drugrelatedfailure
New Member
Hi
Since disregarding 9/11 false flag theory some years ago I have often thought in retrospect that if I wanted a 9/11 truther to question their belief then rather than attempt to disprove their countless empirical assertions I would rather ask:
"What is the optimal course of action if your beliefs are true?"
Because this forces the believer to consider the possibility that their attempts to 'spread the truth' may actually be suboptimal actions even if everything they believe is true and this will naturally highlight for them any alterior incentives to pursue and spread the theory they might possess.
It will obviously only be really effective if... optimal.CTtrue at least roughly equals optimal.CTfalse.
Full 9/11 false flag theory example:
9/11 false flag theory: "A number of western peoples with a financial interest in western powers going to war in the middle east staged an Islamic extremist terror attack in order to justify expensive, ineffective wars that fruitlessly cost the lives of both middle eastern civilians and western soldiers, were not in the public interest and only benefited western arms and oil companies."
Non CT: "A group of Islamic extremists flew 2 planes into the WTC and this event was used to justify expensive, ineffective wars that fruitlessly cost the lives of both middle eastern civilians and western soldiers, were not in the public interest, and only benefited western arms and oil companies."
Regardless of who is correct, attempting to discredit the notion that attacks like 9/11 might justify the wholesale invasion of countries like Iraq and Afghanistan is a more than reasonable option.
For non-CTers it is presumably the only option as you cannot control the actions of foreign terrorists, so you must attempt to reign in the actions of your own state.
For truthers:
1) Removing the justification removes the incentive for the false flag attack.
2) Its much easier to convince people that invading a given country is a bad idea than it is to convince people that governments are capable of carrying out conspiracies like 9/11.
It seem(s/ed )to me that belief in 9/11 false flag theory is thus redundant, because it cannot inform human decision making and I think this might convince some truthers to reconsider how they expend their energy.
------------
Having actually written my thought process out I recognize I am grossly over-characterising both truthers and the general public and making huge assumptions about what people would consider the 'optimal course of action.'
Anyway I would like to leave it stand as it is after all only an exmaple.
I hope the argument serves someone at some point.
I imagine that the truth value of a great many conspiracy theories might have no bearing whatsoever on what the optimal course of action ought to be were the conspiracy theory true, particularly those that make grandiose claims of widescale coverups, as it seems this would preclude the possibility of convincing the wider public that the conspiracy theory is true.
Anyway would like to know if 'you', who I assume have some knowledge of other conspiracy theories (I don't really) think the argument might be applicable.
Since disregarding 9/11 false flag theory some years ago I have often thought in retrospect that if I wanted a 9/11 truther to question their belief then rather than attempt to disprove their countless empirical assertions I would rather ask:
"What is the optimal course of action if your beliefs are true?"
Because this forces the believer to consider the possibility that their attempts to 'spread the truth' may actually be suboptimal actions even if everything they believe is true and this will naturally highlight for them any alterior incentives to pursue and spread the theory they might possess.
It will obviously only be really effective if... optimal.CTtrue at least roughly equals optimal.CTfalse.
Full 9/11 false flag theory example:
9/11 false flag theory: "A number of western peoples with a financial interest in western powers going to war in the middle east staged an Islamic extremist terror attack in order to justify expensive, ineffective wars that fruitlessly cost the lives of both middle eastern civilians and western soldiers, were not in the public interest and only benefited western arms and oil companies."
Non CT: "A group of Islamic extremists flew 2 planes into the WTC and this event was used to justify expensive, ineffective wars that fruitlessly cost the lives of both middle eastern civilians and western soldiers, were not in the public interest, and only benefited western arms and oil companies."
Regardless of who is correct, attempting to discredit the notion that attacks like 9/11 might justify the wholesale invasion of countries like Iraq and Afghanistan is a more than reasonable option.
For non-CTers it is presumably the only option as you cannot control the actions of foreign terrorists, so you must attempt to reign in the actions of your own state.
For truthers:
1) Removing the justification removes the incentive for the false flag attack.
2) Its much easier to convince people that invading a given country is a bad idea than it is to convince people that governments are capable of carrying out conspiracies like 9/11.
It seem(s/ed )to me that belief in 9/11 false flag theory is thus redundant, because it cannot inform human decision making and I think this might convince some truthers to reconsider how they expend their energy.
------------
Having actually written my thought process out I recognize I am grossly over-characterising both truthers and the general public and making huge assumptions about what people would consider the 'optimal course of action.'
Anyway I would like to leave it stand as it is after all only an exmaple.
I hope the argument serves someone at some point.
I imagine that the truth value of a great many conspiracy theories might have no bearing whatsoever on what the optimal course of action ought to be were the conspiracy theory true, particularly those that make grandiose claims of widescale coverups, as it seems this would preclude the possibility of convincing the wider public that the conspiracy theory is true.
Anyway would like to know if 'you', who I assume have some knowledge of other conspiracy theories (I don't really) think the argument might be applicable.
