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