Conspiracy theorists will tell you there is nothing they, or anyone, can do to stop the small group of conspirators who secretly run the world. This raises some interesting points:
a) if it is true, why upset people by telling them about nasty things they can't stop - who benefits from that?
b) there is something strangely comforting about the conspiracy because it lets us, and those we elect off the hook. It wasn't us who started wars, allowed famine, messed up the environment, caused the credit crunch, terrorism, disease etc. We are all innocent!
c) there IS something that could be done - conspiracy-free products!
A market could be set up for conspiracy-free products made by ordinary people with no connection to any conspiracy. Given that the conspirators are few and the rest of us many, ultimately we could force them out by removing all their money!
Ah but how would we know .....Originally Posted by Harryprice
Harry, are you suggesting that the forum members here are responsible for starting wars? Are you calling them murderers?
I'm off the board for a day or so, and now the forum members are The Conspiracy???
Did I miss a memo?
Ask Matt!I'm off the board for a day or so, and now the forum members are The Conspiracy???
Did I miss a memo?
Oooooookay....
I get it. Kind of.
Was there anything unique about this forum, Bryan, that made it seem like the right place to play-out your psychotic breakdown?
I was already revolted by Michael Shermer's Orwellian hijacking of the word 'skeptic', and to find that some of my compatriots were following in his footsteps sickened me even more.Oooooookay....
I get it. Kind of.
Was there anything unique about this forum, Bryan, that made it seem like the right place to play-out your psychotic breakdown?
So, on your planet a "skeptic" is somebody who buys into your barmy bullshit, and you are revolted and sickened by anyone who uses the word as it should be used.
Do you kind of see the double standards?Oooooookay....
I get it. Kind of.
The goose can say it but the gander can't.
The skeptic has no qualifications but the truther needs qualifications.
Any explanation will do for the skeptic but the truther needs conclusive proof.
The skeptic can use an animated gif but the truther can't use a youtube video.
The skeptic needs no peer-review but the truther must be peer-reviewed.
The skeptic says 'if', 'would' and 'maybe' but the truther must stick to the facts.
That's off the top of my head. If I went through the threads I'm sure I could find a few more.
On my planet, and according to several dictionaries on your own planet, a 'sceptic' or 'skeptic' is somebody who is sceptical of established beliefs,
New Oxford English Dictionary (1998 Edition)a person inclined to question or doubt all accepted opinions
http://www.yourdictionary.com/skeptica person who habitually doubts, questions, or suspends judgment upon matters generally accepted
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/skepticOne who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.
http://www.answers.com/topic/skeptic
Other dictionaries give a more general definition,
http://www.brainyquote.com/words/sk/skeptic220196.htmlOne who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/skeptica person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.
a person who maintains a doubting attitude, as toward values, plans, statements, or the character of others.
The problem with the general definition is that anybody could claim to be a sceptic. So, unless it's qualified by the object of the scepticism (as in 'eurosceptic'), the word is useless for distinguishing one type of person from another.
The skeptics here are sceptical of the real sceptics, according to the historical meaning of the word. In other words, they are defenders of the orthodoxy. They are 'believers'.
I joined in the 9/11 discussion because I knew I could destroy your arguments. Truth and knowledge cannot be beaten by lies and sophistry. My motivation is the list of victims of the crimes you are covering up, including the innocent children who were conned into being vaccinated.
If you people are sane, I'm proud to be nuts.
This kind of says everything we need to know about you. You do not question that which is put forward by the majority, you reject it as a matter of course.
The duty of the skeptic is to question the stregth of the evidence, not to assume the evidence is not there, and not to reject the explanation that is best supported by the evidence - even if that happens to be the accepted view. In other words, rejection is for beliefs - orthrodox or otherwise, not for empirically verifiable evidence based/supported conclusions.
Vaccination has been dealt with extensively on many threads here, but the evidence to date, is that you could explore the evidence base for any period of time and not change your mind.
What you're describing is a 'rationalist'. You refuse to call yourselves rationalists because your main purpose is to appropriate the title of 'sceptic' from its rightful owners.
And the glory of being an irrational skeptic is?
The etymology of the word is Greek σκέπτομαι (skeptomai), which means to look and consider. The original Skeptikoi were natural philosophers who made no assertions but only gave considered opinions.
The definitions you quote are selectively cherry picked, and are only a few of many meanings of the word. According to the root and correct meaning, however, you are quite wrong to say that according to a "general definition" anyone could claim to be a sceptic.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks