Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder01.blueworldhosting.com!news.alt.net!not-for-mail From: owl Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy Subject: Re: OT: Global Climate Change Debate Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 19:52:36 +0000 (UTC) Organization: OK by me, so long as it doesn't get out of hand Lines: 68 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: boom.rooftop.invalid Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: tin/1.9.2-20070201 ("Dalaruan") (UNIX) (Linux/2.6.24-32-generic (i686)) Xref: csiph.com comp.os.linux.advocacy:243472 Snit wrote: > On 5/13/14, 12:34 PM, in article hgu00a3.gf@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > wrote: > >> Snit wrote: >>> On 5/13/14, 11:52 AM, in article hgnt803a.3@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Silver Slimer wrote: >>>>> On 14-05-13 02:40 PM, owl wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Nope. It was on seeing your appeal-to-authority logical fallacy following >>>>>> your >>>>>> call for "logic" and "reasoning." >>>>> >>>>> Why are you even bothering with Snit? Your decision to respond to him is >>>>> doing nothing more than prolonging his stay in this group. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Yeah, I only popped in for a moment and thought I'd poke him a bit. >>> >>> You spewed your idiotic conspiracy nonsense... making yourself look the >>> fool. So be it. >>> >>>> I've >>>> got too much going on in real life at the moment to stay for long. No time >>>> for a circus. :) >>> >>> Bottom line: you know your whacked out conspiracy nonsense is completely >>> contrary to known facts. And you know it is offensive to those who died and >>> those who loved them, but you do not care. >>> >> >> Bottom line: you lash out at my opinion on those events because you cannot >> provide evidence to support the government propaganda. >> > [Slate.com] > ----- > First of all, why do people believe conspiracy theories? > > There are number of factors, but probably one of the most > important ones in this instance is that, paradoxically, it gives > people a sense of control. People hate randomness, they dread the > sort of random occurrences that can destroy their lives, so as a > mechanism against that dread, it turns out that itıs much easier > to believe in a conspiracy. Then you have someone to blame, itıs > not just randomness. > > What are the psychological forces at play in conspiracy thinking? > > Basically whatıs happening in any conspiracy theory is that people > have a need or a motivation to believe in this theory, and itıs > psychologically different from evidence-based thinking. A > conspiracy theory is immune to evidence, and that can pretty well > serve as the definition of one. If you reject evidence, or > reinterpret the evidence to be confirmation of your theory, or you > ignore mountains of evidence to focus on just one thing, youıre > probably a conspiracy theorist. We call that a self-sealing nature > of reasoning. > ----- > > That is why you believe your conspiracy theories. > Slate dot com == a bunch of insane faggots, so I guess your latest appeal- to-authority logical fallacy just blew up in your face.