Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I've listened to enough theorists to admit they are rightfully criticized for grandious, often conflicting theories without a shred of evidence.


But isn't it true that if people conspire, it should be nearly impossible for an outsider to prove it?


The mafia was said to be a "fiction", after all.

everything you post is dogshit

I can't speak for all conspiracies, but many actually do have strong evidence to support them or else no one would believe them.

The NWO and their depopulation agenda , for instance. That may be the biggest one of all. Then of course you have strong claims that 9/11 was at least partially an inside job and Oklahoma City as well.

And don't forget about the 2020 presidential election being rigged against Trump. The evidence for that one is overwhelming.


Now if we're talking about stupid ass shit like Trump being a russian agent then yeah, that is some major tin-foil hat crazy shit.

Depends on what you mean by conspiracy theory, I guess. There are clandestine activities kept from the public that later come to light, yes. They have hard evidence supporting them though, and move beyond being conspiracy theories. MK Ultra, Tuskeegee Experiments, etc.

The important thing, as with science, is evidence. Yes, it's possible to hide things; however, the idea that something is true because it could be covered up is ridiculous.

"We don't know that they're not doing it, so they must be doing it!" is dur logic.

Originally posted by StyleTime
Depends on what you mean by conspiracy theory, I guess. There are clandestine activities kept from the public that later come to light, yes. They have hard evidence supporting them though, and move beyond being conspiracy theories. MK Ultra, Tuskeegee Experiments, etc.

The important thing, as with science, is evidence. Yes, it's possible to hide things; however, the idea that something is true because it could be covered up is ridiculous.

"We don't know that they're not doing it, so they must be doing it!" is dur logic.


Maybe. But wouldn't it be reasonable to assume unless proven otherwise, those who hold power over you are not acting in your self interest?


Russians under communism made many assumptions about what their leaders were up to. Those who didn't, ended up in a gulug or dead.

Originally posted by cdtm
Maybe. But wouldn't it be reasonable to assume unless proven otherwise, those who hold power over you are not acting in your self interest?


Reasonable? It's just basic common sense to always be suspicious of your government.

There's plenty examples of proven conspiracies. They're just not as dramatic as people think.

The Phoebus Cartel for example.

Most of them involve price fixing. It's happened with CDs, DRAM, Capacitors, LCD displays, Oil, pharmaceuticals, inter-bank interest rates.

Usually it's purely profit motivated. Occasionally it actually benefits the public such as companies "conspiring" to standardise technology...USB connectors for example.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
There's plenty examples of proven conspiracies. They're just not as dramatic as people think.

The Phoebus Cartel for example.

Most of them involve price fixing. It's happened with CDs, DRAM, Capacitors, LCD displays, Oil, pharmaceuticals, inter-bank interest rates.

Usually it's purely profit motivated. Occasionally it actually benefits the public such as companies "conspiring" to standardise technology...USB connectors for example.


USB standardized equipment was public though.


And it wasn't universal, as competing technology exists.

Originally posted by cdtm
USB standardized equipment was public though.


And it wasn't universal, as competing technology exists.

I never said it was universal

Feel free to take your pick amongst the plethora of other standardised technology implementations.

The thing is, this may seem a good thing, but couldn't it also effectively freeze out competitors?

For any number of reasons, whether it be access to supply chains, or initially having to revamp your business (For the people who had to adapt or be left behind)


Standardization can mean "monopoly".

Hmm, the last several points kind of tie into a pet peeve of mine.


Here we are arguing semantics, but no real idea of how to actually crack an evil conspiracy.



Why is it Enron or Russia can work together to undermine us, yet we can't work together to thwart their efforts?

Originally posted by cdtm
The thing is, this may seem a good thing, but couldn't it also effectively freeze out competitors?

For any number of reasons, whether it be access to supply chains, or initially having to revamp your business (For the people who had to adapt or be left behind)


Standardization can mean "monopoly".

Which is why I first mentioned examples that were about greed rather than benefits to the user.

Originally posted by cdtm
I've listened to enough theorists to admit they are rightfully criticized for grandious, often conflicting theories without a shred of evidence.


But isn't it true that if people conspire, it should be nearly impossible for an outsider to prove it?


The mafia was said to be a "fiction", after all.

Conspiracy theories are just particularly outlandish claims. They are proven the way any claim is proven, by providing evidence to support them.

The mafia may have been said to be fiction at one point, but then undeniable evidence was brought forth to prove their existence.

Originally posted by cdtm
Maybe. But wouldn't it be reasonable to assume unless proven otherwise, those who hold power over you are not acting in your self interest?


Russians under communism made many assumptions about what their leaders were up to. Those who didn't, ended up in a gulug or dead.
It's fine, I'd argue even wise, to be wary of your government. Suspicion should lead to investigation though. You can't just jump over the data gathering phase and pretend an unsupported claim is fact.

You asked how does one prove a conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theories are proven the same way anything else is: with evidence.

Originally posted by StyleTime
It's fine, I'd argue even wise, to be wary of your government. Suspicion should lead to investigation though. You can't just jump over the data gathering phase and pretend an unsupported claim is fact.

You asked how does one prove a conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theories are proven the same way anything else is: with evidence.

But how do you get evidence from a conspiracy?


That's the logic puzzle. Take Steve Jobs and competing tech moguls. They cut a deal to not poach competition. It was leaked thus, but if not for the leaker who could prove it?

No one, that's who. Without whistleblowers, collusion is fairly airtight.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
everything you post is dogshit

Originally posted by cdtm
But how do you get evidence from a conspiracy?

Originally posted by cdtm
whistleblowers
There's one way right there...

Originally posted by cdtm
But how do you get evidence from a conspiracy?


That's the logic puzzle. Take Steve Jobs and competing tech moguls. They cut a deal to not poach competition. It was leaked thus, but if not for the leaker who could prove it?

No one, that's who. Without whistleblowers, collusion is fairly airtight.

Bingo.

That you need to ask this question is the entiriety of the problem.

Originally posted by cdtm
But how do you get evidence from a conspiracy?


That's the logic puzzle. Take Steve Jobs and competing tech moguls. They cut a deal to not poach competition. It was leaked thus, but if not for the leaker who could prove it?

No one, that's who. Without whistleblowers, collusion is fairly airtight.

Yes exactly. Evidence was brought forward by a leaker. So it was proven.

I'm not seeing the complication here. There is nothing special about conspiracy theories other than they usually require very compelling evidence since the claims are often so outlandish. But logically, they still require evidence to be legitimate. Otherwise they're just baseless claims.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
everything you post is dogshit