> With respect, a conspiracy believer sees everything as backing up their beliefs.
I think that's a slightly narrow-minded view of it, as there's no black and white single line between being a conspiracy theorist or not. It's all subjective, and while some conspiracies most of us may agree are obviously that, others can be far more subtle/debatable.
Not that long ago, people who believed the NSA were spying on people to the extent that we now know they are would have been labelled by many as conspiracy theorists. Now we know they were just... people with the correct knowledge and/or guesses. So because they were once thought to be conspiracy believers we should lump them into one category and say "they see everything as backing up their beliefs"?
The nuttier a belief is, and the longer it goes on, the more likely it is we're to hear about it. For every new "this proves me right", those of us who don't believe it think here we go again..., while for every new "this proves me wrong I've changed my mind", we don't hear about that.
All in all, there are two options about 9/11. Either it was a Government plan, in which case of course new points support the theory, and one day we will probably find out the truth. Or the conspiracies are complete bullshit, in which case some statements/facts will be used erroneously to support them, but that doesn't necessarily mean there aren't statements/facts which genuinely do support those theories.
> I think that's a slightly narrow-minded view of it, as there's no black and white single line between being a conspiracy theorist or not. It's all subjective, and while some conspiracies most of us may agree are obviously that, others can be far more subtle/debatable.
The user begins by saying I might be a troll due to having a young account, finds my account is old, but uses it to confirm his belief rather than realise I am arguing honestly.
> Not that long ago, people who believed the NSA were spying on people to the extent that we now know they are
We still don't actually have any particularly firm knowledge on exactly what the NSA is doing. I blame a lot of the reporting to be honest, but many systems like this have been theorised by perfectly rational people for a while.
> All in all, there are two options about 9/11
This is a little bit of a false dichotomy, but there is no chance whatsoever that any of the major conspiracy theories are valid. You don't have to trust me on this, just go and look at the website of the largest activist group, AE911Truth and read their self contradicting list of evidence.
> Why don't you go and have a good long thing about your life, how you interact with others, and what you want to achieve when you talk to people, especially strangers. What you are doing now is, long term, going to do you no good at all.
Your example is nothing to do with conspiracy theories, just to do with how people when losing an argument with grasp at any straws possible.
9/11, I already believe (as I previously stated) that none of the conspiracy theories are valid. That doesn't mean that small things can't help support the theories in valid ways. If I have a theory that Michael Jackson was murdered by Osama Bin Larden using a trained hedgehog, and I find out that Bin Larden did actually own a trained hedgehog, that backs up a small part of my theory. That doesn't mean my theory is true.
> Your example is nothing to do with conspiracy theories, just to do with how people when losing an argument with grasp at any straws possible.
What you must realise is that this user believes I am posting with ulterior motive, essentially he only trusts his interpretation of my text. This is symptomatic of conspiracy theories.
I agree with the rest of your post without reservation though.
I think that's a slightly narrow-minded view of it, as there's no black and white single line between being a conspiracy theorist or not. It's all subjective, and while some conspiracies most of us may agree are obviously that, others can be far more subtle/debatable.
Not that long ago, people who believed the NSA were spying on people to the extent that we now know they are would have been labelled by many as conspiracy theorists. Now we know they were just... people with the correct knowledge and/or guesses. So because they were once thought to be conspiracy believers we should lump them into one category and say "they see everything as backing up their beliefs"?
The nuttier a belief is, and the longer it goes on, the more likely it is we're to hear about it. For every new "this proves me right", those of us who don't believe it think here we go again..., while for every new "this proves me wrong I've changed my mind", we don't hear about that.
All in all, there are two options about 9/11. Either it was a Government plan, in which case of course new points support the theory, and one day we will probably find out the truth. Or the conspiracies are complete bullshit, in which case some statements/facts will be used erroneously to support them, but that doesn't necessarily mean there aren't statements/facts which genuinely do support those theories.