BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane

Subject: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sand
From: Songwronger
Date: 18 Jul 13 - 12:57 AM

Excellent article.

New studies: 'Conspiracy theorists' sane, government dupes crazy and hostile

Recent studies by psychologists and social scientists in the US and UK suggest that contrary to mainstream media stereotypes, those labeled "conspiracy theorists" appear to be saner than those who accept the official versions of contested events.

The most recent study was published on July 8th by psychologists Michael J. Wood and Karen M. Douglas of the University of Kent (UK). Entitled "What about Building 7? A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories," the study compared "conspiracist" (pro-conspiracy theory) and "conventionalist" (anti-conspiracy) comments at news websites.

The authors were surprised to discover that it is now more conventional to leave so-called conspiracist comments than conventionalist ones: "Of the 2174 comments collected, 1459 were coded as conspiracist and 715 as conventionalist." In other words, among people who comment on news articles, those who disbelieve government accounts of such events as 9/11 and the JFK assassination outnumber believers by more than two to one. That means it is the pro-conspiracy commenters who are expressing what is now the conventional wisdom, while the anti-conspiracy commenters are becoming a small, beleaguered minority....

Additionally, it turned out that the anti-conspiracy people were not only hostile, but fanatically attached to their own conspiracy theories as well. According to them, their own theory of 9/11 – a conspiracy theory holding that 19 Arabs, none of whom could fly planes with any proficiency, pulled off the crime of the century under the direction of a guy on dialysis in a cave in Afghanistan – was indisputably true....

In short, the new study by Wood and Douglas suggests that the negative stereotype of the conspiracy theorist – a hostile fanatic wedded to the truth of his own fringe theory – accurately describes the people who defend the official account of 9/11, not those who dispute it....

Psychologist Laurie Manwell of the University of Guelph agrees that the CIA-designed "conspiracy theory" label impedes cognitive function. She points out, in an article published in American Behavioral Scientist (2010), that anti-conspiracy people are unable to think clearly about such apparent state crimes against democracy as 9/11 due to their inability to process information that conflicts with pre-existing belief.

In the same issue of ABS, University of Buffalo professor Steven Hoffman adds that anti-conspiracy people are typically prey to strong "confirmation bias" – that is, they seek out information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs, while using irrational mechanisms (such as the "conspiracy theory" label) to avoid conflicting information.

The extreme irrationality of those who attack "conspiracy theories" has been ably exposed by Communications professors Ginna Husting and Martin Orr of Boise State University. In a 2007 peer-reviewed article entitled "Dangerous Machinery: 'Conspiracy Theorist' as a Transpersonal Strategy of Exclusion," they wrote:

"If I call you a conspiracy theorist, it matters little whether you have actually claimed that a conspiracy exists or whether you have simply raised an issue that I would rather avoid… By labeling you, I strategically exclude you from the sphere where public speech, debate, and conflict occur."

But now, thanks to the internet, people who doubt official stories are no longer excluded from public conversation; the CIA's 44-year-old campaign to stifle debate using the "conspiracy theory" smear is nearly worn-out. In academic studies, as in comments on news articles, pro-conspiracy voices are now more numerous – and more rational – than anti-conspiracy ones.

No wonder the anti-conspiracy people are sounding more and more like a bunch of hostile, paranoid cranks.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sand
From: Songwronger
Date: 18 Jul 13 - 01:03 AM

Oops. Titling problem. The article says they're "sane," not sand. lol. I think I was laughing too hard thinking about you crazy conventionalists when I typed that. It's such a beautiful article. So funny.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sand
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Jul 13 - 01:21 AM

Naturally that website, 21st Century Wire, would say that, since they are one of the biggest purveyors of conspiracy theories there are.

That suggests to me, Songwronger, that rather than some kind of self-appointed crusader, you're just incredibly gullible.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sand
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 18 Jul 13 - 04:03 AM

The self-selection skewing involved in studying posters on those topics renders the alleged conclusion wholly valueless. Or, ding-dong, do you understand NOTHING about statistical sampling (quite likely that)?

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sand
From: GUEST,Ed
Date: 18 Jul 13 - 04:32 AM

the alleged conclusion. Alleged indeed!

If you bothered to read the original University of Kent paper, you would would find it's conclusions entirly different to Kevin Barrett's interpretation of them.

The article is so stuffed full of logical fallacies, I could spend the whole day refuting them. I have better things to do.

Utter, utter drivel.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Joe Offer
Date: 18 Jul 13 - 04:33 AM

And you, Songwronger, are Mudcat's very favorite conspiracy theorist. Think of that!

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Jul 13 - 11:15 AM

No surprise to me, Songwronger. Conventional minds have been dulling human progress, burning witches, subjecting people to quack medicine, and obfuscating real thought since long before Socrates was made to drink hemlock to satisfy the conventional morons of his day.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Jul 13 - 11:44 AM

Oh, dear Jesus. Not again. Oh, the pain.........

No more, ShitWringer! I can't stand it! I'll talk.....

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: GUEST,Iain
Date: 18 Jul 13 - 01:33 PM

The following statement cribbed from the first post seems a very concise summary of the accepted government version of events.

'19 Arabs, none of whom could fly planes with any proficiency, pulled off the crime of the century under the direction of a guy on dialysis in a cave in Afghanistan'

This crime was also the first recorded collapse of a skyscraper due to fire damage-A freefall collapse that apparently powdered a very high percentage of the concrete.
    Anyone who will not acknowledge the truth of the government explanations is labelled a conspiracy theorist.
    My take on it is that as a realist I find the explanations given rather hard to accept, and obviously I am not alone. You can label me whatever you like but I believe in what I believe.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Mrrzy
Date: 18 Jul 13 - 01:37 PM

IF more people "concluded" than "believed" we might all be able to go home nights.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Jul 13 - 01:51 PM

Little Hawk, Socrates was not "made to drink hemlock to satisfy the conventional morons of his day."

Athens was a democracy. Socrates, along with Plato (who followed him around and wrote down everything he said), was opposed to democracy, maintaining that ordinary citizens were not intelligent enough to govern themselves. He advocated an authoritarian government by "philosopher kings" (read Plato's Republic).

The charge against Socrates was, among other things, "corrupting the youth of Athens," along with other charges, because he was, essentially, preaching treason and advocating the overthrow of a functioning democratic government.

There are those who might take a different view of it today, but the maintenance of a viable and properly functioning democracy was deemed pretty important back then.

There were things wrong with Athenian democracy, such as allowing voting by men only, which, even at the time, many said was a mistake, because by not including women in their deliberations and decisions, they were wasting half of the intellectual power of Athens. But there were many things right with it, that we could profit from by adopting today. Such as choosing our representatives by lottery from the general citizenship, and making deliberating bodies much too large for anyone to bribe.

Socrates wanted to trade democracy for an all-powerful oligarchy of "philosopher kings," he being one of them.

Athenian democracy functioned well for over 300 years, and didn't come to an end until Athens was invaded from the north by Philip of Macedonia, the father of Alexander the Great, who went on to conquer and subjugate the known world.

Athenians valued democracy even more than we do today, apparently, and Socrates was preaching sedition.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: GUEST,Iain
Date: 18 Jul 13 - 02:06 PM

If all contributors "concluded" these threads would be extremely brief

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Jul 13 - 02:28 PM

Ah, jeez, Don, Hawk never lets facts get in the way of a good story. Give him a break.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Jul 13 - 04:03 PM

Interesting viewpoint, Don. It doesn't seem to jibe with what I usually hear about Socrates at all, and I very much doubt he was corrupting anyone's mind, I think he was opening their minds, but we could look into it further. I read an article by George Bernard Shaw which spoke about it, and his opinion was that Socrates was executed by dullards because they were offended by the fact that he was a lot smarter than they were. Perhaps Shaw was also a fellow who doesn't like facts to get in the way of a good story... ;-)

Or maybe he had a point.

Mrzzy - "IF more people "concluded" than "believed" we might all be able to go home nights."

You mean "sleep nights", don't you? However, I agree with your point, Mrzzy. It's a good one. People are far too quick to just "believe" stuff, simply because it's what they already want to believe.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 Jul 13 - 04:41 PM

Don't worry, there will be a different study tomorrow to support the opposite conclusion.

And enough people to believe each one.   Who just possibly have a vested interest.


By the way, congratulations on the straw man.    Very few people claim that most conspiracy theorists are insane;   just that they don't bother to consider anything outside their tunnel vision:   decide what conclusion you want and gather data to support it, while ignoring everything else.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Jul 13 - 05:47 PM

For some reason the term "conspiracy theory" gets used only for the theories that are not the officially approved conspiracy theory.

And yet surely all theories about conspiracies are by definition conspiracy theories. The Boston Bombings, 911, Oklahoma, the Iraq War, all undeniably were conspiracies. They involved a number of people collaborating in secret to cause lethal violence.

The point always is, which theory about conspiracies is the correct one, and is it the whole story.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Jul 13 - 06:14 PM

Little Hawk, there has been a lot of blather written about Socrates by people who are impressed with him. Had they been less impressed by his reputation and been a bit more critically analytical, they might think twice about what they've written.

Socrates was a brilliant man, no doubt about that, but he did have some pretty cockamamie ideas (at least as transcribed by his student, Plato), not the least of which was his providing the basis for much of what was to become Christian theology a few centuries later. For example, compare the concepts enunciated in the "Plato's Cave" scenario with some of the ideas that became the Christian concept of heaven.

Politically, Socrates openly objected to the democracy that was the system governing Athens at the time. Socrates found short of ideal any government that did not conform to his idea of a perfect regime ruled by philosophers, and Athenian government was ruled by the citizens, who were aware that they would have to live with the laws they made. It WAS a well-functioning democracy (in many ways, better than our own!). He compounded the felony by finding Sparta, the arch-rival and oftentimes military enemy of Athens, most admirable. Sparta had an autocratic government.

After the trial, he was given a chance to escape and flee to Sparta, but feeling that he could sell his ideas by becoming a martyr, he refused to take it.

He did believe in an afterlife, many planes above this life, so did he think giving up this life was that much of a sacrifice?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Jul 13 - 06:29 PM

Jeez, Don, don't go resorting to the facts, willya??? You're givin me a migraine headache.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Jul 13 - 07:15 PM

Sorry, Greg. Mainly responding to Little Hawk's assertion that the citizens of Athens were "morons."

Far from it. WE should be so moronic!

Some fat cat who showed up at Congress with a briefcase full of money, thinking to bribe a few Congressmen, would find a Congress that numbered around 6,000, made up of common citizens who were interest enough to show up that day. That represented a fair percentage of the citizenry compared to OUR Congress. When the number reached 6,000, the path to the area where they met would be closed.

And the officials--who were elected by lottery--were evaluated at the end of their terms by a jury of 501 citizens, also chosen by lottery, and if they did a very good job, were rewarded (laurel wreath and many honors), and those who screwed up could be banished.

Like I say, we really ought to borrow of few ideas from the ancient Athenians!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Songwronger
Date: 18 Jul 13 - 08:17 PM

You are insane, Mr. Firth. You believe the government's version of the events of September 11, therefore, you are crazy. Put on your tin foil hat, take your meds, and turn on Gilligan's Island. The same goes for the rest of you lunatic conventionalists. Your insanity has been tolerated by us more level headed people up to this point, but our patience is wearing thin.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Jul 13 - 09:03 PM

George W ignored the intelligence reports that said the al qeada was planning on using airliners as weapons... George W also had no interest in taking seriously the things that Richard Clark and the intelligence community were telling him...

Does that make George W a conspirator or a moron???

I'm leaning toward moron...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Jul 13 - 09:38 PM

Yeah, yeah.

After 9/11, when the loonies crawled out of the woodwork and the conspiracy stories started, I had a long conversation with a friend of mine—who happened to be an architect—and had worked for a firm that designed tall buildings. And he had NO connection with the U. S. Government.

We went over some of the videos that were appearing on the conspiracy theory web sites, for example, the one that shows small explosions that appeared to be happening all over one of the buildings that a C. T. advocate claimed was evidence that the building was being demolished by planted shaped charges rather than collapsing because of structural damage caused by aircraft impact and the subsequent fire from the plane's full fuel tanks.

He said that the small explosions were transformers shorting out. That there were transformers all over the building, like the things that hang on telephone poles that look like garbage cans and occasionally short out with an explosion and blow the lights for a whole neighborhood.

Why, I asked, did the buildings fall into their own footprint as another C. T. insisted was a sign of controlled demolition? He informed me that tall buildings do that when collapsing, and would hardly fall over like a felled tree as the C. T. was insisting.

HE had wondered when the conspiracy theories started coming out, but he examined the films and all was consistent with the news reports.

Also, I watched the film footage of the planes hitting the towers, and the claim that these were special effects films done in secret by—the various C. T.'s couldn't agree as to whether they were done by Disney Studios or LucasFilm (same with the moon landings)—was obviously somebody's sick fantasy.

Also, there were eye-witnesses in and around New York who SAW the planes fly into the buildings.

Besides, a government conspiracy that big, which would have had to involve a substantial number of people would have produced verification if there were anything to the idea that the U. S. Government did it rather than terrorists.

"Your insanity has been tolerated by us more level headed people up to this point, but our patience is wearing thin."

Who is "us?" And who's patience is wearing thin?

Yes, our patience is wearing thin, but it is with all the freak-out threads that you are starting.

No, Songwronger. Go get help. You're one sick puppy!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Songwronger
Date: 18 Jul 13 - 11:35 PM

Ah, there's that anger and hostility the article at the beginning of the thread talks about. Conventionalists frustrate easily and evince hotheadedness.

I'll try to penetrate your tin foil hat with this, Mr. Firth--the concept of "poisoning the well." It's an ancient technique used in government disinformation campaigns.

The towers falling on 9/11 obviously weren't brought down by simple plane strikes followed by fires in the wastebaskets. So how do you draw people's attention away from that fact? You (the government) put out some farfetched story (NO planes hit the buildings). After that, the conventionalists will point to that story and use it to discredit all other arguments. In their minds, at least.

Seek professional help, Mr. Firth. 2/3rds of people online do not believe the official 9/11 story. I fear that you will soon be institutionalized for your aberrant thinking. Go to your nearest mental health professional and ask to be cured of your government programming. Caution: it may require you to Rense and repeat, Rense and repeat.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 12:40 AM

Don Firth: "Mainly responding to Little Hawk's assertion that the citizens of Athens were "morons."
Far from it. WE should be so moronic!"

Only a moron would think we're not!
Only a moron would think anyone outside of the two moronic parties is insane!
Only a moron would believe their party's leaders, over their own common sense!
It's AMAZING how many morons are out there....and how many are reading this right now!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 12:40 AM

"Fires in wastebaskets," Songwronger?

Do you have any idea how many thousands of gallons of fuel those planes were carrying when they hit the buildings? And that it burns hot enough to melt the rivets that hold the buildings' girders together? And that burning fuel poured down the elevator shafts?

No, of course not. You know nothing and you haven't even applied thought to the matter. You just accept the conspiracy theory without applying any thought to the matter.

You WANT it to have been a government conspiracy.

I neither have nor need a tinfoil hat. But YOU--

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 12:47 AM

Firth: "I neither have nor need a tinfoil hat. But YOU--"

Yeah, you were chewing it while shaving your head with a cheese grater!
Now we have to hear it speak!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 01:23 AM

I don't respond to barking dogs.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 02:40 AM

You just tried..but there were no barking dogs...just you!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: GUEST,Iain
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 05:09 AM

As the mainstream media in the english speaking world is in the control of very few people, with a very specific agenda to follow, then the following conclusions can be drawn.
1)News publicised is very selective
2)News is massaged to emphasise a particular viewpoint.
3) many reporters lack complete freedom of action.
This list could go on, but a person can get the drift.
   If the above is accepted it could be deduced that the MSM is nothing but a propaganda tool wielded by a group of people secretly selecting and massaging the events to be publicised. ie conspiracies.
    Having now gone full circle it would be fair to ask again who is sane and insane and who are the real conspiracists?

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 06:16 AM

Iain - all right as far as "publicised."

Many lawyers are somewhat similar to each other too.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 07:42 AM

Not so fast. Socrates true opinion of democracy is still a matter of controversy.

http://www.friesian.com/socrates.htm

The problem in pinpointing Socrates' true stand on democracy is that Socrates' whole mission in life was to question. He was always engaged in arguement which, in many cases, would likely involve playing devil's advocate. You cannot go by this or that quote attributed to him. Personally, I think Socrates was a bit of an anarchist.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 08:53 AM

Pass the tin foil...

B;~)

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 09:57 AM

Bobert: "Pass the tin foil..."

Chewing gum isn't so rough.
Need the cheese grater, too?

Ask Don. to let you borrow one!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: GUEST,Musket sans con theory
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 11:31 AM

Don!

Do you want the good professor to have a chat with Goofus? He might be able to work out what he is on.

Wouldn't you boy?

Woof!

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 11:46 AM

One 2013 gathering of conspiracy folkies:)

The Bilderberg Fringe Festival 2013

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 11:47 AM

It is no conspiracy, the last post was me>

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 11:58 AM

"Conspiracies existed, to be sure; many of them, and many were dark indeed. But fiendish? Fiendishness required brains. Nine times out of ten, conspirators behaved like buffoons and wound up exposing themselves out of sheer, bumbling incompetence."
― Eric Flint, 1636: The Saxon Uprising

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Lighter
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 12:04 PM

What's the point? Psychiatrists don't like the word "insane": it's too vague. Most mentally ill people seem pretty normal much of the time, and conspiracy theorists are just hung up on conspiraies. You can be perfectly sane in almost every way but still be a kook in one particular irrational way.

Nazis and Mongol hordes weren't "insane" either. Just really dangerous.

Despite what the researchers seem to believe, a conspiracy theory supported by incontrovertible facts (like 9/11 and the Lincoln assassination) is rather different from a conspiracy theory supported by ignorance, illogic, wishful thinking, and the simple conviction that if it weren't true you wouldn't have thought of it. (Take your pick of those....)

And the first kind of conspiracy isn't a "theory." It's a conspiracy.

What's more, the research method, as described above, was incredibly flawed. The "antis" who bother to post to a website in response to a senseless theory are almost certainly more likely to be impatient about the craziness they're reading than the far, far larger group of "antis" who don't care what the "conspiracists" think and are leading real lives instead of posting online like I'm doing now.

Not to mention that for every conspiracy theory there's likely to be an equal an opposite conspiracy theory. The CIA killed Kennedy! No, it was the Mob! No, it was the Military-Industrial Complex! No, it was Castro Cubans! No, it was anti-Castro Cubans! No, it was all of them!

Fact: it was Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone. Don't believe it? Read the meticulously researched books by Gerald Posner and Vincent Bugliosi and get back to me. You can listen to the CDs if you prefer.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 12:17 PM

Lighter: "What's the point? Psychiatrists don't like the word "insane": it's too vague."

Not exactly, but close. 'Insane' is a legal term, not a clinical one, nor is it a term of diagnosis.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 01:16 PM

What's more, the research method, as described above, was incredibly flawed.

Lighter,

In defence of the University of Kent researchers, they have been entirely misrepresented by Kevin Barrett (the author of the article in Songwronger's initial post).

For example, Barrett states that "The authors were surprised to discover that it is now more conventional to leave so-called conspiracist comments"

They say nothing of the sort.

Additionally, Barrett 'interprets' the research in terms of:
"among people who comment on news articles, those who disbelieve government accounts of such events as 9/11 and the JFK assassination outnumber believers by more than two to one. That means it is the pro-conspiracy commenters who are expressing what is now the conventional wisdom

However the researchers actually comment that:
"The self-selective nature of online communication allows for the collection of a great deal of data regarding opinions that may be held by only a minority of people"

I could go on, but you get the idea...

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 01:51 PM

All we know of Socrates is attribution, from writings of Xenophon and Plato.

What did he have to do with "cloud 47 conspiracy theory," as apart from conspiracy and conspiracy theory?

We all like tall tales, mostly we are not considered insane.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Lighter
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 02:51 PM

Thanks, 1:16 Guest.

I don't think many people believe that conspiracists are legally insane anyway.

Some may be, but from other causes.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 03:46 PM

GUEST, SJL:   "You cannot go by this or that quote attributed to him. Personally, I think Socrates was a bit of an anarchist."

SJL, I am not going by "this or that quote," I'm going by what was discussed in an entire quarter of classes in the Philosophy Department at the University of Washington, a large part of which was listening to a discussion between two philosophy professors. Very detailed and very erudite.

By the way, who here has actually read Xenophon and Plato?

I have.

And was Socrates a bit of an anarchist? Definitely not. But definitely an iconoclast and a bit of a gadfly. He advocated a strong central government ruled by what he termed "philosopher kings" (he being one of them), with the idea that "the common man" was too stupid and ignorant to make important decisions regarding governing, despite the fact that public education standards for Athenian citizens were quite high, even—especially—compared to our own. After all, it behooved a man to keep up on things if he could be drafted for office at any time, and if he screwed up, he could be banished.

There are people today who believe that governing should be limited to "the elite." They're usually called "conservatives," who, when you boil it down to its basics, means government by an aristocracy, either hereditary as in the "old days" or by the wealthiest, as is the case now.

By the way, are there conspiracies? Damned straight there are! But you aren't going to find them on blogs and web sites, where Songwronger and the other loonies here go gleaning. If you keep your eyes open and your brain in gear, they're right out there in plain sight. A small example is the fat cat with a valise full of money buttonholing a vulnerable Congressman or Senator and having a quite chat with him while petting the valise.

THAT's a conspiracy.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Lighter
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 03:50 PM

> By the way, who here has actually read Xenophon and Plato?

Me too! Small world!

(But not in Greek.)

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 04:43 PM

Nor I. English translation.

My copy of Plato's Republic is sitting on my bookshelves, along with my other college textbooks.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 07:56 PM

It was very impressive the way those towers collapsed so incredibly neatly when struck by airplanes.

It would be good to know that in the years since no more buildings with the same ingenious qualities have been put up, and that any already existing will have been demolished. However I have my doubts.

Bernard Shaw wrote "all professions are conspiracies against the laity". That would definitely include architects. I suppose. That makes Shaw a conspiracy theorist.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 08:55 PM

My architect friend said that the buildings were strong enough to survive the initial impact of the aircraft, but it was primarily the resultant fire spread by the burst fuel tanks (the planes had taken off from a nearby airport when hijacked, and had full fuel tanks). When the rivets holding the girders together melted and let go, the floors of the buildings started "pancaking," and once that started, it was like a chain reaction.

Tall buildings tend to fall straight down, essentially into their own "footprint."

Some people who are enamored with the conspiracy theory claim that the buildings should have fallen sideways like felled trees, but tall buildings simply don't do that.

My friend isn't into conspiracy theories, he just knows a lot about architecture and the design and construction of tall buildings.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 09:18 PM

Funny thing how the 9/11 conspiracy theory buffs never seem to pick up on the peculiar fact that when al Qaeda, headed by Osama bin Laden, were identified as the responsible parties, the Bush Administration declared war on Iraq (Saddam Hussein) instead of going into Afghanistan after bin Laden.

Saddam Hussein was an S.O.B., but he and Osama bin Laden hated each other's guts!

Our going to war with Iraq was as if, when Pearl Harbor was attacked by the Japanese, we had invaded Brazil!

But puppeteers Dick Cheney and Karl Rove—and the oil companies—had their hands up George W. Bush's ass. Afghanistan has opium poppies. Iraq has oil.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Songwronger
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 09:46 PM

A glimmer of sanity from Mr. Firth? He has doubts. Good. Now if he could just ask why Obama and Hillary Clinton armed al Qeada in Syria, I would say he's on the road to recovering his senses.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 10:19 PM

And where's your proof for that allegation, Songwronger?

And don't try to snow me with some cockamamie blog. I'm not THAT insane.

Don Firth