TRUE OR FALSE: 'In the conspiracy theorist's mind, evidence against is actually evidence for.'

Thank you for your answer.

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on May 9th, 2011

Thank you for your answer.

BTW, will you be joining Elvis and I at the local Burger King this coming Tuesday?

He's picking up the tab.

Oh, BTW, you don't mind if Osama Bin Laden tags along too do you?

;-)

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on June 5th, 2011

I can't. I'm hanging out with Jimmy Hoffa and Michael Jackson this Tuesday.

• Report

by Mike Astill on June 6th, 2011

Elvis says, "Hey!"
Osama says, "Die! Die! Die! You infidel pig!"

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on June 6th, 2011

Thank you for your answer.

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on May 9th, 2011

OK . . . then, if you would prefer to address a specific Conspiracy Theorist, then pick one and then answer the question based on what you've observed of their behavior and methods.

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on April 29th, 2011

maybe the questioner should express whatever the questioner had in mind, instead of me guessing

• Report

by purplecows on April 29th, 2011

Sigh . . .

I'm REALLY tired of this "What are your REAL motives behind the question?" second guessing on AB - it's wearisome, it's petty, it's unnecessary and frankly, it's silly. What difference does it make?
(geeze!)

Never-the-less, here it is . . .

I heard this statement in a podcast, thought that it was interesting and wanted to see what others thought about it.

That's it. Nothing more.

And if the podcast is relevant (and frankly I don't think that it is - the quote is interesting on it's own) here it is:
http://skeptoid.com/audio/skeptoid-4016.mp3

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on April 29th, 2011

no, it's not a question of motives, it's just a question of ... what are you thinking of? what or who are you talking about?

what you've got here is a cryptic phrase.

my reaction was: don't expect ME to pick examples of who or what you're talking about, if YOU can't!

now i've listened to the tape. there may indeed be some people who wrongly interpret everything as "evidence for" -- or maybe not always wrongly. it's difficult enough to analyze one individual's mind, dealing with one subject, to judge whether that individual arrived at that conclusion by sound or unsound reasoning. dealing with many pieces of evidence, many individuals, it becomes just an empty game of "judge thy neighbor."

if you are interested in learning sound reasoning, for yourself, then that's another matter.

• Report

by purplecows on April 29th, 2011

Thank you for clarifying.

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on April 30th, 2011

"it" ?????

"for" ???

could you be more vague?

• Report

by purplecows on April 29th, 2011

Didn't figure I'd have to spell it out.

"It's" = refers to the what has been said previously, any evidence presented would be twisted, therefore, (in their mind), "it's" evidence for (the conspiracy).

"For" = supposed proof of the conspiracy

Could have asked me to explain w/o being rude.

• Report

by drequeen on April 29th, 2011

Thank you for your answer.

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on June 5th, 2011

Thank you for your answer.

And so your answer is "True"? It doesn't seem to have registered - you might want to try voting again.

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on May 10th, 2011

sorry... hadn't voted. very often true. but it is not unheard of for them to merely consider the evidence moot. what I find most amazing is when in what they think is skepticism they say "nothing could convince me". a skeptic is always HAPPY to look at evidence and consider the possibility...
while I think our government has a horrible case of apathy toward the populace, conspiracy theorists think antipathy is what motivates our representatives.

• Report

by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on May 11th, 2011

Thank you for your answer.

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on April 29th, 2011

Thank you for your answer.

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on May 9th, 2011

No prob.

Good questions deserve good answers, and I try to deliver.

• Report

by PrestorJohn on May 9th, 2011

It's actually pretty clear if you stop and think about it.

Or you can refer to the discussion thread on Purplecows answer - that might be helpful.

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on May 9th, 2011

I just came back from reading purplecows response. That thread is not illuminating at all to me so let me take a crack at it. If evidence for something is solid, irrefutable and uncompromisingly provable, it cannot possibly be evidence/fodder for hoaxy conpiracy theorists. That means the belief position is logical, correct? Therefore the anti or hoaxy conspiracy theorist position is illogical. That is how I se it. The two cannot be true, logically, simultaneously. So hoaxy conspiracy theorists do not operate from a logical, intellectual basis but rather from an emotional, logic-be-dam*ed position. Happy Tuesday MIt! :)

• Report

by RosieGHM Jetpacker on May 10th, 2011

I think you're close.

Let me give you a "for instance" case study.

1) The "Birthers" demand that Obama produce his birth certificate to prove that he was born in America.

2) Obama (finally) produces the birth certificate.

3) The Birthers claim that the produced birth certificate is yet more evidence of the conspiracy.

See how it works?

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on May 10th, 2011

Using The Birthers as an example of anything remotely based on logic or truth I think is a big stretch MIT... a very big stretch. Their schtick is disbelief to which they cling most desperately. They are unequipped to think about it since it is a dogmatic mantra which they espouse and no factual data will ever get through or if it did t'would not be meaningful to them. Long ago there was radio program called "The Life Of Riley" and his signature schtick was "don't confuse me with the facts..my head is made up"! Well, that is the exact same schtick The Birthers use so I think we can respectfully eliminate them altogether from the conversation, don't you? Happy Wednesday! :)

• Report

by RosieGHM Jetpacker on May 11th, 2011

Nope, I don't think that they can be eliminated from the conversation.

To me, they're a perfect case study for how Conspiracy Theorists reason and approach counter-evidence.

And your quote from that great old time radio show, "don't confuse me with the facts..my head is made up" is just another way of saying the same thing that the quote is saying.

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on May 11th, 2011

I bear NO love for obummer... I consider him slightly worse than the average president in my life time (and that is a bar set VERY LOW) but he is my current president and I do not give a crap where he was born, that rule should have been abolished LONG ago. a man no more chooses his birth place than he does the color of his skin.

rosie, this is a rare event. I completely agree with MIT. the birthers are iconic conspiracy theorists.

• Report

by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on May 12th, 2011

I agree as well. My point is there is no logic involved whatsoever in my opinion. Happy Thursday to you both! :)

• Report

by RosieGHM Jetpacker on May 12th, 2011

Thank you for your answer.

And I must say that if Jesus is, "only some piddling creation made for the sole purpose of dying on the cross" then his creator was a sadist wasn't he?

I certainly wouldn't worship such a sadist!

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on May 10th, 2011

So true! What kind of God would create something to take the fall for him? No, it was God himself who gave his life that we might live. Anything less would have been worthless.

"O how great the goodness of our God, who prepareth a way for our escape from the grasp of this awful monster; yea, that monster, death and hell, which I call the death of the body, and also the death of the spirit." [2 Nephi 9:10]

• Report

by Bridget_D8547 on May 11th, 2011

However, if God Himself chooses to "take the fall" that's a different matter. It's evident of unspeakable, incomprehensible love isn't it?

And, yes, 2 Nephi 9:10 says it well!

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on May 11th, 2011

You've got it exactly. The Lord was pleased to take on the burden himself. He himself is our Savior. Thus, he in his mercy and grace brought about an infinite atonement, that all who looked to him might be saved. [2 Nephi 9:5-8] All honor, power, glory and might be to the Holy One of Israel, our God and Savior, who himself passed beneath the rod that he might lift the downtrodden up!

• Report

by Bridget_D8547 on May 11th, 2011

Not much to add except, "Amen!"

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on May 11th, 2011

So Bridget_D8547 makes two posts about a sadistic God where her main argument comes from directly quoting 2 Nephi 9, and you, Mister IT, completely agree with her and give her a resounding "amen," but when I try to put together a logical argument about a sadistic God you cut me off before I get started and declare me irrational? What kind of sense does _that_ make?

Why should anyone who has read your posts and mine conclude that "irrational" is for you anything more than a label you pin on those people who disagree with you as an excuse to keep you from having to deal with their arguments?

You said that I was irrational because I didn't address the evidence you presented. Two people can disagree about whether "evidence" _needs_ addressing, without either of the two being irrational. It just means they have a difference of opinion. Two rational people can have a difference of opinion. It happens all the time. When two people have a difference of opinion the _rational_ thing to do is to have a discussion on the subject they disagree on, to see if they can come to some sort of resolution.

Bridget_D8547, I apologize for hijacking your thread, but it's really frustrating dealing with Mister IT's hit-and-run posts, where he declares I'm irrational and therefore not worthy of speaking to him and then puts me on mute so I can't respond, so I thought I'd try this thread as a way to explain myself to him.

Kevin Sim
kvnsmnsn.wordpress.com

• Report

by kvnsmnsn on May 31st, 2011

Ah it's Kevin again. It appears that I'm being cyber-stalked now.

Luckily AB has a fix for that . . .

- MUTE -

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on May 31st, 2011

See, Bridget_D8547, what did I tell you? Ten seconds into my attempt at a rational discussion, and Mister IT puts me on mute.

So what do _you_ think about the topic? Is it a sign of irrationality that one person disagrees with another about whether a piece of "evidence" needs to be addressed or not?

Kevin Sim
kvnsmnsn.wordpress.com

• Report

by kvnsmnsn on May 31st, 2011