evidence emerges about the backgrounds of those convicted of terrorist offences, it is clear that many of them were initially influenced by preachers who claim not to encourage violence, but whose world view can be used as a justification for it.

The peddling of lies: that 9/11 was a Jewish plot and the 7/7 London attacks were staged.

The idea that Muslims are persecuted all over the world as a deliberate act of Western policy.

The concept of an inevitable clash of civilisations.

We must be clear: to defeat the ideology of extremism we need to deal with all forms of extremism - not just violent extremism.

For governments, there are some obvious ways we can do this.

We must ban preachers of hate from coming to our countries.

We must proscribe organisations that incite terrorism against people at home and abroad.

We must work together to take down illegal online material like the recent videos of Isil murdering hostages.

And we must stop so called non-violent extremists from inciting hatred and intolerance in our schools, universities and prisons.


Again we see you use a similar practice of editing something to fit an agenda, I use the Bill Gates TED Talks speech as another example of using words rather than the context to suit your purpose. You in actual fact put words in his mouth or can you show where he is going to treat 9/11 truthers like isis. I read it as Muslim extremists he is talking about but maybe that's code for...well what ever people want the code to be.

Like alex jones and others you are using his misquoted speech to somehow show that he thinks CT'ers are terrorist in the same way that isis and other Muslim groups he referenced are terrorist; he didn't, but hey, that's not the truth you believe. Read his actual words, is it possible the people he says are making the false claims about 9/11 and 7/7, might just be the Muslim extremist he is talking about in the speech.

As for the video and your reference, I don't know enough to pass comment on it yet.

enno99

If you are going to paraphrase someone, the idea is to give a reasonable idea of what they said.

NO if I remember correctly he did say that there was a video of it but its taken down now
But never mind if you think i have to lie to make a point then we have nothing more to to discuss



In the post here I dont recall anybody disputing it at the time but I could be wrong

(reason for edit)Yes I was wrong

We must be clear: to defeat the ideology of extremism we need to deal with all forms of extremism – not just violent extremism

So we shouldn’t stand by and just allow any form of non-violent extremism.

As for the other video it speaks for itself

As for your bugbear with Jones ,Icke baffles me why you even give them a thought
Your comment on how they inflict more harm on child abuse survivors when it was pointed out to you that in fact the MSM cretins cause more harm you failed to pour scorn on them Why ?

Reg'stoy

enno99 wrote: »

As for the other video it speaks for itself

As for your bugbear with Jones ,Icke baffles me why you even give them a thought
Your comment on how they inflict more harm on child abuse survivors when it was pointed out to you that in fact the MSM cretins cause more harm you failed to pour scorn on them Why ?

The video is 49 secs from a BBC program so it may be a throw away comment or may indeed be indicative of something 'rotten in the state of Denmark'. I'd like to view the whole piece but yeah suspect.

My problem with jones and icke would be of a similar issue that say Cameron has with the Islamic preachers and extremism. Jones for me is the head of a modern day cult, unlike his namesake, jones's church is the internet and radio. Jim jones could only preach to the hundreds within earshot, alex jones can preach to millions.

Jones can influence local elections say in his particular county or maybe to a certain degree Texas, but scarily he may even influence the next US Presidential election. Politicians are becoming more circumspect in their language, it's all God (not to insult anyone of faith), creationism and God again. They are both appealing to the bible belt, far right wing, evangelical christians.

Jones claims to have 8 million listeners/viewers/followers, Fox news had 28 million view the first presidential debate and that was a record. If jones was to announce on his show, that tomorrow morning the postman will be asking to collect your beloved rifle (they love their guns); how many postmen would be shot.

Jones had taken how many 100,000's nay millions of Americans and used their distrust of their government and authority figures and turned it into a rabid hate of them for some. Muslim imams turning young men into walking bombs by preaching hate and lies, alex jones turning.......

My problem with icke (apart from his antisemitism) is his preaching, again to how many 100,000's of 'followers', that an elite non-human hybrid of royalty/political leaders with aliens or some reptilian species govern us. The scandal of child abuse that may or may not be systemic in sections of british society, be it show business, royalty or political circles, hell even all three combined, has been turned into a circus by icke. When the very real physical and mental damage/trauma that the victim of child abuse has to endure and live with, is explained away as (as that is what he does) ritual satanic abuse or even more horrific, that these victims of abuse are having their souls slowly consumed by these reptilian hybrids; that can only but add further hurt to the victims.

Is the crime itself not horrible enough with out icke and indeed jones saying that; well kids the abuse was bad, but it was done so someone could make a pact with the devil or consume your soul, but if people send me $19.99 for some magic water or my newest book we can expose them for what they are.

People abuse children and they need to found and punished, looking for guys in hooded robes speaking incantations will not make that search any easier.

enno99

Reg'stoy wrote: »

The video is 49 secs from a BBC program so it may be a throw away comment or may indeed be indicative of something 'rotten in the state of Denmark'. I'd like to view the whole piece but yeah suspect.

My problem with jones and icke would be of a similar issue that say Cameron has with the Islamic preachers and extremism. Jones for me is the head of a modern day cult, unlike his namesake, jones's church is the internet and radio. Jim jones could only preach to the hundreds within earshot, alex jones can preach to millions.

Jones can influence local elections say in his particular county or maybe to a certain degree Texas, but scarily he may even influence the next US Presidential election. Politicians are becoming more circumspect in their language, it's all God (not to insult anyone of faith), creationism and God again. They are both appealing to the bible belt, far right wing, evangelical christians.

Jones claims to have 8 million listeners/viewers/followers, Fox news had 28 million view the first presidential debate and that was a record. If jones was to announce on his show, that tomorrow morning the postman will be asking to collect your beloved rifle (they love their guns); how many postmen would be shot.

Jones had taken how many 100,000's nay millions of Americans and used their distrust of their government and authority figures and turned it into a rabid hate of them for some. Muslim imams turning young men into walking bombs by preaching hate and lies, alex jones turning.......

My problem with icke (apart from his antisemitism) is his preaching, again to how many 100,000's of 'followers', that an elite non-human hybrid of royalty/political leaders with aliens or some reptilian species govern us. The scandal of child abuse that may or may not be systemic in sections of british society, be it show business, royalty or political circles, hell even all three combined, has been turned into a circus by icke. When the very real physical and mental damage/trauma that the victim of child abuse has to endure and live with, is explained away as (as that is what he does) ritual satanic abuse or even more horrific, that these victims of abuse are having their souls slowly consumed by these reptilian hybrids; that can only but add further hurt to the victims.

Is the crime itself not horrible enough with out icke and indeed jones saying that; well kids the abuse was bad, but it was done so someone could make a pact with the devil or consume your soul, but if people send me $19.99 for some magic water or my newest book we can expose them for what they are.

People abuse children and they need to found and punished, looking for guys in hooded robes speaking incantations will not make that search any easier.

Suspect ?

Still no condemnation of MSM with regards to the treatment of survivors of child abuse ?
Perhaps its ok for them they probably went to public school where by all accounts they like to stick more than silver spoons in little boys mouths

Reg'stoy

enno99 wrote: »

Suspect ?

Still no condemnation of MSM with regards to the treatment of survivors of child abuse ?
Perhaps its ok for them they probably went to public school where by all accounts they like to stick more than silver spoons in little boys mouths

Yeah a 49sec video from years ago is only suspect. Do you consider it damning evidence.

What exactly do you want the press to do? Name living individuals as abusers and prejudice a trial.

enno99

Reg'stoy wrote: »

Yeah a 49sec video from years ago is only suspect. Do you consider it damning evidence.

WTF he admitted covering up MPs abusing small boys to gather brownie points and to hold it over them

What exactly do you want the press to do? Name living individuals as abusers and prejudice a trial

I wasn't talking about child rapists was I ?

let me refresh your memory

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=96526799&postcount=15

Reg'stoy

enno99 wrote: »

I wasn't talking about child rapists was I ?

let me refresh your memory

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=96526799&postcount=15

Why the spite, is the journalist not allowed to express an opinion that you disagree with. What did he say that was untrue? The allegations are still under investigation so unproven and so rightly or wrongly be called false.

Some people (like you obviously) think that someone is automatically guilty, based on an accusation and light their torches ready for a lynching.

Others like myself, will hope the accusations are treated correctly and following due process, the guilt or not of the accused will be decided under the laws of the State. I personally believe in due process and the laws of the State. The fact that someone is deceased means for some that it is ok to name and shame them without some formal investigation.

Some will question the accuser, (false claims have been made of child abuse and rape) and question why the individual being accused is indeed being accused, they will have a conspiracy theory as to why the accusations are been made. The journalist in the article thought as much, should he be denied that opinion?

You it seems have made your mind up, much like the journalist has made up his. I do not say he is right or you are right, as I've said all along; I'll wait until the formal investigations are complete.