StarGateWars Forums

con⋅spir⋅a⋅cy [-noun
1. the act of conspiring.
2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
4. Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

Interestingly, the term "conspiracy theorist" is exclusively or almost exclusively applied to individuals who question what is perceived as established authority. Well, children being the exception, as they are still capable of questioning the authority of their parents without being labelled "conspiracy theorists". Eventually, however, they are taught to follow authority lest they suffer the consequences of not doing so.

If, however, we take the literal meaning of the term "conspiracy theorist", we can label multiple government agents as conspiracy theorists and the term "conspiracy countertheorist" may be more appropriate for those who propose theories that contradict those of the government agents.

For example, let us recall the events of September 9/11 2001. The government conspiracy theorists tell us that the attacks on the twin towers were the result of a conspiracy among desert cave people who smuggled boxcutters into airplanes.

The conspiracy countertheorists held the belief that an extraordinary claim demands extraordinary evidence and, the current evidence being uncompelling, decided to hold to the belief that the buildings came down in the usual way, through controlled demolition. A rational individual does not consider evidence more compelling because it issues from the mouth of the agent of an legal entity that it is claimed has authority over us.

This, however, does not imply that all theories labelled as conspiracy theories are inherently true or false. They are theories. They attempt to give an explanation to a phenomenon to which the existing explanation is considered shaky.

I believe that it is healthy to question everything. Furthermore, those who claim authority over you are acting like parents and will therefore treat you like children. They are not necessarily benevolent or malevolent.

They are, however, willing to do the following:

1. lie or invent stories to get their "children" to behave, submit, live under a magical illusion or explain phenomena that they do not wish to explain truthfully.

analogical examples: the Bogeyman, Santa Clause, the tooth fairy, the stork, etc.

2. have rules and laws that the "children" must obey.

a.e.: bedtime, curfew, no eating on the couch, etc.

3. require the "children" to contribute to the "household" through taxes.

a.e.: encouraging sharing, chores

4. punish.

a.e.: grounding, sending to room, extra chores, etc.

5. react angrily when their authority is questioned.


The main difference is that the government does this until the day you die and your parents understand that there is a time when you have grown up.

Agapooka

Problem is..almost no human is capable of behaving without limits being put to his/her actions.
Humanity is still far from wisdom, it is in its nature. We are coming from animals afterall, there will always be a small part of us that doesn't behave rationally.

Should the whole be parented to account for those that have been judged to be irrational by others? Furthermore, would those who are perceived as having established their authority benefit from suppressing those who challenge their authority by labelling them as irrational? I would like to add to that by saying that, considering their de facto authority, they have the power and thus opportunity to label those who challenge their authority as irrational.

In a court of law, establishing a motive and opportunity is a big step towards getting a conviction.

Cole wrote:I'm wondering why some people believe in those theories, that there are some hidden agendas of taking over the world..
I know that X-Files was very convincing, that no governement is totally clean, that there are some power interests here and there. But, come on...listening to this stuff, it's like it is a plan started like over a century ago, that it has its bunch of followers, never decreasing with new generations coming. Why would they wait THAT long? Afterall, we have seen nazism, fascism and communism totalitarianships terrorize and hurt deeply the world in last century. Why would this NWO wait that long to be implemented while much worse systems were implemented in a matter of a decade?
It just proves it's making mountains out of molehills, and is just paranoia.

It's kinda funny , and one of the best sources of irony i have come across. People like Alex Jones, Peter Beter and Jim Marrs prey on peoples fears with over the top one sided peices non factual and non logical media; right out of a hollywood thriller. And people buy it as truth with out ever questioning the the message they are givin. They have fallen prey to the same thing they warn us about. While making there top messengers slightly famous along the way; and don't forget rich. They try to save the sheep like us from the wolves and become to busy to notice they are just pearing into a mirror.

Cole wrote:Problem is..almost no human is capable of behaving without limits being put to his/her actions.
Humanity is still far from wisdom, it is in its nature. We are coming from animals afterall, there will always be a small part of us that doesn't behave rationally.

You don't have to limit action, you have to explain why certain actions are unhelpful or just harmful. If you can prove that the actions are actually beneficial then they should be accepted.

We are not walking, talking time bombs that need to be controlled.

Thriller wrote:

Cole wrote:Problem is..almost no human is capable of behaving without limits being put to his/her actions.
Humanity is still far from wisdom, it is in its nature. We are coming from animals afterall, there will always be a small part of us that doesn't behave rationally.

You don't have to limit action, you have to explain why certain actions are unhelpful or just harmful. If you can prove that the actions are actually beneficial then they should be accepted.

We are not walking, talking time bombs that need to be controlled.

Again, not everyone can be reasoned by explanation

It's difficult for humans to continually question. Once someone or something has contributed to a paradigm shift, they gain an individual's trust and they mostly cease to be questioned.

I have my own problems with Alex Jones and his method and his effect on people. I won't go into it here, though. Let's just say that I find that he influences people on an emotional level and that emotions are always an easy way to manipulate others.

Jim: "reasoned by explanation"? To claim that some individuals are irrational may be true, but who is objective enough to accurately qualify another as irrational and how is that enough to claim the right of authority over that individual? I have to agree with Thriller when he states that we are not walking timebombs that have tobe controlled.

Agapooka wrote:Jim: "reasoned by explanation"? To claim that some individuals are irrational may be true, but who is objective enough to accurately qualify another as irrational and how is that enough to claim the right of authority over that individual? I have to agree with Thriller when he states that we are not walking timebombs that have tobe controlled.

For example, explaining to a mentally disturbed & dangerous person why hurting/killing people is wrong. It's almost impossible. And think about it. We are over 6 billion people. How the hell could we get to explain things to everyone? (sure, many people follow laws without asking, but those who don't are often hard to reason)
So much criminals, thugs, etc...most had parents, but their parents, often, weren't skilled enough, or had too much children/not enough time, to do it properly, or finally, just didn't care.
We are too many to be able to use the talking way with people. And we keep growing. And the amount of people disrespecting laws grows as well.

Perhaps if laws werent arbitralily made up on the spot in a knee jerk reaction to one event or if there werent so many trivial laws people would respect them more and adhere to them more.

You trying to tell me you know all the laws of your land? Becasue if you are I'm gonna call BS on that one as even lawyers and judges dont know all the laws of the land and they deal with them everyday.

We dont need legal systems to give up permission to do something (a system used in the continental EU) all we need are a few laws to explictly forbid activitey that would harm people (ie anything not expressly forbidden is allowed, like UK/US legal systems)

oh and by harm people, i dont mean business :p

Oh, even the US has problems with that, haha.

Kit-Fox, watch this. It's for you. Just for you. But others can watch it too, eh.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik

Yeah even the US/UK system has its problems agreed and some of them are nicely highlighted in those youtube vids.

Of course while it might work in the US, such an approach would actually not help you in the UK where the legal system is setup to view silence as an admission of guilt. Judges have in the past in the UK directed juries to view the defendants silence as a confession that they did the crime.

And of course in the UK you have no right to silence.

But still even with all of its problems if it could just be cut down from all the (*&^%$ that has sprung up in the last 100 years, most of which exists to defend business rather than the citizens it would be ideal.