"How Stupid Are You?"

[Quiet One 15]

It's friday night before the match between Argentina and Germany. There I am, having to endure for over two hours some guy patiently explaining to me that "Argentina just can't lose" because "FIFA won't allow that to happen until the finals"

Of course, I asked why. My friend could barely hide a gesture of frustration at my thickness and told me about Adidas money, Lio Messi being their icon, the money FIFA lost when Italy and France both failed to get past the first round, rating figures, etc. To round it up he just said "can't you see it?", to which I replied "I still can't see it" so my friend, exasperated, told me "Are you stupid"...

Yes, I am stupid. I am VERY stupid because I can't still understand why Santander's money was all powerful to get rid of Kimi and force Ferrari to hire Alonso, but it was never that powerful before or after. I can't still understand how Whitting "obviously" plays for McMerc, how Todt "obviously will favor his former bosses at Ferrari", how "Bernie would loss heaps of money if they allowed Schumi to lose this championship", how Greenpeace seems to rule the world while Exxon, Shell et al. have to suffer because of them and a long chain of etceteras.

The good thing is that conspiracy theorists never run our of material. For one side, nobody ever forces them to explain their contimuous failures to predict even the most obvious facts. And even if you did force them, they will just reply with another half cooked theory. Because CTs are never actually theories. They are just a bunch of non related facts and lots of tapping the side of their noses. "It's about money", "It's about power". You can use those arguments to support absolutely anything.

So...Argentina lost 4-0 against Germany. Which was obvious, as the Deutsche Bank would have never allowed Germany to be beaten by Argentina, or Blatter wanted an all-European final, or something like that.

Boy, am I stupid!

[Rainmaster 7]

Yep, I agree about conspiracy theories. Although some of the stuff you mentioned was probably not the best examples of conspiracy theories, e.g. I don't think it was Santander's money that was the main factor in the hiring of Alonso, but it probably helped to "grease the wheels" if you will (if the money wasn't there, maybe it wouldn't have happened that year). That makes sense from a purely, logical perspective, as Ferrari would need to pay Raikkonen a lot money not to drive for them (my guess would be that Santander put up some of millions or so of that).

Also the Todt thing, well I too doubted/doubt that he would actually make decisions in favour of Ferrari but the issue was simple enough: somebody with a strong link to a team shouldn't be FIA President. That was also logical. As it turned out, of the candidates who bothered to run, Todt was by far the most well equipped (no, not his penis) for the job in terms of communication, experience etc, despite the potential that when he did happen to make a decision which helped Ferrari people might say "omg conspiracy".

So, how did your friend react to Argentina's defeat?

[BradSpeedMan 6]

Yep, I agree about conspiracy theories. Although some of the stuff you mentioned was probably not the best examples of conspiracy theories, e.g. I don't think it was Santander's money that was the main factor in the hiring of Alonso, but it probably helped to "grease the wheels" if you will (if the money wasn't there, maybe it wouldn't have happened that year). That makes sense from a purely, logical perspective, as Ferrari would need to pay Raikkonen a lot money not to drive for them (my guess would be that Santander put up some of millions or so of that).

I've been a great advocate for Santander money being the cause of Kimi's exit from Ferrari, so unfortunately I'm really THAT stupid

[Argento Reloaded 1]

Conspiracy therories sells! CT as lady luck, cabalas are the las t refugee of ignorance and mediocracy!

[AleHop 0]

There's no point talking about conspiracy theories. It's much more productive talking about what you see, and if you're able to see some sort of trend then you have a case.

1.- A conspiracy is what happened in Singapore 2008 with Piquet or what happened in McLaren in 2007 with Ferrari data

2.- How F1 works is not a conspiracy, it's simply how *they* run *their* business. And yes, it is just about money no love/hate involved.

[Quiet One 15]

Geez...hold it there, soldiers!

The examples were brought to make you think about the many times WE fell for a conspiracy theory (yes, me included). I am not interested the least on whether FIFA actually wanted Argentina to make it to the finals, Santander money actually driving Kimi out or whatever!

Yes, sometimes there have been conspiracies. I am not denying that. The question is: how much of there were actually a conspiracy, how much of them were just a couple of guys making the most of some favourable situation, and how little can you hint at some general, obvious vested interest ("FOM/FIFA will lose money otherwise") and turn that into an unobjectable argument against whatever you want?

Brad, I will base my reply on your comment (and let's please forget about all the crap about past events in particular!) just as a means on what's wrong with your argument: whether or not Santander actually conspired against Kimi is totally irrelevant.

So, Santander "greased the wheels" because for them it was obviously better that Nando drove for Ferrari than Kimi. But...what does it mean "greasing the wheels"? Did they just commented that they'd rather have Nando than Kimi? Did they wrote a clause? They didn't say anything but Ferrari thought it would please them anyways? Situation would be very different in every case, as you can see. I don't care (and I guess nobody cares anymore about this) unless you actually can spot a conspiracy (in that case, a written/unwritten-but-proven clause). Otherwise, all you can say is "Santander would rather had Alonso than Kimi" and that's a trivial comment.

That is why CTs survive and why we all fall for them. They provide us with easy to understand answers to issues that bother us without actually explaining anything. The phrase "Santander money" means nothing by itself.

Again, do not bother to explain to me why Santander was the culprit or not It is the thought processes I am objecting, not the facts in every case which in some cases can even be true.

(I guess the thread is ruined, anyways...I wanted to discuss our mental processes behind conspiracy theories and I predict that this will be soon flooded by arguments over the crashgate, or Santander or whatever...ouch...I am that stupid, I guess )

Oh, and I still haven't spoken with my friend, Brad, but like you I am dying to know how will he explain that match!

EDIT: I thought TPs post was actually Brad's so change wherever appropiate.

[cavallino 2]

I love you. And Hanlon's and Occam's razor are good ways of testing conspiracy theories, all of them violate one or both. And I love you for putting in words what I couldn't be bothered to.

[Rainmaster 7]

Hmm, I think I get what you were going for now, Andres. I'm not sure whether you wanted an answer but since you quoted me, and because I just want to clarify my position, for me I guess that "grease the wheels" meant Santander 1) wanted Alonso rather than Raikkonen and 2) made that clear to Ferrari and 3) possibly put up some money to help Ferrari pay off Raikkonen's contract (which was no small amount). That is why it is valid to say maybe "santander money" helped Kimi on his way out of Ferrari imo. It is not the same as saying "santander money" is the reason Kimi is not driving for Ferrari, which is perhaps where me and Brad differ (there are many other reasons for that, performances, communication, not leading the team, whatever you like), but I find it hard to accept how "santander money" couldn't have made it a much easier decision for Ferrari to make for 2010 which is why it is annoying and maybe naive for people to dismiss that as a factor.

So, again, like I originally said, it's a bad example of a conspiracy (so I guess we agreed from the start? ).

As for why people believe such theories, maybe it is about finding patterns in meaningless things, something which we're pretty good at. Maybe it's just a way of denying a truth we don't like. I guess confirmation bias also plays a part too. There has to be a good amount of work already published on why people believe conspiracy theories...

[Kopite Girl 0]

A conspiracy theory is a theory to conspire. Therefore, not fact.

Thou shall not compute bullsh!t from others to entertain delusions de grandeur.

Fact.

Great thread Andres! Even better post.

[Quiet One 15]

I love you. And Hanlon's and Occam's razor are good ways of testing conspiracy theories, all of them violate one or both. And I love you for putting in words what I couldn't be bothered to.

I love you too! Your place or mine?

[BradSpeedMan 6]

Hmm, I think I get what you were going for now, Andres. I'm not sure whether you wanted an answer but since you quoted me, and because I just want to clarify my position, for me I guess that "grease the wheels" meant Santander 1) wanted Alonso rather than Raikkonen and 2) made that clear to Ferrari and 3) possibly put up some money to help Ferrari pay off Raikkonen's contract (which was no small amount). That is why it is valid to say maybe "santander money" helped Kimi on his way out of Ferrari imo. It is not the same as saying "santander money" is the reason Kimi is not driving for Ferrari, which is perhaps where me and Brad differ (there are many other reasons for that, performances, communication, not leading the team, whatever you like), but I find it hard to accept how "santander money" couldn't have made it a much easier decision for Ferrari to make for 2010 which is why it is annoying and maybe naive for people to dismiss that as a factor.

Politics. I believe Santander invested with Ferrari by having their choice of driver drive for them. a Spanish sponsor sponsoring a Spanish driver. The thing is, and this is what got to journalists when ask, why Kimi for Alonso. The question HAS NEVER BEEN ANSWERED in full by ferrari. Some muttering of Kimi not feeding technicians enough feedback on development and that Alonso is a better development driver? The realisation of the truth must therefore be like a bucket of cold water thrown over the the face of these ferrari executives, for I can at least name 4 other drivers that I think did a better job this year. If they said because of his poor performance, then I would have accepted it.

I can’t agree with you more, Sandander money means nothing by itslef.......We must attribute the CT’s to Ferrari instead, who’s the main culprit in this saga, and I hope they SUFFER the consequences of it.

[yurp 0]

The UN security council fixes almost all professional sporting events, run the sports, the betting and the TV coverage between them (through numerous front companies). As a result they make gazillions of dollars every second. They organise most of their deceptions through Argentina because they know that Argentinians are actually from Pluto and are not carbon based life forms at all. They have holographic projectors which also give them mass through some crazy technological genius which they use to infiltrate us humans. Marylin Monroe found out about it and look what happened to her. If you don't believe me check her grave.

Prove me wrong and I'll just make up some other crap to paper over the cracks.

[LabradoRacer 2]

Andres, you sneaky k***, I believe this thread is a conspiracy to tarnish the reputation of a certain TF1 member. If you're frothing at the mouth, I suggest you walk it off.

[Schumikonen 2]

I am declaring myself stupid too because I saw Kimi doing wonders with last year's car which it was not even close to this year's Ferrari, Kimi was finishing on podium most of the races but this year's ferrari line up just can manage to finish on podium so I am twice stupid because I think Santander's money had to do with Kimi leaving Ferrai and I also understand clearly this case can not be compared to the soccer case because it is simply not the same, we are talking here about a direct sponsor for a driver not talking about FIA preventing a team or driver to be eliminated from the title race, like it would be the case in a similar comparison so yes I am stupid for seeing that difference and not finding the realtion between the two cases and also stupid from writing about a topic that has nothing to do with this thread but I just looking for a chance to do that

[Quiet One 15]

This has taken a path I didn't want it to.

Ok, for you two (George and Brad). Nobody is dismissing Santander money as a factor on Kimi's demise. You both might very well be right and actually Santander was the only/main/one of the culprits for Kimi's failure to stay at Ferrari for all I care. I don't give a Sh#t and neither should you as THAT IS NOT THE FRIGGIN' POINT!

Gedanken experiment: lets imagine that the Nando move was delayed until 2011 as initially expected and Kimi was still racing for Ferrari. Then you would have a thread along the lines of "Why Nando didn't go to Ferrari in 2010?" and among many winding up comments about Nando being not worthy and such nobody would have mentioned Santander. Instead you would have found somebody (probably me) saying: "Easy, Nicholas Todt, can't you see it? Nicholas means Massa *tapping my nose*, and Nicholas is Jean's son and Jean's hates Nando *wink wink* and Jean is the head of the FIA *nod nod*. Can't you see it?".

And your reply should have been "No, sir, I can't see it and you are cheating, as that is not an actual argument, but a bunch of actual facts, joined together to hint something that has not been proven".

Sorry, sirs, but you are cheating. The fact that Santander is Spanish and so is Alonso is irrelevant unless proven otherwise. Santander is also one of McLaren's main sponsors yet nobody brought Santander money to explain the apparent leniency towards Hamilton this year (on the other hand...why not? ). It is not whether they are actually factual truths or not, is the fact that the reasoning is flawed what I am pointing out.

And please, oh please let's change the example. I do not mean this thread to become an argument about Santander, Nando, Hamilton's weaving or Global Warming!

[BradSpeedMan 6]

This has taken a path I didn't want it to.

Ok, for you two (George and Brad). Nobody is dismissing Santander money as a factor on Kimi's demise. You both might very well be right and actually Santander was the only/main/one of the culprits for Kimi's failure to stay at Ferrari for all I care. I don't give a Sh#t and neither should you as THAT IS NOT THE FRIGGIN' POINT!

Gedanken experiment: lets imagine that the Nando move was delayed until 2011 as initially expected and Kimi was still racing for Ferrari. Then you would have a thread along the lines of "Why Nando didn't go to Ferrari in 2010?" and among many winding up comments about Nando being not worthy and such nobody would have mentioned Santander. Instead you would have found somebody (probably me) saying: "Easy, Nicholas Todt, can't you see it? Nicholas means Massa *tapping my nose*, and Nicholas is Jean's son and Jean's hates Nando *wink wink* and Jean is the head of the FIA *nod nod*. Can't you see it?".

And your reply should have been "No, sir, I can't see it and you are cheating, as that is not an actual argument, but a bunch of actual facts, joined together to hint something that has not been proven".

Sorry, sirs, but you are cheating. The fact that Santander is Spanish and so is Alonso is irrelevant unless proven otherwise. Santander is also one of McLaren's main sponsors yet nobody brought Santander money to explain the apparent leniency towards Hamilton this year (on the other hand...why not? ). It is not whether they are actually factual truths or not, is the fact that the reasoning is flawed what I am pointing out.

And please, oh please let's change the example. I do not mean this thread to become an argument about Santander, Nando, Hamilton's weaving or Global Warming!

yes, but if I'm correct, Santander only moved to Mclaren as sponsor when they hired Alonso 2007.... if if I'm even more correct, their sponsorship percentage is less than when Alonso was there

[BradSpeedMan 6]

Andres, I agree with your point, after I had to re-read.

[Quiet One 15]

Andres, I agree with your point, after I had to re-read.

Ahhh...thank you Brad, you have restored my faith in humankind

Like I said, you might be right about Santander, the problem is that the reasoning behind your point is not helping. And we all do the same. If you pay attention it won't take you more than a week to catch me falling for the same fallacy.

I just think that, the more people is aware of our own flaws when reasoning, the more possibilities are of avoiding them, either because someone else points it out, or because we can become more self conscious of the traps of our own minds and thus improving our own lines of reasoning.

Bottom line: Kimi sucks

[Rainmaster 7]

This has taken a path I didn't want it to.

Ok, for you two (George and Brad). Nobody is dismissing Santander money as a factor on Kimi's demise. You both might very well be right and actually Santander was the only/main/one of the culprits for Kimi's failure to stay at Ferrari for all I care. I don't give a Sh#t and neither should you as THAT IS NOT THE FRIGGIN' POINT!

Gedanken experiment: lets imagine that the Nando move was delayed until 2011 as initially expected and Kimi was still racing for Ferrari. Then you would have a thread along the lines of "Why Nando didn't go to Ferrari in 2010?" and among many winding up comments about Nando being not worthy and such nobody would have mentioned Santander. Instead you would have found somebody (probably me) saying: "Easy, Nicholas Todt, can't you see it? Nicholas means Massa *tapping my nose*, and Nicholas is Jean's son and Jean's hates Nando *wink wink* and Jean is the head of the FIA *nod nod*. Can't you see it?".

And your reply should have been "No, sir, I can't see it and you are cheating, as that is not an actual argument, but a bunch of actual facts, joined together to hint something that has not been proven".

Sorry, sirs, but you are cheating. The fact that Santander is Spanish and so is Alonso is irrelevant unless proven otherwise. Santander is also one of McLaren's main sponsors yet nobody brought Santander money to explain the apparent leniency towards Hamilton this year (on the other hand...why not? ). It is not whether they are actually factual truths or not, is the fact that the reasoning is flawed what I am pointing out.

And please, oh please let's change the example. I do not mean this thread to become an argument about Santander, Nando, Hamilton's weaving or Global Warming!

Okay, but I take issue with the fact the reasoning is flawed and with the fact that it amounts to comparison with a conspiracy theory. Sorry, we will have to resort back to the Santander example again, and no I am not making an argument for or against just showing why my "reasoning" is okay and why it absolutely isn't the same as a belief in conspiracy theories.

I don't actually have a solid conclusion about Santander/Ferrari/Raikkonen etc, I just accept that there are different possibilities because it is entirely possible it happened in a number of different ways, e.g. Santander did this, that, or the other, or nothing (with regard to Raikkonen). Now, if I was speculating, or if I was a judge and had to make a decision, without all the evidence, on "did Santander have any part in Raikkonen being cut from his contract", then I'd suggest the most likely result (again, not claiming to know, because I don't) is that Santander greased the wheels (essentially, made the decision a bit easier for Ferrari).

Why do I think that? Yep, it is reduced to the simplistic idea that Santander and Alonso are Spanish. I can understand a Spanish company wouldn't mind being represented by the best Spanish driver (you might say "whoah there, that doesn't make sense" - I'd say "that's marketing"). Does that mean the contract was dependant on that? I highly doubt it. I imagine what it means in a practical sense is that Santander said to Ferrari "hey, next time you want to change drivers, we wouldn't mind having Alonso" and Ferrari probably replied "yep, we think Alonso is the best available driver, actually, no problem". Then there was the minor inconvenience of Raikkonen's contract; I think it's possible that Santander money, either directly or indirectly, helped Ferrari to pay some of that off (again, it's also possible it didn't, at all). Those are my thoughts surrounding the so called "Santander conspiracy".

Show me what there is a "conspiracy theory" or any reasoning which resembles that which a conspiracy theorist might come up with. Show me where I have been resolute in my belief of a hidden truth, where I've demonstrated with blind faith that there has been a cover-up, or where I've only considered the option which supports my argument.

I doubt you can, because at the start I told you, I don't actually have a solid opinion on any of it. I accept it could have gone down a number of ways. I accept that talking about it is speculation because we simply don't know the facts. What I won't accept, is the common sense argument that sponsors in F1 can influence teams' driver choices (this is basically the argument we are talking about), being taken down to the reductionist argument of "you don't have any proof, it's just a conspiracy theory, your reasoning is flawed etc etc" as if I had stated I thought the US was responsible for 9/11. I'd also suggest that if you are so concerned with flawed reasoning, then actually explain how the reasoning is flawed instead of making up an example

Sorry, but if you want to discuss flawed reasoning then we need an example and this is the example we have.

[maure 1]

It's friday night before the match between Argentina and Germany. There I am, having to endure for over two hours some guy patiently explaining to me that "Argentina just can't lose" because "FIFA won't allow that to happen until the finals"

Of course, I asked why. My friend could barely hide a gesture of frustration at my thickness and told me about Adidas money, Lio Messi being their icon, the money FIFA lost when Italy and France both failed to get past the first round, rating figures, etc. To round it up he just said "can't you see it?", to which I replied "I still can't see it" so my friend, exasperated, told me "Are you stupid"...

Yes, I am stupid. I am VERY stupid because I can't still understand why Santander's money was all powerful to get rid of Kimi and force Ferrari to hire Alonso, but it was never that powerful before or after. I can't still understand how Whitting "obviously" plays for McMerc, how Todt "obviously will favor his former bosses at Ferrari", how "Bernie would loss heaps of money if they allowed Schumi to lose this championship", how Greenpeace seems to rule the world while Exxon, Shell et al. have to suffer because of them and a long chain of etceteras.

The good thing is that conspiracy theorists never run our of material. For one side, nobody ever forces them to explain their contimuous failures to predict even the most obvious facts. And even if you did force them, they will just reply with another half cooked theory. Because CTs are never actually theories. They are just a bunch of non related facts and lots of tapping the side of their noses. "It's about money", "It's about power". You can use those arguments to support absolutely anything.

So...Argentina lost 4-0 against Germany. Which was obvious, as the Deutsche Bank would have never allowed Germany to be beaten by Argentina, or Blatter wanted an all-European final, or something like that.

Boy, am I stupid!

You got it all wrong the moment you typed "conspiracy".

Everyone, that is, _we_all_ theorize, hypothesize, lucubrate, speculate, conjecture, in short, formulate whatever we want over whatever catches our attention. It's the way it works. It's the human way. We think.

Plants don't.

The question is not "how stupid are you?". The question is "do you go through life like a plant?"... or is that question a conspiracy theory?

The answer to the very last question is the only answer that is worth anything. Why? Because anyone can call anything a "conspiracy" and, in fact, they do.

Consider this. There are folk out there that claim the Earth is flat and that there is a "conspiracy" to convince people otherwise. Well, here is the truth for you. It is a _FACT_ that, while most people think the Earth is a sphere of sorts, 99.99999999999999% of those same people would not be able to set up an experiment that would demonstrate what we could all "agree" is truly basic "knowledge". Thus, is the Earth flat because most people cannot prove otherwise? A conspiracy, you say?

Besides, the whole point of going after people by means of the "you are a conspiracy theorist" is to discredit them. Noone gives a fvck about proof either way, regardless of the nature of the "theory". It's just a way of insulting someone else to then cry and yell, without a single piece of evidence, that the Earth is a sphere of sorts.

Bar scientific theories, you've got nothing. And even among scientific theories, you've got little. Most sht out there is "conspiracy" stuff... if you so bother to call it that and, certainly, 99.99999999999999999% of humanity are "conspiracy theorists" regarding the _statements_ we were made to memorize without regard to _knowledge_.

Now, it is a lie that "people" thought the Earth was flat before Columbus. Why is it then that nowadays "everyone" believes that was so? Go, look it up. Even wikipedia might have gotten the myth right.

Alternatively, how stupid are ya?

EDIT: conspiracy.

[maure 1]

I enjoyed this thread... and the amusement helped me relax and figure out an alternative approach to a complex experiment that I need to resolve in order to move things along... to the next experiment. Thanks Honorable Quiet One.

Now, nap.

COMMENT: I just realized that, as I often do, I only read the first post and then replied. Apologies to the posters in between. Didn't see you. Hope you figured it out all by yourselves. Better be redundant than bear the burden of responsibility of having others "understand". And so on... (yes, I'm laughing)

[yurp 0]

On topic...

Andres - I think what you're basically complaining about is the cherry picking that goes on to support an unsubstantiated argument - this can be a conspiracy theory or just a deluded supposition.

When people haven't got a leg to stand on they invariably ignore or dismiss all evidence to the contrary and insist that the only valid information is that which supports their fantasy.

The more balanced or objective the counter-argument bought by others, the further they swing towards their entrenched absurdities and the more reasonable their delusions appear to themselves. Thus the more willing they are to fight tooth and nail for an opinion that becomes increasingly and obviously (to everyone else) complete bollocks.

The more absurd the idea, the more cherry-picking, dismissing of evidence and papering over of the cracks with further wobbly suppositions occurs. In turn the resulting amalgamation of ideas becomes even more absurd. At every turn the supporter thinks (honestly) that they're supplying even more evidence in support of their undeniable discovery. In fact, they're just digging themselves further into a pit of indefensible garbage.

The more this feedback loop occurs the closer the proponent gets to being labelled (with justification) a nutter.

On the other hand - when all evidence for and against the argument is discussed openly and in context - it might show itself to have legs.

The mistake 'conspiracy theorists' often make is to attribute natural (and often unfair) outcomes to premeditated and deliberate actions by individuals.

To use the Santander example (sorry to bring this up again). It is entirely natural that Santander's sponsorship should have an indirect influence on driver line-up. I don't think Santander money is the only reason and I don't think anyone in Satander made any kind of ultimatums or any such thing. There were many contributing factors to Kimi leaving and Alonso coming. Sponsorship money is just one of them. There's no conspiracy, it stands to reason that a Spanish sponsor would prefer a Spanish driver, but that's not the only reason they got one and they didn't get one soley on the basis of some imagined Santander plot. Had Santander not sponsored Ferrari the outcome may have been the same and it may have been different. Even with Santander's money at Ferrari, Kimi might still be at Ferrari had other circumstances come about. There was no malice involved and no individuals calling for Kimi's scalp.

Again - one shouldn't attribute to malice, what can be explained naturally.

On recent events...

Charlie Whiting may well favour Hamilton - (he probably possesses that silly human trait of identifying with one's nation), but as a proffesional he will attempt (and occasionally fail) to make decisions based on evidence put in front of him whilst putting aside that natural bias. If you remove Charlie Whiting, you'll have someone else who will favour another driver and that will subconsciously affect their decisions too. It's natural. Just as Mosely's opinions of Ron affected the FIA's treatment of McLaren. Just as Todt's old relationship with Ferrari will naturally affect his ability to act fairly too.

We are all human and though it would be nice to have people running F1 with absolutely no bias, it's impossible. If someone likes Sutil more than Glock it will have a slight bearing on how they treat those two drivers.

But here lies the crux - We can't say that every time the FIA agree with Ferrari it's because of Todt. Ferrari might just be making a very good case.

This is where rules are important. What they should aim to do is simplify all manner of offences making the punishment crystal clear. That leaves no room for this natural personal bias to affect what happens on track. Its impossible for the FIA to do this completely, but they could certainly do much better than they have. Todt and pals need to review the whole rule book and strip half of it out.

[maure 1]

You understood nothing.

Ah, well.

[BradSpeedMan 6]

You got it all wrong the moment you typed "conspiracy".

Everyone, that is, _we_all_ theorize, hypothesize, lucubrate, speculate, conjecture, in short, formulate whatever we want over whatever catches our attention. It's the way it works. It's the human way. We think.

Plants don't.

The question is not "how stupid are you?". The question is "do you go through life like a plant?"... or is that question a conspiracy theory?

The answer to the very last question is the only answer that is worth anything. Why? Because anyone can call anything a "conspiracy" and, in fact, they do.

Consider this. There are folk out there that claim the Earth is flat and that there is a "conspiracy" to convince people otherwise. Well, here is the truth for you. It is a _FACT_ that, while most people think the Earth is a sphere of sorts, 99.99999999999999% of those same people would not be able to set up an experiment that would demonstrate what we could all "agree" is truly basic "knowledge". Thus, is the Earth flat because most people cannot prove otherwise? A conspiracy, you say?

Besides, the whole point of going after people by means of the "you are a conspiracy theorist" is to discredit them. Noone gives a fvck about proof either way, regardless of the nature of the "theory". It's just a way of insulting someone else to then cry and yell, without a single piece of evidence, that the Earth is a sphere of sorts.

Bar scientific theories, you've got nothing. And even among scientific theories, you've got little. Most sht out there is "conspiracy" stuff... if you so bother to call it that and, certainly, 99.99999999999999999% of humanity are "conspiracy theorists" regarding the _statements_ we were made to memorize without regard to _knowledge_.

Now, it is a lie that "people" thought the Earth was flat before Columbus. Why is it then that nowadays "everyone" believes that was so? Go, look it up. Even wikipedia might have gotten the myth right.

Alternatively, how stupid are ya?

EDIT: conspiracy.

yes, actually, YOU should know, you're the master of the Whiting/Hamilton being big cahonies and Whiting favouring the black dude MASTER CT. so up your alley this thread

[Medilloni 6]

imo

Conspiracy theory. It's the 'theory' that's the problem, not the conspiracy.

On one side there's the 'events', events are real, black and white.

Then the second part; so many different people's persona are involved... the interpretation, imagination, suspicion, maybe even a splash of paranoia are all in the mix. Because there are so many countless variations of that wonderful mix, the 'events' will always be interpreted at an individual's level - therefore, a high probability of an unarguable, undebatable situation.

For the conspiracy theory to be proved right or wrong, the 'events' need to be backed up by an authority that everyone trusts (well, the huge majority, at least!).

So, back to Kimi. Case doesn't have enough 'authority' behind it to debate, so in these cases, maybe nicer to accept people's thoughts wihout judging the person behind them?

I'll spare you the rest of my thinks, time for work. Peace