There is a marginal difference between chasing wild conspiracy ‘theories’ and considering one as potentially being true due to a substantial amount of evidence provided. Would it not be overtly simplistic to get away with a conspiracy simply because those such as yourself dispel any possiblity of a conspiracy? There’s no comparison whatsoever on this.[/quote]
MisterAmazing: Welcome. I really mean that, btw. It’s folks like you… the folks who occasionally surf the fringe parts of reason… who make the Poli forum not only diverse intellectually, but fun as well.
And I must concede your point in that we should not rule out investigating certain unlikely causes of significant occurrences simply on the grounds that the chances of a complicit international conspiracy being responsible are next to nothing.
The difference I would like to point out, with the semi-vain hope of it maybe sinking in, is that there are WORLDS of difference between looking at a complex and significant event such as 9/11 with an eye towards fact and looking at the very same event with a prepared agenda.
Sane people don’t go around cherry-picking facts to fit a psychotic ideation of ubiquitous villainous boogeymen who just happen to be in charge of all media, industry, government, et al, whatever “establishment” sector you have some kind of personal beef with. That just doesn’t make sense. It’s bad reasoning. Honest. (this is my honest face)
And before we get off to a bad start here, I would like to take this opportunity to remind everyone that, yes, believing that some elite secret society pulls the strings of all business and military endeavors is MOST DEFINITELY paranoid, delusional, and retarded. We are not bees. Humans are necessarily self-interested and complex animals. We are not some hive-mind which cooperates with 100% efficiency and 100% loyalty to any kind of direction. This is scientific fact: borne out by simple observation, behavioral science experiments, social science experiments, game theory… jeez I could go on all day about how humans are not evolved into beings who simply comply. All damn day.
Just knowing this one simple truth about human nature will, as a matter of course, throw up what I like to call a gigantic bullshit flag on ANY theory which depends entirely upon 100% large-scale human complicity in anything. Why start at the most unlikely thing in the world to explain stuff? Why don’t we start at the most likely stuff and go from there?
Answer: Because the truth is mundane, unromantic, and doesn’t support our childish ideas of monsters hiding under the bed.
Thus we have the “Illuminatards” and the “Freemasonerds” who have seen too much TV, and find real life to be too darn vanilla for them. Give 'em a website, and poof! Instant conspiracy theory. And you guys post links to their websites as if that lends your foolishness any kind of credibility.
Obi-Wan Kenobi once said:
“Who’s more the fool? The fool, or the fool who follows him?”