Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Hello All, This is just a friendly reminder to read the Forum Charter where you wish to post before posting in it. :)
Hi all, The AutoSave Draft feature is now disabled across the site. The decision to disable the feature was made via a poll last year. The delay in putting it in place was due to a bug/update issue. This should serve as a reminder to manually save your drafts if you wish to keep them. Thanks, The Boards Team.

Are there any credible conspiracy theories?

13468963

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 15,854 ✭✭✭✭ Dohnjoe


    darconio wrote: »
    In my opinion what makes every CT plausible is the fact the whole truth is never revealed and made available to the public.
    There are always some hidden aspects or twisted facts that would make anybody suspicious, or at least made you think why the events evolved in that specific manner.

    Or people just make you think that by carefully framing the information. Conspiracy videos do this kind of manipulation all the time.


  • Registered Users Posts: 905 ✭✭✭ darconio


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Or people just make you think that by carefully framing the information. Conspiracy videos do this kind of manipulation all the time.


    Agreed but the opposite could be true as well


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,854 ✭✭✭✭ Dohnjoe


    darconio wrote: »
    Agreed but the opposite could be true as well

    Open a history book and it will generally be based on supporting evidence from a consensus of experts and research on the matter

    Watch a conspiracy video and more than likely it will be trying to discredit an event in order to plant doubt in the viewers head, and suggest a conspiracy it never details. "Proof by denial".


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 273 ✭✭ Hqrry113


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Not my views at all.




    Right, the "Western media" is systematically controlled according to you, yes? okay, please explain how this works with e.g. the Guardian newspaper in the UK.

    Did I say anything like that? I said that the information which will actually make it to the media can be controlled by the people who actually get the information, they can choose to withhold information which will make them look bad and give out the information that will make them look good or promote their agenda.

    Libya is a perfect example of western media bias, In June 2011, Amnesty International criticized "Western media coverage" which "has from the outset presented a very one-sided view of the logic of events, portraying the protest movement as entirely peaceful and repeatedly suggesting that the regime's security forces were unaccountably massacring unarmed demonstrators who presented no security challenge."

    Libya is the greatest example of not being ableable to trust western media, the lies that came out to justify the destruction of the Libyan nation is still hard to believe and people wonder why people are sceptical of the media?


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,854 ✭✭✭✭ Dohnjoe


    Hqrry113 wrote: »

    Libya is a perfect example of western media bias, In June 2011, Amnesty International criticized "Western media coverage" which "has from the outset presented a very one-sided view of the logic of events, portraying the protest movement as entirely peaceful and repeatedly suggesting that the regime's security forces were unaccountably massacring unarmed demonstrators who presented no security challenge."

    That's Amnesty's view and it's a bit bizarre considering "Western media" comprises of hundreds of outlets, the vast majority of which have nothing to do with each other.
    Libya is the greatest example of not being ableable to trust western media, the lies that came out to justify the destruction of the Libyan nation is still hard to believe and people wonder why people are sceptical of the media?

    That's your personal opinion. I wouldn't really agree, I followed events in Libya from a bevy of international outlets, Middle Eastern outlets for example were generally reporting the same facts on the ground as e.g. European outlets. Again, it depends on the quality of source and outlet.


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 273 ✭✭ Hqrry113


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    That's Amnesty's view and it's a bit bizarre considering "Western media" comprises of hundreds of outlets, the vast majority of which have nothing to do with each other.



    That's your personal opinion. I wouldn't really agree, I followed events in Libya from a bevy of international outlets, Middle Eastern outlets for example were generally reporting the same facts on the ground as e.g. European outlets. Again, it depends on the quality of source and outlet.

    This came out in 2014 a few years after the death of Gaddafi and after the original rape allegations made in 2011, this came with numerous other atrocity propaganda stories at a time when the justification for the Libyan war was being seriously questioned and the UK government was under extreme pressure to defend their actions.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2545819/amp/Uncovered-The-macabre-sex-chamber-Libyas-Colonel-Gaddafi-raped-girls-boys-young-14.html

    It also refers to the people who captured him as "freedom fighters" these are people who were taking turns poking his anus with numerous sharp objects, it's funny people arefreedom fighters when it supports the western agenda and terrorists when it doesn't.

    I suppose you believe all the stuff in that article?


  • Registered Users Posts: 24,167 ✭✭✭✭ King Mob


    With regards to "chemtrails"....I've been out to sea on boats and witnessed these trails. What's the point in spewing chemicals over vast swathes of uninhabited ocean if the object is to have these chemicals somehow contaminate people?
    There are more efficient ways to dumb down the population that are effectively being deployed such as the constant bombardment of rubbish TV, the degeneration of the school curriculum and the abolition of critical thinking skills in favour of rote learning to meet standardized exam requirements, etc.
    But that's not the chemtrail theory. You're dismissing something out of hand without really understanding it.

    How do you explain all the patterns people see in the chemtrails?
    Why do all of the trails last for hours when contrails can't do that?

    We can also turn your point around for the conspiracy theories you buy as well.
    What's the point of having multiple shooters? Why not just have one?
    If you have to have multiple shooters, why not just say there were multiple shooters?
    Therefore we can conclude the JFK conspiracy theory is false, right?


  • Registered Users Posts: 24,167 ✭✭✭✭ King Mob


    darconio wrote: »
    In my opinion what makes every CT plausible is the fact the whole truth is never revealed and made available to the public.
    There are always some hidden aspects or twisted facts that would make anybody suspicious, or at least made you think why the events evolved in that specific manner.
    Every conspiracy theory?

    Flat earth?
    Chemtrails?
    Lizard people?
    Holocaust denial?

    All plausible?


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,854 ✭✭✭✭ Dohnjoe


    Hqrry113 wrote: »
    This came out in 2014 a few years

    It came out at the time.
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/oct/27/gaddafi-killers-face-prosecution-libya

    It was well reported on, as were atrocities by both sides. And stop trying to pigeon-hole other people's views thanks.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 273 ✭✭ Hqrry113


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    It came out at the time.
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/oct/27/gaddafi-killers-face-prosecution-libya

    It was well reported on, as were atrocities by both sides. And stop trying to pigeon-hole other people's views thanks.

    What am I supposed to be looking for in this link?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 15,854 ✭✭✭✭ Dohnjoe


    Hqrry113 wrote: »
    What am I supposed to be looking for in this link?

    His death and means of his death were well reported on. How did that occur if you believe that "the Western media" (whatever that is) is operating to an agenda?

    If there was another agenda, what was it and how was it implemented across hundreds of newspapers and outlets that compete with each other?

    Or, as I suspect, do you just cherry-pick examples that coincide with particular world views you have in order to lazily contrive a simplistic "Western media bad" narrative.. :)


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 273 ✭✭ Hqrry113


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    His death and means of his death were well reported on. How did that occur if you believe that "the Western media" (whatever that is) is operating to an agenda?

    If there was another agenda, what was it and how was it implemented across hundreds of newspapers and outlets that compete with each other?

    Or, as I suspect, do you just cherry-pick examples that coincide with particular world views you have in order to lazily contrive a simplistic "Western media bad" narrative.. :)

    I don't get what you mean, at what point did I say that western media tried to cover up the killing of gaddafi?

    Sorry I'm now completely confused I don't have a clue what you're on about.

    You just threw outousome some random article talking about the death of Gaddafi and tried to use it as some kind of proof that western media is completely fair and unbiased.


  • Registered Users Posts: 24,167 ✭✭✭✭ King Mob


    Hqrry113 wrote: »
    I don't get what you mean, at what point did I say that western media tried to cover up the killing of gaddafi?

    Sorry I'm now completely confused I don't have a clue what you're on about.

    You just threw outousome some random article talking about the death of Gaddafi and tried to use it as some kind of proof that western media is completely fair and unbiased.

    Lol that's a very lazy and pathetic strawman.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,854 ✭✭✭✭ Dohnjoe


    Hqrry113 wrote: »
    I don't get what you mean, at what point did I say that western media tried to cover up the killing of gaddafi?

    Sorry I'm now completely confused I don't have a clue what you're on about.

    You just threw outousome some random article talking about the death of Gaddafi and tried to use it as some kind of proof that western media is completely fair and unbiased.

    What is the "Western media" and what is it's agenda according to you?

    What was it's agenda on e.g. the Libyan war? Be specific and I'll provide examples that contradict that.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 273 ✭✭ Hqrry113


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    What is the "Western media" and what is it's agenda according to you?

    What was it's agenda on e.g. the Libyan war? Be specific and I'll provide examples that contradict that.

    A lot of people don't understand what media bias is and I can tell you in particular don't have a clue, media bias is the media’s tendency to systematically under-report or over-report certain types of events or situations or whatever.

    I can tell by your post you don't have a clue about what media bias really is, they will over report stories even if they have little to no substance, after the war Amnesty International published their report, finding that while Gaddafi's forces were responsible for numerous war crimes, most of the allegations of mass human rights abuses lacked credible evidence and were likely fabrications by rebel forces that had been promoted by Western media.

    Do you see what I'm getting at? Even if rebel forces and British forces are responsible for the same amount or more atrocities or the same amount of negative stories are out there tthe media will still spend 90% of their time reporting on negative stories about Gaddafi forces which will strongly influence public opinion on the matter.

    You ask what it's agenda was on the Libyan war well first of all if you are going to take down the leader of a foreign country you are going to need the support of the people back home and what is the best way toto achieve that? Through the media.

    They couldn't just randomly attack Libya that would have caused outrage first they need toto build public support, they will use things like killings of innocent people by Gaddafi forces but that sort of stuff happens in all those types of countries on a far far larger scale than in Libya and the reasons they used for attacking Libya the same reasons could have been used to attack nearly every African country, they had to start a propaganda campaign to build support to attack Libya for whatever their actual reason was for doing it.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 273 ✭✭ Hqrry113


    King Mob wrote: »
    Lol that's a very lazy and pathetic strawman.

    I genuinely don't know what his point was in posting that random article about Gaddafis death, can you fill me in?

    To add to my previous post another reason used to justify the attack of Libya was that he was a dictator and while undeniably a dictator, Gaddafi was the most benevolent in a region that only knew dictatorship, and he was a great man for someone in the extremely difficult position of being a leader in north Africa that looked out for his people and made them the envy of all of Africa.

    And look at it now after the great humanitarian mission of Britain and others, one of the most war torn s**t holes in the whole world and will stay that way for a very long time.


  • Registered Users Posts: 24,167 ✭✭✭✭ King Mob


    Hqrry113 wrote: »
    I genuinely don't know what his point was in posting that random article about Gaddafis death, can you fill me in?
    Could you point out where you believe he said: "that western media is completely fair and unbiased."

    What leads you to believe that's his position?
    Where did he say or imply this?

    It's very obvious he didn't, so you are trying to make a strawman.
    A very thin and pathetic one at that.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 49 thewolfisloose


    Mr_Muffin wrote: »
    I've never come across a conspiracy theory that I thought could actually be true. It seems that when you delve into one, it doesn't take long to see if it usually based on questionable logic.

    Admittedly, I've never delved into any conspiracy with great detail, as I found it difficult to decipher the facts from some wack jobs take on things.

    Are they are that actually hold-up if you take a closer look?

    The academics who originally deduced the earth not to be flat conspired against the establishment.

    However many wackjobs encircle the topic doesn't diminish objectivity.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 273 ✭✭ Hqrry113


    King Mob wrote: »
    Could you point out where you believe he said: "that western media is completely fair and unbiased."

    What leads you to believe that's his position?
    Where did he say or imply this?

    It's very obvious he didn't, so you are trying to make a strawman.
    A very thin and pathetic one at that.

    Jaysus it was a figure of speech but he did post that link to somehow imply that the media is not biased


  • Registered Users Posts: 24,167 ✭✭✭✭ King Mob


    Hqrry113 wrote: »
    Jaysus it was a figure of speech but he did post that link to somehow imply that the media is not biased
    No, it's not a figure of speech. It's a strawman.
    You are trying to pretend as if that's his argument when you understand it is not.
    You are repeating this strawman now.
    Where did he say "the media is not biased"? Please quote where he said this or what he said about media being biased.
    (Lemme guess, that's a figure of speech too?)

    This is a great example of the bad arguments and logic consistant between conspiracy theories.


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 273 ✭✭ Hqrry113


    King Mob wrote: »
    No, it's not a figure of speech. It's a strawman.
    You are trying to pretend as if that's his argument when you understand it is not.
    You are repeating this strawman now.
    Where did he say "the media is not biased"? Please quote where he said this or what he said about media being biased.
    (Lemme guess, that's a figure of speech too?)

    This is a great example of the bad arguments and logic consistant between conspiracy theories.

    Well this is what the whole bloody argument is about, are you on the same thread as me?

    What do you think we've been arguing about the last two pages?


  • Registered Users Posts: 24,167 ✭✭✭✭ King Mob


    Hqrry113 wrote: »
    Well this is what the whole bloody argument is about, are you on the same thread as me?

    What do you think we've been arguing about the last two pages?
    Cool. Then point out where he claimed that the media isn't biased, cause I can't see it.

    Did he not say that or something?

    You understand that using a strawman is not a valid or honest tactic, right?
    You've gone from denying that you used this tactic to saying that it was a "figure of speech". To me it seems like now you're arguing it's a valid way of arguing?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 273 ✭✭ Hqrry113


    King Mob wrote: »
    Cool. Then point out where he claimed that the media isn't biased, cause I can't see it.

    Did he not say that or something?

    You understand that using a strawman is not a valid or honest tactic, right?
    You've gone from denying that you used this tactic to saying that it was a "figure of speech". To me it seems like now you're arguing it's a valid way of arguing?

    Ahhh here I think you're just trying to wind me up now at this stage but anyways our whole argument is about the media being biased that is what we have been arguing about, please don't just dive into random threads spouting nonsense without actually having a clue what the people in the thread are talking about.

    I didn't understand what his point was by posting that link, you seem to have a great understanding of what his point was so please fill me in like I have asked you to do before but you refused.


  • Registered Users Posts: 24,167 ✭✭✭✭ King Mob


    Hqrry113 wrote: »
    please don't just dive into random threads spouting nonsense without actually having a clue what the people in the thread are talking about.
    Lol.
    I have been posting in this thread.
    Hqrry113 wrote: »
    I didn't understand what his point was by posting that link, you seem to have a great understanding of what his point was so please fill me in like I have asked you to do before but you refused.
    He's stated his point pretty clearly here:
    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    That's your personal opinion. I wouldn't really agree, I followed events in Libya from a bevy of international outlets, Middle Eastern outlets for example were generally reporting the same facts on the ground as e.g. European outlets. Again, it depends on the quality of source and outlet.

    And I didn't say that I "have a great understanding of what his point". Never implied this either.
    This is another strawman on your part.
    Using strawmen arguments are not a valid method of discussion. You should stop.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 273 ✭✭ Hqrry113


    King Mob wrote: »
    Lol.
    I have been posting in this thread.


    He's stated his point pretty clearly here:



    And I didn't say that I "have a great understanding of what his point". Never implied this either.
    This is another strawman on your part.
    Using strawmen arguments are not a valid method of discussion. You should stop.

    Do you not understand what's going on? My argument is that the media is biased, his argument is that it's not.

    I posted a link from a UK outlet about Gaddafis sex dungeon where he apparently kept hundreds of underage girls captive for "sexual torture" as one small example of the propaganda against Gaddafi, he then posted a link from the same outlet which was a report on Gaddafis death, I was flabbergasted to what his point was in posting this link it doesn't mean anything at all it was a simple story on Gaddafis death I didn't see the point in it.

    I have never been so puzzled about a poster on this site as I am with you right now.


  • Registered Users Posts: 24,167 ✭✭✭✭ King Mob


    Hqrry113 wrote: »
    Do you not understand what's going on? My argument is that the media is biased, his argument is that it's not.
    But that's not his argument. That's a strawman you've invented.
    Around and around you go again.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 273 ✭✭ Hqrry113


    King Mob wrote: »
    Lol.
    I have been posting in this thread.


    He's stated his point pretty clearly here:



    And I didn't say that I "have a great understanding of what his point". Never implied this either.
    This is another strawman on your part.
    Using strawmen arguments are not a valid method of discussion. You should stop.

    You keep asking me at what point did he say the media was not biased, this is what our whole argument has been about I'm claiming that the media is extremely biased and he's claiming that it's not.


  • Registered Users Posts: 24,167 ✭✭✭✭ King Mob


    Hqrry113 wrote: »
    You keep asking me at what point did he say the media was not biased, this is what our whole argument has been about I'm claiming that the media is extremely biased and he's claiming that it's not.
    Ok. Point to where he claimed this.

    I've read his points and no where does he say or imply this.
    I even quoted a posted where he explains his position pretty unambiguously.

    So please quote where he has claimed the media isn't biased.

    If you can't point this out, why are you claiming that it's his position?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 273 ✭✭ Hqrry113


    King Mob wrote: »
    Ok. Point to where he claimed this.

    I've read his points and no where does he say or imply this.
    I even quoted a posted where he explains his position pretty unambiguously.

    So please quote where he has claimed the media isn't biased.

    If you can't point this out, why are you claiming that it's his position?

    Me: Libya is a perfect example of western media bias, In June 2011, Amnesty International criticized "Western media coverage" which "has from the outset presented a very one-sided view of the logic of events, portraying the protest movement as entirely peaceful and repeatedly suggesting that the regime's security forces were unaccountably massacring unarmed demonstrators who presented no security challenge."


    Him: That's Amnesty's view and it's a bit bizarre considering "Western media" comprises of hundreds of outlets, the vast majority of which have nothing to do with each other.


    Me: Libya is the greatest example of not being ableable to trust western media, the lies that came out to justify the destruction of the Libyan nation is still hard to believe and people wonder why people are sceptical of the media?


    Him: That's your personal opinion. I wouldn't really agree, I followed events in Libya from a bevy of international outlets, Middle Eastern outlets for example were generally reporting the same facts on the ground as e.g. European outlets. Again, it depends on the quality of source and outlet.


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 273 ✭✭ Hqrry113


    Hqrry113 wrote: »
    A lot of people don't understand what media bias is and I can tell you in particular don't have a clue, media bias is the media’s tendency to systematically under-report or over-report certain types of events or situations or whatever.

    I can tell by your post you don't have a clue about what media bias really is, they will over report stories even if they have little to no substance, after the war Amnesty International published their report, finding that while Gaddafi's forces were responsible for numerous war crimes, most of the allegations of mass human rights abuses lacked credible evidence and were likely fabrications by rebel forces that had been promoted by Western media.

    Do you see what I'm getting at? Even if rebel forces and British forces are responsible for the same amount or more atrocities or the same amount of negative stories are out there tthe media will still spend 90% of their time reporting on negative stories about Gaddafi forces which will strongly influence public opinion on the matter.

    You ask what it's agenda was on the Libyan war well first of all if you are going to take down the leader of a foreign country you are going to need the support of the people back home and what is the best way toto achieve that? Through the media.

    They couldn't just randomly attack Libya that would have caused outrage first they need toto build public support, they will use things like killings of innocent people by Gaddafi forces but that sort of stuff happens in all those types of countries on a far far larger scale than in Libya and the reasons they used for attacking Libya the same reasons could have been used to attack nearly every African country, they had to start a propaganda campaign to build support to attack Libya for whatever their actual reason was for doing it.

    Here is me explaining media bias because some of his posts are taking a completely different take on what media bias actually is


Advertisement