deirdre
Senior Member.
"isnt proven true" does not mean automatically it is false.
Why bother debunking when... [believers won't change their minds]
- Thread starter Clock
- Start date
Whitebeard
Senior Member.
True some conspiracy theories do in deed to turn out to be real conspiracies and not theories... Watergate, Iran Contra, Gladio and a few others. However these tend to be fairly small scale affairs involving no more than a handful of people and have a logical motive and method and simple plots. The big ones, 9-11, Apollo hoax, chemtrails etc all suffer from a number of issues that throw doubt on them from the off. The number of people and the logistics of making them work, no clearly defined goals (other than a vague 'bring about agenda 21' / 'instigate project blue beam' etc) and plots so implausibly complex they would be nigh on impossible to instigate.
Like the theory of gravity?
There's a bit of a problem of nomenclature here. In science a "theory" is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." Which is not the same thing as a conspiracy theory.
Hama Neggs
Senior Member.
Like the theory of gravity?
There's a bit of a problem of nomenclature here. In science a "theory" is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." Which is not the same thing as a conspiracy theory.
The common lay definition of "theory" is more like something that someone just dreamed up and says could be true.
Efftup
Senior Member.
as in detective work. A detective's "theory" is an idea about what they think happened, which they then try and find evidence for.
Gary Cook
Active Member
Maybe I wasnt clear enough but I was trying to avoid going off topic and giving admins [nothing to personal of course] an excuse to exercise their bias on me again by sending me off to the sin-bin. Although I have deserved it at times. I'm actually here for the truth and for me that is going to be in the middle of what most CTs and debunkers seem to think.
The convo was a debunker saying the government never did any propaganda or made any mistakes that were effectively the same. The state media in both USA/US are still calling them the wrong term even though there has been numerous complaints. Technically an AR-15 is an Assault Weapon and not an Assault Rifle. But many people including me find that divisive too. Just some background.
Last edited:
Ray Von Geezer
Senior Member.
Is this kind of a pet hate of yours that you go looking to challenge? You said here it was a recent conversation but I thought I remembered you mentioning it before, and search shows you said exactly the same thing in Feb 2014.
As far as Assault Weapon/Assault Rifle goes - it's a rifle. If it's also classified as an Assault Weapon then as a layman I'd say that the media, public and anyone uninterested in the precise nitty-gritty conflating the two is pretty forgivable.
Ray Von
Evidence? Start a new thread if you are worried about being off topic. Just once I'd like to see you make a claim, say you have evidence and then provide the evidence.
deirdre
Senior Member.
OT chat with Gary moved to https://www.metabunk.org/gary-danci...re-ar-15-chat-split-form-public-thread.t7671/
qed
Senior Member
All those that are true. Debunkers separate the true from the false.
Not being proven true, is very different to being proven false.
Similar threads
