|
Difference Between 'Conspiracy Theory' & 'Factual Evidence'
I've noticed a pattern in certain TAs who keep calling certain current events conspiracies. Let's define what a consipiracy theory is, shall we:
"A conspiracy theory attempts to explain the cause of an event as a secret, and often deceptive, plot by a covert alliance rather than as an overt activity or natural occurrence...The term is also used pejoratively to dismiss allegedly misconceived, paranoid or outlandish rumors"
In other words, pure speculation. Some good examples are bigfoot, aliens, loch-ness monster, etc. There have been no proof of any those creatures in existence. I, for one, hate conspiracies and will not consider any theory unless there is some sort of solid evidence, which brings me to my next topic: Factual Evidence.
Let's say if I was to call the Whitewater Scandal just a silly old conspiracy theory. A lot of people on these boards would counteract that by displaying a list of events proving that such a crime is on record and did exist. Such evidence cannot be ignored and that's when I realize that Whitewater was never a conspiracy to begin with.
Therefore why when people present facts on these boards do they get ignored? I recall many current events which are heavily supported with sources, but the only thing that they fire back with is conspiracy theory. With this conflict, I write this thread today as a declaration to all you fact-haters and evidence-dismissers out there to stop calling proven occurences as conspiracies. Certain situations do not fit under that term and confuse the less informed public. To sum up I'd like to leave you with a little message from a fellow member from another forum:
"These pages are devoted to understanding and promoting truth. Not creating fabrications to further discredit what small pitiful remains there are of the left overs of the real conspiracy theorist communities."
|