Conspiracy Theorists Aren’t Really Skeptics

[Passion4Truth]

A real critical thinker does not ignore facts and inconsistencies that do not support their hypothesis. thats where CT'ers fall down. Sure, call out discrepancies in official stories but do not ignore or blow off evidence that also negates your own position. To do so makes you as much a sheeple as you accuse others of being.

True, but which side holds the REAL facts and on WHICH issue?

AND why use that foolish term CT for ALL these issues? Oh, that's right, the government and the media are telling you to......so best listen up and do so! LOL The term conspiracy theorist originated as a CIA propaganda campaign that was designed to discredit doubters of the Warren Commission’s search into who assassinated President Kennedy in Dallas. You want to insinuate you are a critical thinker and yet call people CT's and CTer's.....too funny


IMO, anyone using the ridicules term CT as an umbrella term for ALL these issues, without spending any time doing any research of their own is being foolish and deserving of the term sheeple. Some of these so called CT's are professionals of their fields that they are doing research in. How can you possibly ridicule an opinion when you haven’t even done any of the research into the matter?

A nameless keyboard critic calling people CTers without knowing all the facts of an issue is certainly not a critical thinker. One that wants to lump all the people and issues together, is in my opinion, foolish.

[FreeRights]

I see there being a very big difference between a so-called "conspiracy theorist" and a debunker, and this is why at least one of those two umbrella descriptions have valid arguments and why the other one does not.

When an official statement of "facts" comes out regarding some major event or whatever, many people believe that it is true. Debunkers, however, actually research or use other peoples' research and they test the facts of an event. Often, they make very strong, precise arguments against the official story based on inconsistencies or flaws in the story's facts. This is perfectly valid, and it encourages thought. A debunker essentially points out why a story or timeline of events may not be accurate.

The problem is when we take that extra step and, after pointing out some inconsistencies in an official story, some people then try to create their own interpretation of the facts that are often "supported" by a variety of unrelated, irrelevant, or false/inaccurate "facts." They often leave out some very big questions that they don't or can't find an answer that supports their theory, and whether or not they are actually right in their assumption, they aren't able to provide a strong enough backing of evidence to prove it.

The only real difference between an official story and a conspiracy theory is that the official story allows the evidence to create the conclusion (withholding certain evidence or not), and a conspiracy theory is when the outcome has already been determined before they begin seeking evidence to prove it. A debunker does neither, and simply provides countering evidence or facts against one or the other.

[Passion4Truth]

The only real difference between an official story and a conspiracy theory is that the official story allows the evidence to create the conclusion (withholding certain evidence or not), and a conspiracy theory is when the outcome has already been determined before they begin seeking evidence to prove it. A debunker does neither, and simply provides countering evidence or facts against one or the other.

This statement is completely untrue. Each case must be looked at individually. There are many so called debunkers out in left field, just as there are some theories out to lunch. And as far as "official stories" go, well, when government representatives have proven over and over in the past to have outright lied to the people, it is difficult to take "official stories" at face value.

[FreeRights]

This statement is completely untrue. Each case must be looked at individually. There are many so called debunkers out in left field, just as there are some theories out to lunch. And as far as "official stories" go, well, when government representatives have proven over and over in the past to have outright lied to the people, it is difficult to take "official stories" at face value.

Agreed, I pointed out that there may be official statements out there that withhold or ignore facts or information. And of course, like anything else in the world, not every single debunker is good at it - due to social media, there's tons of "news" cited that actually isn't true at all. But they each have their place.

I took more issue with the actual "conspiracy theorist." If we want to relate one of these categories to the skeptics, then it would be the debunker group in general.

[FreeRights]

AND why use that foolish term CT for ALL these issues? Oh, that's right, the government and the media are telling you to......so best listen up and do so! LOL The term conspiracy theorist originated as a CIA propaganda campaign that was designed to discredit doubters of the Warren Commission’s search into who assassinated President Kennedy in Dallas. You want to insinuate you are a critical thinker and yet call people CT's and CTer's.....too funny

I think that people use the term "conspiracy theorists" to refer to those who make wild assumptions that have no evidence support because despite where the term originated, it's an accurate term to use in many cases.

Being a critical thinker has more than one part. If you're going to ignore facts that are reported by government and media, then you too would be foolish. To think critically is to take all of the available information and use it to discover an end result. Critical thinking doesn't mean that you go out and find all the facts that you need to support your own theory or end result. Alex Jones, for example, would obviously assume that every major event was conducted by the government, then he would find all of the "facts" that he can to support his conclusion and present it as such. That's not a theory, that's essentially making something up and presenting it as a theory.

IMO, anyone using the ridicules term CT as an umbrella term for ALL these issues, without spending any time doing any research of their own is being foolish and deserving of the term sheeple. Some of these so called CT's are professionals of their fields that they are doing research in. How can you possibly ridicule an opinion when you haven’t even done any of the research into the matter?

One other failing that many so-called conspiracy theorists do (look at this thread for example) is to resort a discussion down to name calling. The term "sheeple" is used frequently by those arguing on the so-called skeptical side, to discredit someone else because they aren't following your obscure string of logic, and as well as just a name-calling tool for when you're losing the discussion. The fact that you even bring that up here shows to me that you fail to have sufficient information to even carry on a discussion, because if you did, you wouldn't have to resort to generalizing everyone who doesn't agree with you (which is exactly what your post is telling us not to do - generalize.)

A nameless keyboard critic calling people CTers without knowing all the facts of an issue is certainly not a critical thinker. One that wants to lump all the people and issues together, is in my opinion, foolish.

IMO, anyone using the ridicules term CT as an umbrella term for ALL these issues, without spending any time doing any research of their own is being foolish and deserving of the term sheeple.

Oops, there it is again.

Anyways, I agree that a "nameless keyboard critic calling people CTers without knowing the facts" is not a critical thinker. I also think that being nameless and using a keyboard is completely irrelevant, as I could be a conspiracy theorist, using my own name, and talking instead of using a keyboard and still fail to have all the facts, and therefore still be a critical thinker.

For instance, all of these false flag incidents constantly cited by "conspiracy theorists" fail to address, with the exception of rare but actual false flag operations, is how absolutely nobody involved has spoken up about any of them, anywhere in the world, period. Historically, there have been a fairly limited number of confirmed false flag attacks, and yet if you believe what they tell you now, there would be what, 7 or 8 since the start of the century? And yet, in absolutely none of them, nobody at all - even with the availability of anonymity and Wikileaks - has stepped out to confirm that it is, in fact the case.

[Passion4Truth]

AND why use that foolish term CT for ALL these issues? Oh, that's right, the government and the media are telling you to......so best listen up and do so! LOL The term conspiracy theorist originated as a CIA propaganda campaign that was designed to discredit doubters of the Warren Commission’s search into who assassinated President Kennedy in Dallas. You want to insinuate you are a critical thinker and yet call people CT's and CTer's.....too funny

I think that people use the term "conspiracy theorists" to refer to those who make wild assumptions that have no evidence support because despite where the term originated, it's an accurate term to use in many cases.

Being a critical thinker has more than one part. If you're going to ignore facts that are reported by government and media, then you too would be foolish. To think critically is to take all of the available information and use it to discover an end result. Critical thinking doesn't mean that you go out and find all the facts that you need to support your own theory or end result. Alex Jones, for example, would obviously assume that every major event was conducted by the government, then he would find all of the "facts" that he can to support his conclusion and present it as such. That's not a theory, that's essentially making something up and presenting it as a theory.

Agreed, and using the blanket terms, CT and SHEEPLE for all the people and all the issues lumped together is absurd.

IMO, anyone using the ridicules term CT as an umbrella term for ALL these issues, without spending any time doing any research of their own is being foolish and deserving of the term sheeple. Some of these so called CT's are professionals of their fields that they are doing research in. How can you possibly ridicule an opinion when you haven’t even done any of the research into the matter?

One other failing that many so-called conspiracy theorists do (look at this thread for example) is to resort a discussion down to name calling. The term "sheeple" is used frequently by those arguing on the so-called skeptical side, to discredit someone else because they aren't following your obscure string of logic, and as well as just a name-calling tool for when you're losing the discussion. The fact that you even bring that up here shows to me that you fail to have sufficient information to even carry on a discussion, because if you did, you wouldn't have to resort to generalizing everyone who doesn't agree with you (which is exactly what your post is telling us not to do - generalize.)

Maybe you should reread my post, I did not generalize, I used a specific example.

A nameless keyboard critic calling people CTers without knowing all the facts of an issue is certainly not a critical thinker. One that wants to lump all the people and issues together, is in my opinion, foolish.

IMO, anyone using the ridicules term CT as an umbrella term for ALL these issues, without spending any time doing any research of their own is being foolish and deserving of the term sheeple.

Oops, there it is again.

Used in a specific example, not as a blanket term. You are taking it out of context. And I only used it as the poster I was quoting was insinuating it is constantly used by all referring to anyone believing official stories of events, which is completely untrue.

[FreeRights]

It appears that, besides the name calling, we're on the same page.

[Passion4Truth]

Agreed