How Canada was sold to the New World Order

[Redrum237]

Originally Posted by mikeyyc

Two of three are factually wrong. They aren't conspiracy theories, they're widely held world views outside the US long before the first missles started flying.

As far as the meetings go, Alberta Preimer, Allison Redford openly attended the Bildeberger meetings this year.

My point is, there's plenty of things that conspiracy theorists believe in which are true. After all, many things WERE conspiracy theories before they were factually proven, ie the WMD's in Iraq being a lie, the Reichstag fire, the embassy attack in Libya being pre-planned. And there's a lot of factually proven things that venture wayyy into what many would term wacko tinfoil hat land (ie Operation Northwoods, MK Ultra).

Dismissing the entire conspiracy theorist mentality isn't what you should do. You should dismiss it when they present theories that are clearly absurd (ie reptilians etc). But saying that it's inherently illogical to question the official story is a very sheepish and closed-minded position to hold.

[Stubblejumper]

Originally Posted by Redrum237

My point is, there's plenty of things that conspiracy theorists believe in which are true. After all, many things WERE conspiracy theories before they were factually proven, ie the WMD's in Iraq being a lie, the Reichstag fire, the embassy attack in Libya being pre-planned. And there's a lot of factually proven things that venture wayyy into what many would term wacko tinfoil hat land (ie Operation Northwoods, MK Ultra).

Dismissing the entire conspiracy theorist mentality isn't what you should do. You should dismiss it when they present theories that are clearly absurd (ie reptilians etc). But saying that it's inherently illogical to question the official story is a very sheepish and closed-minded position to hold.

.
dismissing the conspiracy theory mentality is precisely what we have to do. Conspiracy theories take a set of facts and attempt to draw convoluted patterns from them. In reality, a simple explanation is virtually always correct.

There are instances where a conspiracy is the simplest and most likely answer. However, in those cases a rational viewing will inevitably rule out other possibilities (as happened in your examples)

[Redrum237]

Originally Posted by Stubblejumper

.
dismissing the conspiracy theory mentality is precisely what we have to do. Conspiracy theories take a set of facts and attempt to draw convoluted patterns from them. In reality, a simple explanation is virtually always correct.

There are instances where a conspiracy is the simplest and most likely answer. However, in those cases a rational viewing will inevitably rule out other possibilities (as happened in your examples)

Would Operation Northwoods and MK Ultra be the simplest and most likely answers? They seem like wacko conspiracy nut territory of bizarre conspiratorial schemes...and yet they're completely true and utterly proven.

Also how is "Hitler burned the reichstag to frame the communists" simpler than "communists burned the Reichstag"?

Imagine if a detective had this mentality—every time there’s a frame-up, “case closed” without even investigating it to determine that it's a frame-up. Because the framed person being guilty is usually the simplest explanation, is it not?

[netwit]

Originally Posted by Redrum237

Would Operation Northwoods and MK Ultra be the simplest and most likely answers? They seem like wacko conspiracy nut territory of bizarre conspiratorial schemes...and yet they're completely true and utterly proven.

Also how is "Hitler burned the reichstag to frame the communists" simpler than "communists burned the Reichstag"?

Imagine if a detective had this mentality—every time there’s a frame-up, “case closed” without even investigating it to determine that it's a frame-up. Because the framed person being guilty is usually the simplest explanation, is it not?

I think the point is that if someone thinks the world is flat, and claims to hear voices from Mars talking to them in their heads, claims pigs fly and the moon is made of blue cheese and somewhere within all these clearly crazy things also says rain is wet, then if I was going to do any investigating at all, I would probably check whether rain is wet - I wouldn't assume that because rain is wet, that I'd have to go investigating all the other crazy notions on the basis of a crazy person getting one thing right.

I'm pretty sure your imaginary detective would look at it that way.

Now to get back to my tin-foiled hat.

[Redrum237]

Originally Posted by netwit

I think the point is that if someone thinks the world is flat, and claims to hear voices from Mars talking to them in their heads, claims pigs fly and the moon is made of blue cheese and somewhere within all these clearly crazy things also says rain is wet, then if I was going to do any investigating at all, I would probably check whether rain is wet - I wouldn't assume that because rain is wet, that I'd have to go investigating all the other crazy notions on the basis of a crazy person getting one thing right.

I'm pretty sure your imaginary detective would look at it that way.

Now to get back to my tin-foiled hat.

Except not all conspiracy theorists are like those ones and it's an unfair generalization to say they are. The crazy ones are often the most vocal but they're not the only ones. Kind of like with Islamic fundamentalists and how they're the most vocal but they still don't represent all the Muslim adherents as a whole.

[mikeyyc]

Originally Posted by Redrum237

Except not all conspiracy theorists are like those ones and it's an unfair generalization to say they are. The crazy ones are often the most vocal but they're not the only ones. Kind of like with Islamic fundamentalists and how they're the most vocal but they still don't represent all the Muslim adherents as a whole.

Sort of like the Christians too. Generally if you have to get over the yelling, you can't get by the crazy. Regardless of case. Sooooo if some one is calling conspiracy! conspiracy! I'd rather go to the non-yelly, non-crazy source and fact check for myself.

[Stubblejumper]

Originally Posted by Redrum237

Would Operation Northwoods and MK Ultra be the simplest and most likely answers? They seem like wacko conspiracy nut territory of bizarre conspiratorial schemes...and yet they're completely true and utterly proven.

Also how is "Hitler burned the reichstag to frame the communists" simpler than "communists burned the Reichstag"?

Imagine if a detective had this mentality—every time there’s a frame-up, “case closed” without even investigating it to determine that it's a frame-up. Because the framed person being guilty is usually the simplest explanation, is it not?

Detectives do work with that mentality - that's why they start off with the obvious suspects and only move on to more complex scenarios when the simplest become improbable. In your case, they investigate the initial suspect first and only move on to the frame-up option when holes appear in that hypothesis.

I'm not arguing that conspiracies can't or don't happen. My problem lies with the line of thought that begins from a conclusion and attempts to join events into a pre-existing pattern immediately, rather than working forward from the most simple and gaining complexity only as necessary. Why would our fictional detective immediately make the case for a frame-up without exhausting the straightforward possibility first? It's very much the same type of thinking that you find among the creationist crowd.

There's only cause to seriously consider a conspiracy when simple, straightforward explanations fail to ex

The author of the original article is guilty of this in the extreme. Rather than beginning from a zero point and working through the major players in the deal and those who've benefited most from it, they jump immediately into a theory about a cabal of global elites running the world.