Skeptical=Conspiracy Theorist

User offline. Last seen 12 years 32 weeks ago.
Nich
Number 632
Conspirator for: 15 years 5 weeks
Posted on: May 5, 2011 - 3:19pm

I ran across an article in USATODAY(the university I'm at provides them for free like I assume many others do) about the refusal to release photographs of the body or any actual proof.  Throughout the article, they refer to people who are skeptical as being conspiracy theorists. 

One of my friends brought up WWII after Hitler was pronounced dead.  Stalin wouldn't believe it until he saw the body and demanded some sort of proof.   UBL was pronounced dead and there is a refusal to release photograhs or show an uninterested 3rd party any evidence whatsoever.

Personally I found this troubling.  If you doubt anything Big Brother tells you, you immediately fall into the crackpot category and your objections are ignored.  I don't know what happened to UBL, and personally I don't really care, but I don't like hearing claims like this with no proof.

Heres the article:

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/05/obama-decid...

_

User offline. Last seen 10 years 39 weeks ago.
LysanderSpooner
Number 234
Conspirator for: 16 years 46 weeks
Posted on: May 7, 2011 - 4:02pm #1

Unfortunately, there are too many libertarians who ridicule "conspiracy theorists".  They use terms like "kook", "crazy", "nutjob",  etc.

__________________

Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it

Learned Hand

In the past men created witches: now they create mental patients.
Thomas Szasz

Relinquish liberty for the purposes of defense in an emergency?
Why? It would seem that in an emergency, of all times, one needs
his greatest strength. So if liberty is strength and slavery is weakness,
liberty is a necessity rather than a luxury, and we can ill afford
to be without it—least of all during an emergency.

F.A. Harper

_

User offline. Last seen 12 years 32 weeks ago.
Nich
Number 632
Conspirator for: 15 years 5 weeks
Posted on: May 7, 2011 - 9:11pm #2

Theres legitimate reasons to be skeptical.  Take a court case for example.  The jury should be skeptical and demand some form of evidence to coinside with testimony.  Those jurors aren't conspiracy theorists, they are weighing the testimony according to the evidence they are presented. 

In this case, we're expected to accept testimony without any evidence being presented.  It doesn't mean the event didn't happen, but it does make its occurance questionable.

_