noel emits
a wonderful wooden reason
Obviously semantics is a large part of where the argument is, yes.vimothy said:There's just too much semantic bullshit in this thread
Aside from the accuracy or otherwise of what you think it means to talk about 'con-theories', broad generalities are not explanations of specificities. The 'reasons' here are still very much of the kind 'all things I say are untrue are untrue because they are untrue things.' So it's circular. By your own (or is it Karl Popper's?) reckoning you can't give any reasons that can not be refuted. But we can see this working the other way. Hypothetical examples supporting the premise can always be chosen in place of others. Another tactic is the spurious charge that a given hypotheses may not be adjusted to account for new information. Again this would seem to work both ways.vimothy said:And was there a 9/11 conspiracy? I.e., was there US governmental involvement? I think it's pretty clear that there wasn't because of all the reasons I've listed.
(Pejorative in the sense that conspiracies are generally held to be bad things in countries that value open political processes? :slantedvimothy said:I'm not saying that there was no 'conspiracy' (pejorative sense) because it's unthinkable (to an ideologue like me, natch), but because it's not very plausible and nothing you've said has made it seem more so.
But what is this 'it' that you wish to be persuaded of, or hold to be not very plausible? Is 'it' made of straw perhaps?
To say that a thing stinks, in multiple ways, and that the official 'conspiracy theory' is not corroborated by adequate evidence (to say the very least of it), is not a conspiracy theory, although it might suggest that certain people appear to be lying. What it is is strong grounds to doubt the accuracy of the 'official' narrative and to start asking questions about what really happened, if one is so inclined.
Naturally in the course of this, hypotheses will be proposed, 'narratives' suggested, even. And why the heck not? This is one of the main tools that people use to try and understand events and sequences of events, and the relationships between them. You have narratives in your head that you favour, others may find them less plausible. YMMV.
But it's not even this is it? Merely asking questions is enough to invite accusations of conspiracy theorising (pejorative sense). What is a little bizarre, not to say somewhat dismaying, is that some, who should perhaps know better, appear so damn eager in wanting to shut down enquiry into, or even discussion about, this. Although I think I can see some possible causes of that.
Last edited: