Ultraviolet
@frawley . I said "conspiracy theorists are fools guided by other fools". I did not say "conspiracies are the delusions of fools" or anything similar. That's a claim YOU introduced.

So when you ask, "If conspiracies are the delusions of 'fools'..." your question is built around a premise I did not make. Your Fallacy Is: Strawman Argument. Sloppy reasoning, a trait common among conspiracy…More
@frawley . I said "conspiracy theorists are fools guided by other fools". I did not say "conspiracies are the delusions of fools" or anything similar. That's a claim YOU introduced.

So when you ask, "If conspiracies are the delusions of 'fools'..." your question is built around a premise I did not make. Your Fallacy Is: Strawman Argument. Sloppy reasoning, a trait common among conspiracy theorists and the like-minded, particularly those who have reading comprehension issues.

"It seems to me that the label "conspiracy theorist" is used to discredit those attempting to expose criminal conduct of government or corporate officials."

Do you? Then apply your classification to Noah. You claim: "the label "conspiracy theorist" is used to discredit those attempting to expose criminal conduct of government or corporate officials."

The title reads, "Noah was a conspiracy theorist". So, based on your classification, which "criminal conduct of government or corporate officials" was Noah attempting to expose?

For that matter which governments or corporations was Noah attempting to expose, much less their supposed criminal conduct?

Pease name them directly from Scripture, with citations. ;-)

"Rendition sites and waterboarding was a crazy conspiracy theories until the pictures and evidence were made public by those theorists."

Wrong.

Thank you for presenting a perfect example of how conspiracy theorists "twist most factual information to justify their delusional world-view."

What you have said is factually false on multiple points.

First, the existence of such "black sites" wasn't revealed by "conspiracy theorists". It was publicly exposed by a Washington Post staff writer,

washingtonpost.com/…005/11/01/AR2005110101644.html

It was publicly acknowledged by then-President George W. Bush. Thus, your first half of your claim is wrong.

Water board torture has been known for centuries and the term "waterboard" itself dates back to at least 1976 when a UPI reporter quoted a US Navy spokesman who used the term. The term "water-boarding" was used and the practice described by New York Times reporters James Risen, David Johnston and Neil Lewis.

...all of which was discussed in a New York Times article on the subject by William Saffire.

nytimes.com/…9/magazine/09wwlnSafire-t.html

So your second point is also wrong. NONE of this information information was revealed by intelligence gathering of yoru fanciful oh-so-heroic conspiracy theorists.

Leave those delusions for some tawdry "based on a true story" cable-TV docu-drama.

You should fact check your claims and make sure they stand up. You should know by now, you of all people, that I will check.

In this case, I didn't have to. I already knew you were wrong and finding the supporting evidence was a very simple matter.

All you've done is prove my point that conspiracy theorists and, in this case, their obvious sympathizers don't know what they're talking about.
frawley
Worshiping at the altar of Google and basing your reality on what the Washington Post and New York times print? Really? Attacks and insults? I think you are better than this!
Ultraviolet
You should try using Google and fact-check your fantasies before posting them here @frawley Doing so would prevent you from making a fool of yourself.

If you feel the material disproving your claims is false, the burden of proof is on YOU to show otherwise. You haven't. Instead, what you've done here is a textbook example of a Genetic Fallacy. You're criticizing the source, not the informati…More
You should try using Google and fact-check your fantasies before posting them here @frawley Doing so would prevent you from making a fool of yourself.

If you feel the material disproving your claims is false, the burden of proof is on YOU to show otherwise. You haven't. Instead, what you've done here is a textbook example of a Genetic Fallacy. You're criticizing the source, not the information.

I loaded an infographic that would clarify your mistake, but sadly GTV's "processing" has been sluggish today. You'll just have to settle for a hot-link. Sourced, appropriately enough, through Google. ;-)

i.pinimg.com/…157e33b7b168b6a934f143b98c.jpg
frawley
Funny thing about Google, I can find endless "evidence" to support any position imaginable. My point is very simple. 1. Conspiracies exist. 2.Labeling people as "conspiracy theorists" and discrediting them as fools is as you state above, criticizing the source, not the information.

Is it possible for you and I to exchange ideas and insights without the drama? I for one would enjoy that very much.
Ultraviolet
Claiming you "can" find evidence and doing so are two different things, @frawley . Then there's the matter of the evidence being credible and you should know by now I'll fact-check your "evidence" to hell and back.

C'mon... remember who you're talking to. :D I did this to you the last time when you tried defending the seers and "prophecies" at Medjugorje. You left in a hissy fit when I was …More
Claiming you "can" find evidence and doing so are two different things, @frawley . Then there's the matter of the evidence being credible and you should know by now I'll fact-check your "evidence" to hell and back.

C'mon... remember who you're talking to. :D I did this to you the last time when you tried defending the seers and "prophecies" at Medjugorje. You left in a hissy fit when I was through with you. That was just on a spiritual event. I'm still smirking over the seer who blamed his bad exam grades on the Blessed Mother. Buffoon.

This is purely temporatl, no mystical prophetic language, no dubious theology

"My point is very simple..."

...and here's where you CHANGE your point. Typical conspiracy-theorist back-pedalling.

You made a strawman argument by introducing a premise I did not make. Quick re-cap, bro. I said "conspiracy theorists are fools guided by other fools". I did not say "conspiracies are the delusions of fools" or anything similar. That's a claim YOU introduced.

THAT was your original point.

Your other "point" was (quote) "Rendition sites and waterboarding was a crazy conspiracy theories until the pictures and evidence were made public by those theorists."

And that's a load of self-congratulatory manure and already factually discredited as such.

So no, you just changed your "point". As for you new point...

"1. Conspiracies exist..." No kidding. Four high-schoolers agreeing to cheat on a final exam are a "conspiracy". A coach pressuring a teacher to give the star-quarterback a passing grade is a "conspiracy". But those aren't the kind of "conspiracies" you're defending, are they? ;-)

"2. Labeling people as "conspiracy theorists" and discrediting them as fools is as you state above, criticizing the source, not the information."

Wrong.. :Oh, I love it when you slip up like this. :D :D

If I demonstrate a group of people are in serious error and should know better, as you just admited I have, (direct quote from you) "and discrediting them as fools" then I've earned the right to give them an unflattering title, i.e. fools. because I have discredted them.

In the representative example you chose and supplied, I not only attacked the information, I debunked it.

Your only defense has been to to cast baseless and unsupported doubts on the source and the means used to find it. See my earlier point about a Genetic Fallacy. Durr hurr... "Worshiping (sic) at the altar of Google"

Conspiracy theorists are fools and your defense of them isn't doing much do disprove the claim, amigo. ;-)

If anything, you're reinforcing my point through your defense. You're displaying the same failed logic and casual disregard of the facts they resort to whenever reality contradicts their fantasy-narratives.

Still waiting for you to show how the term "conspiracy theorist" applies to Noah. ;-)
frawley
Hope you find what you are seeking
Ultraviolet
So do I, @frawley ;-) If I find what I'm seeking on GTV you'll know it.
frawley
@Ultraviolet If conspiracies are the delusions of "fools", why do we have laws on both the federal and state levels addressing conspiracies? It seems to me that the label "conspiracy theorist" is used to discredit those attempting to expose criminal conduct of government or corporate officials. Rendition sites and waterboarding was a crazy conspiracy theories until the pictures and evidence were …More
@Ultraviolet If conspiracies are the delusions of "fools", why do we have laws on both the federal and state levels addressing conspiracies? It seems to me that the label "conspiracy theorist" is used to discredit those attempting to expose criminal conduct of government or corporate officials. Rendition sites and waterboarding was a crazy conspiracy theories until the pictures and evidence were made public by those theorists.
Ultraviolet
No he was not!. Noah was guided by God. Conspiracy theorists are fools guided by other fools. Also, there was no "conspiracy" in the history of the Flood. Even here, conspiracy theorists twist Scripture the same way they twist most factual information to justify their delusional world-view.
HerzMariae
Abortion killed more Americans than Covid in 2020. Where’s the “humanitarian” concern?
Holy Cannoli
Where’s the “humanitarian” concern?

Indeed. The fault lies squarely at the feet of Catholic clerics especially bishops. There are pro-life Evangelicals who are outspoken in their support of life while we are cursed with a hierarchy that is mostly silent on this issue. There are reasons for this aside from cowardice although that is, of course, primary. The laity support abortion and clerics don'…More
Where’s the “humanitarian” concern?

Indeed. The fault lies squarely at the feet of Catholic clerics especially bishops. There are pro-life Evangelicals who are outspoken in their support of life while we are cursed with a hierarchy that is mostly silent on this issue. There are reasons for this aside from cowardice although that is, of course, primary. The laity support abortion and clerics don't want to further alienate them since 'Joe pew sitter' is already fed up with the homosexuality and abuse that has occurred within the church.

Why are so many of the laity pro-abortion? They are uneducated and the clergy refuses to educate them.
Holy Cannoli
.