Why do boomers believe in conspiracy for the sake of conspiracy?

no it isnt you retard a conspiracy, by definition, is a secret plot against a group or entity. Its not an unproveable theory
where do you think the word "conspirator" comes from?

Why do zoomers trust the establishment narrative on everything so much? Is it because they are young and have soft, mushy brains that can't critically analyse things?

You are an idiot. What do you think it means to conspire against someone? What do you think conspirators are? How did you even arrive at thinking this?

Attached: retard.png (647x449, 27.47K)

its not trusting the establishment, not least because i was saying good things about the baathists and explaining how they werent radical islamists
the ones who thought they were eventually conceded that they werent but, instead of agreeing with me thereafter, decided to agree with the crazy boomer who thought saddam was a cia agent and that assad is fighting against turkey or something to help america and that secretly assad is supporting isis which is the cia.

>queen being a lizard alien or stalin being a western puppet are just retarded
user you are falling for misdirection and poisoning of the well. These are classic tactics to dissuade normies from actually looking into the real ones

>That is what a conspiracy is.
Nigger, a conspiracy is literally any time a group of people conspire to do something.

i actually agree with this
but i still dont understand why boomers believe any conspiracy seemingly for the sake of it
its as though you can come out with any narrative, no matter how ridiculous or unsubstantiated, and boomers will believe you so long as its sufficiently conspiratorial

But when will you realise that each of the theses in your post are equally as plausible as the others. Your perception of the world is completely warped relative to reality. And it's the same for everybody. Every "conspiracy" is just as valid as any other, because society is not grounded in any real factual basis. Information has been distorted so much before it reaches your brain that you might as well be living in a fantasy dreamscape. So, why not just argue over mad theories? It's just a bit of fun, really. Nobody knows anything, and boomers have had longer to accept this fact and let go.

What's up with boomers and 5g?

to the extent that objective reality exists, youre simply wrong here
the lavon affair, uss liberty incident and a number of other former conspiracy *theories* have since been admitted to be true and are no longer merely theories - theyre facts
others, which remain theories, at least have evidence to support them. In contrast, the idea that obama is a trans-dimensional space alien wearing a human skin suit is simply preposterous and totally unsupported.
if its just a bit of fun then fair enough but its simply wrong to say that all theories are equally valid. I can claim that I believe angela merkel is actually a man wearing a wig with a prosthetic leg who eats nothing but baby brains and is secretly plotting for orangutans to usurp the world governments but this is patently absurd

>true
>facts
>evidence
You simply cannot use these words unless you intend to get caught in circular reasoning. Facts are facts simply because they have been decided to be facts. There is no way of knowing the truth, so there are no facts.
>patently absurd
Much better. I mean, perhaps every piece of footage of Merkel is doctored in some way, and your theory is true. You cannot say that it is impossible. Every time you try to establish a "fact" that says that Merkel is a normal human female, it can be countered.

A conspiracy theory by definition is unprovable, you fucking retards. It doesn't have sufficient evidence supporting it which is why it's a conspiracy and not fact. It can have limited supporting evidence, but no actual real evidence that would convince a reasonable person it was true.

Imagine being stupid enough to ask anyone to prove that a conspiracy happened.

so you disagree with what my argument is contingent upon: objective reality exists
>Facts are facts simply because they have been decided to be facts.
3+3=6
the sky is blue
the american president is donald trump
felipe vi is the king of spain
these are facts - if you disagree with them you are objectively wrong
unless there is no objective reality and everything is subjective in which case we degenerate into absurdity where everything is falsifiable, nothing can be proven and there is no truth
hjalmar schacht conspired against hitler's government and supported the resistance, which also conspired against him
the 226 incident was a conspiracy against the japanese government
guy fawkes conspired against the british parliament
and all these things are known to be true - you dont know the meaning of the word 'conspiracy' and somebody even posted the definition for you

>unless there is no objective reality and everything is subjective in which case we degenerate into absurdity where everything is falsifiable, nothing can be proven and there is no truth
Now you're getting it.
>3+3=6
If you think this is an established fact, then your knowledge of mathematical history is very lacking.

Conspiracy theory =/= conspired. Conspiracy theories with enough evidence become historical fact and are no longer considered a conspiracy theory. This is the reason why MK Ultra is no longer considered a conspiracy theory despite being one at the time it happened.

Go neck yourself, you dumb schizo. I can't imagine how big of an obnoxious faggot you would have to be to get upset that someone cannot prove a conspiracy theory true.

im literally a master of mathematics
3+3=6 is something so fundamentally true that if you dont believe it there is no point trying to discuss anything at all with you
the etymology there is so obvious i dont even know how to explain it to you. Guy fawkes plotted a conspiracy: he theorised a conspiracy and then tried to enact it
im not even asking for them to be proven true either. I am asking why do they believe such obviously false ones which fly in the face of all reason?

>This is the reason why MK Ultra is no longer considered a conspiracy theory despite being one at the time it happened.
Youre literally admitting that conspiracy theories can be proven.

Fuck, you got me. I'll call Hilbert and tell him he was wasting his time...
>there is no point trying to discuss anything at all with you
Point? There was only ever one point: for fun! What other purpose were you discussing for? I'd be quite interested to know actually.

if you think hilbert didnt believe 3+3=6 i dont know what to tell you
he wanted to create an immovable objective foundation on which that statement was based
for the purpose of truth, which is not precluded from fun. They say something which is false and i sought to correct them and, when they conceded they were incorrect, rather than accepting my truth simply resorted to another random conspiracy with no evidence supporting it compared to my theory with a lot of evidence and this is the mentality i simply dont understand

>this is the mentality i simply dont understand
One day, perhaps

You are misusing the definition to try to save your failed argument. We are talking specifically about conspiracy theories and not conspiracies in the second sense of the word, the action itself of conspiring against something. It's not a conspiracy theory that Guy Fawkes plotted against the crown, it's fact.
>I am asking why do they believe such obviously false ones which fly in the face of all reason?
Your reason, not their own. I used to think that the government was spying on us electronically long before the Snowden incident. Back then it was labeled a real conspiracy theory and the average person would think that you were crazy for suggesting it. After the incident, everyone pretended they knew all along. It would have been impossible for me to prove it at the time and retarded to suggest that was possible. You're asking the same thing, the only difference is that you don't believe what they are saying so you ask for evidence they cannot have and act like you really showed them when they don't come up with it. You may was well go ask religious people to prove their God is real, it would be equally as petty and moronic.
>Youre literally admitting that conspiracy theories can be proven.
They are no longer conspiracy theories with enough supporting evidence. You cannot ask someone to prove a conspiracy theory, it's literally impossible to do.

have you no explanation for it?
why would someone prefer to believe an arbitrary random theory over something far more likely to be true?
why believe saddam was an american agent, which is patently false, instead of accepting that the baath were simply not radical islamists?

>You cannot ask someone to prove a conspiracy theory, it's literally impossible to do.
>You cannot ask someone to prove a scientific theory, it's literally impossible to do.
You're just arguing about stupid semantics anyway.

i can concede whatever semantics you want. Sure, you cant prove a conspiracy theory but why choose to believe a conspiracy theory, with no supporting evidence or even a hypothesis, over something with a huge volume of evidence? Why believe saddam was a us agent when the fucking iraq war happened? Why believe assad is a us agent when hes literally fighting against a nato country?
>Your reason, not their own.
yes, my reason which has any evidence at all to support it
>I used to think that the government was spying on us electronically long before the Snowden incident.
has this ever been not-true? for as long as i can remember even tv shows had the police looking up texts and phone calls etc. Thats a far cry from believing something simply ridiculous
>You may was well go ask religious people to prove their God is real, it would be equally as petty and moronic.
some religious people believe you can prove the existence of god and others consider the resurrection proof
miracles are another example of what would be considered proof, although you can debate proving them
there is a huge difference between believing a plausible conspiracy theory and believing simply nonsense. If you say the government had foreknowledge of 9/11 then, while thats considered a conspiracy theory, there is some evidence to support it, there is historical precedent, though not of that scale, of such false flags and its much harder to falsify. If you say saddam hussein was an american puppet you have a massive amount of evidence to the contrary

>this thread
Orngllal

Attached: 1433878308003.png (1000x1011, 342.17K)

It's not semantics, you fucking retard. You're asking someone to prove the impossible and then getting upset at the result instead of realizing that you're some stupid pseudo intellectual zoomer who thinks he is above other people simply because they have a different belief than you.
>You cannot ask someone to prove a scientific theory, it's literally impossible to do.
Lmao, what a fallacious argument. The standards of evidence are not even close to being the same.

For entertainment. It's fun to imagine the mechanics of how something ludicrous could be true. Try it yourself maybe. Try to convince yourself that the earth is flat. Think of pieces of "evidence" that you believe "prove" that the earth is round, and ask yourself, for each one, do I *really* know this? Can I genuinely, fully trust this? If you can't do this, if you find it impossible to put yourself in a mindset of believing the earth is flat, then you have a narrow mind.

if believing in objective reality and that truth is something which can be reached then, yes, i do have a narrow mind.
im fully open to discussing some conspiracy theories. If you want to theorize about whether or not jfk was assassinated by the state, and why, then sure, we can have that discussion
however if you want to say something like 'pol pot was an american agent' and havent even got any explanation as to why or how then its not even a theory: its just a nonsense statement
a theory has to have some coherence and make some degree of sense otherwise whats the point? not all theories are equally valid and some are demonstrably wrong
if i theorize that fdr knew about pearl harbor or that the american government was trying to provoke america in order to enter ww2 that is a conspiracy but i still have some ground to stand on. If i, instead, theorize that japan was in control of the american government and wanted to lose the 2nd world war then im just talking nonsense
whats the point in even discussing them if you cant possibly reach any conclusion or reject any of them?