The "Tinfoil Hat Brigade"

Manwë was known for many things, but wisdom and power are two that lead the rest of his attributes. Join the Councils and discuss the more weighty matters of Tolkien Fandom.

Postby UtgardLoki » Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:03 pm

Jnyusa wrote:
UL wrote:Jnyusa, you have repeatedly used the term "tinfoil hatter" (or variant). I think it diminishes you.


But not to describe all conspiracy theories or all criticism of the government as you are claiming.
No, I am not claiming that at all. Why are people so... brittle here? :?
To repeat, and expand, I think that using terminology such as "tinfoiler" or synonyms is diminishing. It smacks of arrogance, claiming superiority by denigration. It is unnecessary.

Jnyusa wrote:
As for the Lockerbie case; it is an example of how "tinfoil hatters" are the ones who are actually looking at the evidence, whilst those denigrating "tinfoil hatters" are ignoring the evidence


No one here has commented yet on the merits of the Lockerbie case. You are fabricating posts and posters out of the ether.
I have not claimed anyone here has made claims that those who question the Lockerbie case are "tinfoil hatters". It was merely an example which, in that wider world, has been so designated. David Aaronovitch is one such. However, I did not make myself clear on this, which is my error.

Jnyusa wrote:
portia mistakenly asserted that the "accused Lockerbie bomber" was released by the Libyans, whereas it was the Scottish who did this.


Did she deny your correction?

For goodness sake, man, don't you know the meaning of the word "evidence?"
Well... yes. That was why I linked to the documentary, which examines the "evidence", and tampering of it, from Lockerbie. :)

Jnyusa wrote:
I further expanded in response to hamlet's disparaging reference to the "History Channel", an assumption of source that was incorrect.


If you can't distinguish between the rationality of posts by Hamlet and the rationality of posts by portia, then you lack discernment.
And making snide comments diminishes you further, Jnyusa... :nono:

Jnyusa wrote:Meanwhile, I see that the hard, hard left is every bit as capable of reconstructing Chomsky in toto as is the hard, hard right.

No, UL, your posts are often interesting but this thread is buffoonery.
Perhaps it is buffoonery. However, I do enjoy reading Chomsky, and I watched as he was taken to task over his (scant) analysis of 9/11. It was unedifying, not for him but for those who were disappointed with his stance. In truth, Chomsky really does have bigger fish to fry. I would endeavour to dig out the salient points, but I am not really so interested in 9/11... :)
Who is "hard, hard left"? :?
User avatar
UtgardLoki
Shield Bearer
 
Posts: 172
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 5:57 am
Top

Postby Swordsman_Of_The_Tower » Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:34 pm

UtgardLoki wrote:
Jnyusa wrote:
UL wrote:Jnyusa, you have repeatedly used the term "tinfoil hatter" (or variant). I think it diminishes you.


But not to describe all conspiracy theories or all criticism of the government as you are claiming.
No, I am not claiming that at all. Why are people so... brittle here? :?
To repeat, and expand, I think that using terminology such as "tinfoiler" or synonyms is diminishing. It smacks of arrogance, claiming superiority by denigration. It is unnecessary.

Jnyusa wrote:
As for the Lockerbie case; it is an example of how "tinfoil hatters" are the ones who are actually looking at the evidence, whilst those denigrating "tinfoil hatters" are ignoring the evidence


No one here has commented yet on the merits of the Lockerbie case. You are fabricating posts and posters out of the ether.
I have not claimed anyone here has made claims that those who question the Lockerbie case are "tinfoil hatters". It was merely an example which, in that wider world, has been so designated. David Aaronovitch is one such. However, I did not make myself clear on this, which is my error.

Jnyusa wrote:
portia mistakenly asserted that the "accused Lockerbie bomber" was released by the Libyans, whereas it was the Scottish who did this.


Did she deny your correction?

For goodness sake, man, don't you know the meaning of the word "evidence?"
Well... yes. That was why I linked to the documentary, which examines the "evidence", and tampering of it, from Lockerbie. :)

Jnyusa wrote:
I further expanded in response to hamlet's disparaging reference to the "History Channel", an assumption of source that was incorrect.


If you can't distinguish between the rationality of posts by Hamlet and the rationality of posts by portia, then you lack discernment.
And making snide comments diminishes you further, Jnyusa... :nono:

Jnyusa wrote:Meanwhile, I see that the hard, hard left is every bit as capable of reconstructing Chomsky in toto as is the hard, hard right.

No, UL, your posts are often interesting but this thread is buffoonery.
Perhaps it is buffoonery. However, I do enjoy reading Chomsky, and I watched as he was taken to task over his (scant) analysis of 9/11. It was unedifying, not for him but for those who were disappointed with his stance. In truth, Chomsky really does have bigger fish to fry. I would endeavour to dig out the salient points, but I am not really so interested in 9/11... :)
Who is "hard, hard left"? :?


Anyone to the left of Obomber. Moving the spectrum to the right has done wonders to the de-legitimizing of anything left of the Clintons.
User avatar
Swordsman_Of_The_Tower
Ranger of the North


 
Posts: 4490
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2002 3:40 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Top

Postby Storyteller » Wed Jan 18, 2012 1:42 pm

Jnyusa wrote:this thread is buffoonery.

'In that case,' said the Dodo solemnly, rising to its feet, 'I move that the meeting adjourn, for the immediate adoption of more energetic remedies."
"...Their aim in war with Germany is nothing more, nothing less than extermination of Hitlerism... There is absolutely no justification for this kind of war. The ideology of Hitlerism, just like any other ideological system, can be accepted or rejected, this is a matter of political views. But everyone grasps, that an ideology can not be exterminated by force, must not be finished off with a war.” - Vyacheslav Molotov, ""On the Foreign Policy of the Soviet Union", 31 October 1939
User avatar
Storyteller
Mariner

 
Posts: 7064
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 7:46 am
Top

Postby Cenedril_Gildinaur » Wed Jan 18, 2012 4:09 pm

Swordsman_Of_The_Tower wrote:Moving the spectrum to the right has done wonders to the de-legitimizing of anything left of the Clintons.


Now that's an interesting example of a conspiracy theory.
User avatar
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 11197
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2003 7:35 pm
Location: The Real World
Top

Postby Swordsman_Of_The_Tower » Wed Jan 18, 2012 5:48 pm

Cenedril_Gildinaur wrote:
Swordsman_Of_The_Tower wrote:Moving the spectrum to the right has done wonders to the de-legitimizing of anything left of the Clintons.


Now that's an interesting example of a conspiracy theory.


Look at past GOP politicians, see which ones would not be allowed in today's party?
User avatar
Swordsman_Of_The_Tower
Ranger of the North


 
Posts: 4490
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2002 3:40 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Top

Postby Arvegil » Mon Jan 23, 2012 11:10 am

Jnyusa wrote:Tinfoil hat, imo, refers to people who are not able to make evidentiary claims nor revise their opinion when new or different evidence is offered. They are locked into a view that does not depend on reason for its sustenance.

Obviously not all conspiracy theories are tinfoil hat theories.

Changes in the technology and market structure of the media have given the tinfoil hats near-limitless use of the public megaphone. That's why you hear more about them today than you did ... say, sixty years ago. The reason they are grouped and dismissed categorically is because it is impossible to have a normal conversation with them.

But I think there was a different kind of illogic in earlier days, caused by isolation from the media and lack of exposure to competing ideas ... for example the monolithic acceptance of Jim Crow laws. Insularity is probably just as deadly to public discourse as our current media diarrhea is.



At the risk of dragging up a thread best left for dead...

If their is a lodestar of Tinfoil Hat argument style, it can be described as:

"It is not my job to prove my insane-on-its-face theory, it is your job to disprove it, as a matter of logical certainty."

For the more discerning, this means that the classic TFH person rests their theories on the more rational person's inability to prove a negative. From there, one obtains the following bit of specious reasoning:

"Since you cannot disprove, as a matter of syllogistic certainty, that CIA operated beam weapon satellites caused 9/11, it must be true." (see: Judy Wood)
User avatar
Arvegil
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1439
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2003 3:37 pm
Top

Postby vison » Mon Jan 23, 2012 11:54 am

Like arguing about the existence of god? That sort of thing? :D

But . . . wait.

That's different, for some reason. :?
GM is alive.

Osama bin Laden is dead.
User avatar
vison
Ringbearer


 
Posts: 12696
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 6:15 pm
Top

Postby Arvegil » Mon Jan 23, 2012 1:13 pm

vison wrote:Like arguing about the existence of god? That sort of thing? :D

But . . . wait.

That's different, for some reason. :?


Atheist or Christian, I don't think that one can find any variation of the Ontological Argument, from Anslem to Descartes, that depends on "you can't prove a negative" as its syllogistic touchstone. Like or dislike Ontological Arguments, those who put them forth usually put a little more brainpower into them.
User avatar
Arvegil
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1439
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2003 3:37 pm
Top

Postby Minardil » Mon Jan 23, 2012 2:45 pm

vison wrote:Like arguing about the existence of god? That sort of thing? :D

But . . . wait.

That's different, for some reason. :?


Belief in the existence of God is - or at least should be - a matter of faith by its very nature, so the question of proof is somewhat beside the point, at least in my Not-Very-Humble-at-ALL opinion.

People who need to "prove" either the existence or non-existence of God to anyone but themselves should probably find something better to do with their time.
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9944
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Postby Cenedril_Gildinaur » Mon Jan 23, 2012 5:44 pm

Swordsman_Of_The_Tower wrote:
Cenedril_Gildinaur wrote:
Swordsman_Of_The_Tower wrote:Moving the spectrum to the right has done wonders to the de-legitimizing of anything left of the Clintons.


Now that's an interesting example of a conspiracy theory.


Look at past GOP politicians, see which ones would not be allowed in today's party?


Not really a sufficient answer. You'll need more evidence than that to support this theory.
User avatar
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 11197
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2003 7:35 pm
Location: The Real World
Top

Postby portia » Tue Jan 24, 2012 7:51 am

I do not think that is an example of a conspiracy. The political winds are always changing and new combinations of points of view combine, even in the same old parties (I am reading about T.Roosevelt after he was President, and the Progressive wing of the Republican party suffered a lot when he was out of power. The party shifted to the Right. The Democrats took over a lot of TR's programs, that they felt were popular. That was not a conspiracy; it was just people re-asserting their own ideas, when a charismatic leader, who felt differently, was losing influence.)
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Previous

Return to Philosophy: Councils of Manwë

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest