So, in what way is what you are saying relevant to the debate we are having? The way you use the term “conspiracy theory” obviously isn’t the way Brillyant uses it.
I am suggesting that the way he is using “conspiracy theory” amounts to a fnord . It doesn’t appear to have much more content than “conspiracy theory I don’t believe in” and as such is as much about him as it is about the theory. As.such I suggest that discussion is unlikely to be productive unless better terms are used.
I pointed out a couple particular theories that are (a) ludicrous and (b) have a significant number of people who believe them.
I’d agree “conspiracies” happen all the time. But believing there were multiple gunmen in Dealey Plaza or that Bush ordered 9/11 is a special case of absurd belief.
So, in what way is what you are saying relevant to the debate we are having? The way you use the term “conspiracy theory” obviously isn’t the way Brillyant uses it.
I am suggesting that the way he is using “conspiracy theory” amounts to a fnord . It doesn’t appear to have much more content than “conspiracy theory I don’t believe in” and as such is as much about him as it is about the theory. As.such I suggest that discussion is unlikely to be productive unless better terms are used.
I pointed out a couple particular theories that are (a) ludicrous and (b) have a significant number of people who believe them.
I’d agree “conspiracies” happen all the time. But believing there were multiple gunmen in Dealey Plaza or that Bush ordered 9/11 is a special case of absurd belief.
So, basically you don’t understand the argument he’s making and therefore try to talk about something else?