Conspiraloon arrested
- Thread starter Badger Kitten
- Start date
No, I said: you think hard about the structure of argument.
How do rational people structure arguments?
How do the conspiraloons structure their arguments?
How do schizophrenics structure their arguments?
Come back when you've thunk.
And I'd already dealt with the press question before you came along, thanks.
It's kind of irrelevant if you are dealing with a conspiracy theory in the written form, since you need to deal with each part of the argument rather than rubbish the whole thing because of facts about its author or authors.
If I want to debunk a 7/7 website I can't go about it by trying to dig up medical records of all the contributors - I need to debunk the argument as stated, not the people behind it or anyone who happens to choose to wave a flag for it.
Hardly, otherwise half the world is "mad" in some respect or another. "Holding shit beliefs" (psychiatric term = delusions) doesn't typically cover everything we would deem "shit belief", and just by itself won't get anyone diagnosed as 'mentally ill' AFAIK.
Again, not true - 'madness' = mental illness, which can mean something like depression or a panic attack or even an addiction, various mood disorders etc. - None of these specifically entail not telling the truth. Someone can be very depressed (mentally ill) but very coherent, engage in very complex thinking and hold very rational and ordered beliefs. Someone might be deluded about one thing but not about another.
Yes, some types of 'mental disorder/illness' - at some points in time - impact directly on someone's capacity for rational debate, but not all types at all times, and ultimately 'the proof is in the pudding' - you can't prove somone's argumen is irrational by pulling out a doctors report - you need to show that the abstract statement, which can be repeated by anyone, is flawed.
I have thanks. I've "thunk" hard about it. You've yet to define what a conspiroloon is. That waffle about the "structure" of argument, which argument, by whom?
As for your small print, no you did not address the point I made instead you attacked me, and I am guessing you thought I was American by the thinly disguised tone of your post.
As for your small print, no you did not address the point I made instead you attacked me, and I am guessing you thought I was American by the thinly disguised tone of your post.
But recognising the delusional nature of the arguments certainly makes it quicker to spot what you're dealing with.
It may also affect your decision on whether to engage head-on, or not.
There's no way you're going to convince someone who is delusional - in fact by engaging them head on you get into the whole debate about whether even listening to delusions is reinforcing them.
In terms of debunking them for others: pointing out the delusional-style structure of their argument - in particular the tendency to go into minute pedantic detail about certain aspects, in between huge unsupported jumps of supposition - does help.
I refer you here: Ten characteristics of conspiracy theorists..
The rest of your post is, I feel, covered by this:
me said:
A diagnosis of schizophrenia can be given due to someone hearing voices over a period of time and it is causing them problems. It doesn't always involve paranoia and/or delusional thinking, as the diagnosis is a bit of a wide and varied one.
Here's a (wikipedia) comment re. John Nash (A Beautiful Mind) mathematician/economist/Nobel Prize winner:
It touches on 'conspiracy theory'-type thinking *and* on the fact that someone who is 'mad' can actually produce good quality thinking and arguments, depending on what form the 'madness' takes.
Even so, you still need to debunk conspiracy theories on the grounds of flawed logic and evidence, rather than pointing at a doctor's report about someone.
I agree that recognising 'paranoid schizophrenic delusional' type thinking makes it easier to assess 'where someone is coming from', so you can decide whether to bother actually reading something or engaging with the author with a view of persuading them via rational arguments and evidence (or just not bother).
However, you might want to debunk claims or suggestions to help stop them spreading to casual observers or having other negative impacts: it doesn't matter so much about reasoning with the author than with providing an effective debunking aimed at a wider audience.
In this context, you need to debunk the argument rather than label someone as "mentally ill".
In any case, there are plenty of people out there spouting crap who haven't been 'diagnosed', and there are people who have been diagnosed "mentally ill" who still produce ideas that stand up OK.
We have to work out which is which for ourselves by looking at the ideas and arguments themselves - medicine doesn't tell us anything much.
(from wiki again):
"The discrete category of schizophrenia used in the DSM has also been criticized. As with other psychiatric disorders, some psychiatrists have suggested that the diagnosis would be better addressed as individual dimensions along which everyone varies, such that there is a spectrum or continuum rather than a cut-off between normal and ill. This approach appears consistent with research on schizotypy, and with a relatively high prevalence of psychotic experiences, mostly non-distressing delusional beliefs, among the general public. In concordance with this observation, psychologist Edgar Jones, and psychiatrists Tony David and Nassir Ghaemi, surveying the existing literature on delusions, pointed out that the consistency and completeness of the definition of delusion have been found wanting by many; delusions are neither necessarily fixed, nor false, nor involve the presence of incontrovertible evidence." link
Steve Booth
Bourgeois apologist
It may be a silly basic question, but how does somebody get hold of the addresses of the members of a jury in order to send them these DVDs ???
Badger Kitten
oof
The term 'conspiraloon' is well-understood on this site which is why I used it, rather than 'nutter'.
the interesting thing is that he sent it last year to the jury and judge during the trial of 3 men accused of conspiring with the 7/7 bombers to plan the attacks. The families were very emotionally involved in the trial; which collapsed when the jury could not make a decision.
The ( very expensive) trial is now happening all over agin.
If he influenced the jury then he is in big trouble. Tony Gosling and his 9.11 truther pals such as Nick Kollerstrom have publicly backed the idea that DVD 7/7 Ripple effect should be sent to families and widely publicised to 'get out the trruth'. This might impress upon them the need to have a bit of sensitivty and caution when trying to 'get out the truth'. The DVD has indeed been sent to numerous families and survivors - anyone whose name has been in the media has been to a certain extent a target of the 'truth' campaigners and I have seen people's addresses and workplace details on the truther forums, along with exhortations to other truthers to contact themn and 'get out the truth'.
The family of a young woman killed at Tavistock were devastated to get the CD, which alleges her body was moved and placed there by dark forces, and that the 7/7 bombers were inncoent.
I can't say I'm sorry he's been nicked and I hope it teaches these deluded and nasty idiots that having mad theories is one thing, but trying to harass familes and victims and to interfere with juries is not acceptable.
the interesting thing is that he sent it last year to the jury and judge during the trial of 3 men accused of conspiring with the 7/7 bombers to plan the attacks. The families were very emotionally involved in the trial; which collapsed when the jury could not make a decision.
The ( very expensive) trial is now happening all over agin.
If he influenced the jury then he is in big trouble. Tony Gosling and his 9.11 truther pals such as Nick Kollerstrom have publicly backed the idea that DVD 7/7 Ripple effect should be sent to families and widely publicised to 'get out the trruth'. This might impress upon them the need to have a bit of sensitivty and caution when trying to 'get out the truth'. The DVD has indeed been sent to numerous families and survivors - anyone whose name has been in the media has been to a certain extent a target of the 'truth' campaigners and I have seen people's addresses and workplace details on the truther forums, along with exhortations to other truthers to contact themn and 'get out the truth'.
The family of a young woman killed at Tavistock were devastated to get the CD, which alleges her body was moved and placed there by dark forces, and that the 7/7 bombers were inncoent.
I can't say I'm sorry he's been nicked and I hope it teaches these deluded and nasty idiots that having mad theories is one thing, but trying to harass familes and victims and to interfere with juries is not acceptable.
ricbake
working out how
taffboy gwyrdd
Embrace the confusion!
No, they'll just hound people incessantly and make up stories about them.
Doesnt excuse this bloke though, he should have sending the DVDs to the defence lawyers would have been fine though.
editor
hiraethified
As if the defence lawyers would give a load of cobbled-together, fantasy sick bollocks like that the time of day
But the names of jurors are not released (or are they?)
That argument as stated is terrible, laptop.
The only concievable way I can think of is sitting in the public gallery and then following the jurors home afterwards in order to find out where they live.
That or having somebody on the inside
taffboy gwyrdd
Embrace the confusion!
Laptop
a lot of those 10 Characteristics apply to defenders of official stories too.
There was a great piece somewhere about the psychology of anti conpspiracy. The anti conspiracists often say "oh, you just cant accept the random nature of evil and want a simplistic narrative - it comforts you". If this is potentially valid then it also potentially valid to say that defenders of establishment versions get comfort from not looking too deeply into things and broadly accepting what they are told.
While some "conspiracy theorists" are clearly OTT, the term "conspiriloon" conflates conspiracy theory with lunacy in too generalistic a fashion.
The paramedics who said Dr Kellys body had been moved - are they conspiriloons?
The "Jersey Girls" family victims of 911 featured in "911 Press for Truth" - Are they conspiriloons?
We should take each CT on a case by case basis. Any other approach is prejudiced. Anyone who believes what the establishment tells them just because it is the establishment could well be a "loon" themselves and needs to research a subject called "history".
a lot of those 10 Characteristics apply to defenders of official stories too.
There was a great piece somewhere about the psychology of anti conpspiracy. The anti conspiracists often say "oh, you just cant accept the random nature of evil and want a simplistic narrative - it comforts you". If this is potentially valid then it also potentially valid to say that defenders of establishment versions get comfort from not looking too deeply into things and broadly accepting what they are told.
While some "conspiracy theorists" are clearly OTT, the term "conspiriloon" conflates conspiracy theory with lunacy in too generalistic a fashion.
The paramedics who said Dr Kellys body had been moved - are they conspiriloons?
The "Jersey Girls" family victims of 911 featured in "911 Press for Truth" - Are they conspiriloons?
We should take each CT on a case by case basis. Any other approach is prejudiced. Anyone who believes what the establishment tells them just because it is the establishment could well be a "loon" themselves and needs to research a subject called "history".
taffboy gwyrdd
Embrace the confusion!
I think there is a 7/7 Ripple Effect too. "Mind The Gap" covers much of the same fact / conjecture.
editor
hiraethified
Yes, and it's so shit that even the evidence-shunning 7/7 loons have discredited it.
http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/j-for-justice-77-ripple-effect.html
editor
hiraethified
Totally irrelevant to this thread.
Besides, the Jersey Girls aren't advocating flying holograms, pre-wired buildings, faked calls and all the other moronic drivel that is spouted by DVD shifting fruitloops - they're demanding more openness from the 9/11 Commission.
taffboy gwyrdd
Embrace the confusion!
There was a brief discussion on the appropriateness of the term "conspiriloon" to which those comments were pertinent. But you dont seem to wait to pounce on most other posts that may deviate slightly from the strict tenets of an OP.
The Jersey Girls indeed dont wibble on about holograms and stuff, so their skepticism at offialdom is harder to bat off with a simplistic "conspiriloon" narrative. They do want more openness, they have questions they want answered and they aint about to get either of them.
editor
hiraethified
But no one's calling them conspiraloons here, so what is your point?
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
I suspect the usual tiresome suggestion that everyone who criticises bollocks conspiracy rambling is only doing it because they trust everything the government says and never ask any questions. You know, like Chomsky.
In the slightly longer Irish Times version of the story the guy is decribed as having sent the DVD to the judge and the *foreman* of the jury, rather than the whole jury. We might be getting ahead of ourselves in assuming that he sent anything to people's home addresses: he might have sent the DVDs to the judge and foreman 'care of' the court, without even knowing their names/details.
taffboy gwyrdd
Embrace the confusion!
Along with Paul Thompsons timeline they are the focal point of "911 Press for Truth" one of the DVDs that gets given out by whatever it is you called those people. My point is that there is a spectrum at which genuine lunacy is only at either end - instinctively believing the best or worst of government. The term "conspiriloon" gets bandied about rather too liberally like "nazi" or "anti-semitic".
Steve Booth
Bourgeois apologist
A credible claim?
So we are being asked to believe that somebody went into a court during a high profile terrorist court case, during the one and only time when the name of each of the jurors was publicly spoken during the swearing in process, and frantically scribbled down their names, and then once armed with this information somehow traced them?
In this age of CCTV, face recognition software, etc etc are we to think that the police/ Security Services would not know the identities of all the sympatisers sitting in the court?
A similar objection applies assuming he did this for just one of them (how would he know which one of them was going to be elected foreman)?
Or alternatively, are we to believe that an anonymous DVD sent to a Foreman of the Jury c/o the Court is just going to be blithely passed on by the court officials?
Sorry to be sceptical about this, but some hard questions need to be asked here.
Exactly.The only concievable way I can think of is sitting in the public gallery and then following the jurors home afterwards in order to find out where they live.
That or having somebody on the inside
So we are being asked to believe that somebody went into a court during a high profile terrorist court case, during the one and only time when the name of each of the jurors was publicly spoken during the swearing in process, and frantically scribbled down their names, and then once armed with this information somehow traced them?
In this age of CCTV, face recognition software, etc etc are we to think that the police/ Security Services would not know the identities of all the sympatisers sitting in the court?
A similar objection applies assuming he did this for just one of them (how would he know which one of them was going to be elected foreman)?
Or alternatively, are we to believe that an anonymous DVD sent to a Foreman of the Jury c/o the Court is just going to be blithely passed on by the court officials?
Sorry to be sceptical about this, but some hard questions need to be asked here.
Badger Kitten
oof
Mu'ad Dib/Mr Hill is an out and out conspiraloon.
The thread title is wholly accurate and I stand by it.
Have a look at his crazee website - google 'JforJustice'
You might also want to see his lovely views on jews, Muslims and his belief that he is the King of Israel and the Messiah, born in Sheffield - see 'JahTruth.net'.
He is an out and out loon and yet, and YET his bonkers video has been passed all round the internet and cited by endless truther forums as a great truthseeking tool by twats such as Tony 'Bilderberg' Gosling and Nick' holocaust never happened' Kollerstrom.
Conspiraloon par excellence.
Similar threads
