Post by stanley on Jun 15, 2017 13:56:04 GMT
stanley wrote:
Nevertheless, I owe you a thank you [,vapors]. Reading your theory has given me an insight into how conspiracy theories gain traction ...
Now, instead of "conspiracy", the media uses the word "collusion". If they agree with a point of view (POV), they call it collusion. If they don't like the POV, they derisively label it a conspiracy.
A thesaurus shows the two words are synonyms for each other. "Conspiracy" and "collusion" are exactly the same thing. This trick of the mainstream press is dishonest. But they all do it because they are powerful institutions that know that gullible people will believe what they say and write.
The word "conspiracy" is now used to dismiss, be hostile and antagonistic toward, assert an unjustified arrogance and elitism at, any POV that they do not agree with. And that is how your comment toward vapors comes across to me.
The only thing your comment tells me is that you seem incapable of examining this current theory on its own merits; instead, since it is apparently too complicated for you, you LABEL it a "conspiracy", and expect others to understand how sophisticated you are.
Your insult toward vapors has been duly noted. I warn you ... do not again resort to cheap shots, like calling a POV you don't like as a "conspiracy", simply because you refuse to take the time to examine the theory carefully or because your gullibility of word tricks by the mainstream press has made you close-minded.
Drifter
Whoa, Whoa, Whoa Drifter. For someone who is attacking me vigorously for apparently "not fully reading and understanding" vapor's theory you spent very little time reading and understanding my post. I'm not sure what your hang up with the word conspiracy is, but the only events my post actually labels "conspiracy" are the ideas that the moon landings were fake and that GW Bush ordered the 9/11 attacks. Vapor's theory is a classic example of having an idea first and then trying to pull in random evidence (most of which is nothing more than coincidence) and try to fit that into the theory. This is the sort of thinking that has led to countless problems in the past to include convicting innocent persons of crimes they did not commit. A proper investigation starts with the evidence and goes where the evidence takes it without trying to forcefully fit an unsupported overarching theory over the evidence. Perhaps I am incorrect in that the idea that the moon landings were fake originally began with this sort of thinking. Perhaps not, but I call a spade a spade. Vapor's theory was expressly predicated on asking the question "who benefits." I'll admit that the question "who benefits" can sometimes be useful. But this is not one of those situations. "Who benefits" does not get us closer to understanding and identifying a sick psychopath. It's the wrong question and will lead no where. The only thing that benefited from EAR's crimes were his ego and sexual fulfillment. Nothing more.
But I'm curious as to why you've singled my post out. Other people come far closer to labeling vapor's theory a conspiracy. See tiredanddone's post of Jun 11, 2017 at 2:43am "It screams conspiracy theory to me." Also see ambertmbg's post Jun 10, 2017 at 5:46am "Oooh I love a good conspiracy theory." If my contributions are not welcome here then it is your privilege to ban me when ever you so choose.