Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Dak]

Stop bullshitting dude.

I'm being serious. There's no more validity to some Boston bum's anecdotal evidence to what he saw, and the Official Statement from the FBI/Boston PD. All evidence is anecdotal, and once any piece of evidence goes through someones hands, tampering is a possibility.

 

[Einherjar86]

I know you're serious; but it's bullshit.

"All evidence is anecdotal" is a pointless defense against an indefensible argument. The truth is, we have far more evidence in favor of alternative theories, including theories that are far more likely and simple. Even if testimony is anecdotal, the amount of it trumps your baseless claims that have no means of verification (at this point). It's fun to question what we see on television; hell, it's fun to question everything. But it's another to put forth theories seriously when there's nothing to substantiate them.

Essentially, people know that conspiracy is a possibility; the mainstream media is even broadcasting that possibility. The possibility described in that picture you posted is an elaborate, unlikely theory that has no evidence to support it. Sure, evidence is anecdotal; but there's nothing "sensationalist" about believing a large number of eyewitness accounts, if they correspond and find relative common ground.

 

[Dak]

I know you're serious; but it's bullshit.

"All evidence is anecdotal" is a pointless defense against an indefensible argument. The truth is, we have far more evidence in favor of alternative theories, including theories that are far more likely and simple. Even if testimony is anecdotal, the amount of it trumps your baseless claims that have no means of verification (at this point). It's fun to question what we see on television; hell, it's fun to question everything. But it's another to put forth theories seriously when there's nothing to substantiate them.

Essentially, people know that conspiracy is a possibility; the mainstream media is even broadcasting that possibility. The possibility described in that picture you posted is an elaborate, unlikely theory that has no evidence to support it. Sure, evidence is anecdotal; but there's nothing "sensationalist" about believing a large number of eyewitness accounts, if they correspond and find relative common ground.

First: What I argue on a regular basis is that the "elaborate" attack on most conspiracies (vs the "official story")is A. False and B. Irrelevant. In nearly every case the official story is just as, if not more elaborate and on an equal level of "believability", once you divorce the stories from their sources. When you factor in cui bono, things look even less favorable for the official story.

We don't even have a large number of eyewitness accounts on most things of any relevancy. As in, no one is questioning that the Boston Bombing or the Twin Towers are gone. But just because you saw some smoke doesn't mean you saw the fire or who started it and how and why.

The FBI has been setting up patsies with some regularity in recent years and admitting to it (with great fanfare actually), only if they caught the person before the incident occurred that they set up. So it's not like another incident allowed to carry through is completely outside the standard modus operandi. Gotta remind the citizens that there's "danger" out there. Keep them on their toes and knees.

It's much more simple to believe that a drill "goes live" than it is to believe a couple of regular joes pull off any number of complicated attacks, nevermind questioning motive.

 

[Einherjar86]

That's all fine. You don't need to convince me of anything.

But I don't believe that the conspiracy theories are simpler than the possibility that two young brothers blew up homemade bombs in Copley Square. In fact, it's very easy. If the government wanted to set off bombs, they don't need patsies to do it.

I don't agree that eyewitness accounts are lacking. I know people who were there. I don't agree that it's simpler to believe that a "drill went live." I don't believe that the government needs an excuse to roll tanks on the streets. I don't believe that it was done for any totalitarian purpose; the city never mandated that people stay indoors, and they were fine when people even in the neighborhood of Watertown went out and about in the mid-afternoon.

You also can't turn this around and accuse people of being shortsighted because they're believing that "Muslims killed people!" Fanatics actually do exist. Unless you believe the government made them up...

We should be directing our skepticism toward the bombers' motives and assessing those critically rather than assuming that they were maniacs. The conflict here is ideological, not conspiratorial and intra-continental.

 

[Dak]

That's all fine. You don't need to convince me of anything.

But I don't believe that the conspiracy theories are simpler than the possibility that two young brothers blew up homemade bombs in Copley Square. In fact, it's very easy. If the government wanted to set off bombs, they don't need patsies to do it.

You don't need patsies to do it. You need patsies for blame. If they physically participate that's just a bonus.

I don't agree that eyewitness accounts are lacking. I know people who were there. I don't agree that it's simpler to believe that a "drill went live." I don't believe that the government needs an excuse to roll tanks on the streets. I don't believe that it was done for any totalitarian purpose; the city never mandated that people stay indoors, and they were fine when people even in the neighborhood of Watertown went out and about in the mid-afternoon.

I didn't say they were lacking period. I said they were lacking as to relevancy. Again, just because you saw smoke doesn't mean you saw the who/what/when/where/why of the fire (or bomb).

Why doesn't government need a reason to roll tanks down the street? Isn't this a departure from your other arguments? That opinion is a restraint to government? The problem is that opinion can be manufactured, to some significant degree. This was the position and work of Bernays and Goebbels, to name some 20th century fathers of modern propaganda.

You also can't turn this around and accuse people of being shortsighted because they're believing that "Muslims killed people!" Fanatics actually do exist. Unless you believe the government made them up...

Government and Fanatics are not exclusive.

 

[Einherjar86]

You didn't see smoke or fire or the bomber. You're making claims based on... what?

 

[Dak]

You didn't see smoke or fire or the bomber. You're making claims based on... what?

Information at hand and logic, which is the best anyone can do.

 

[Einherjar86]

And your accusation is that believing the arguments on television are illogical. Do you see the disjunct here? Purely by the fact that arguments are presented in the mainstream media, or any news outlet for that matter, they lose relevancy in your opinion. This relegates all eyewitness and anecdotal evidence to a lower sphere that is in turn subjugated by your "logic."

It's nothing more than a form of rationalized argumentation, except that it has far less on its side than other arguments. You can successfully refute any form of evidence by appealing to a lack of authenticity, but your claims suffer from this far more than others.

Your obsession with a truth behind the veil seriously biases your own judgments sometimes.

 

[Dak]

And your accusation is that believing the arguments on television are illogical. Do you see the disjunct here? Purely by the fact that arguments are presented in the mainstream media, or any news outlet for that matter, they lose relevancy in your opinion. This relegates all eyewitness and anecdotal evidence to a lower sphere that is in turn subjugated by your "logic."

Who said they are illogical? You can have flawless logic on flawed premises (hello Ayn). The premise presented is that "law enforcement" and "intelligence" work to protect "us" from "them". Anything bad that happens is from "them". The story that is then constructed is relatively logical from that standpoint.

It's nothing more than a form of rationalized argumentation, except that it has far less on its side than other arguments. You can successfully refute any form of evidence by appealing to a lack of authenticity, but your claims suffer from this far more than others.

Your obsession with a truth behind the veil seriously biases your own judgments sometimes.

I believe that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely (and flowing from that, that you cannot pursue power without already being corrupted). It's not about "truth behind the veil", or some hidden esoteristic explanation for everything. It is indeed as simple as questioning motives. As we've discussed before, people rationalize everything. Almost no one in history has ever seen themselves as "evil" (except maybe Aleister Crowley? lol). Throw in the sacredness of "national security", and the prevalent belief that "to make an omelet you gotta break a few eggs", and it takes no imagination or sensationalism to weight motive to the powerful, instead of the everyman.

 

[Einherjar86]

What superior premises does your argument proceed from?

 

[Dak]

What superior premises does your argument proceed from?

The one about power and corruption.......?

 

[Einherjar86]

I mis-typed something above. I didn't intend that the arguments on television are illogical; I meant that you believe that believing the arguments on television is an illogical thing to do. It has nothing to do with the logic of arguments on television, and all to do with your accusation that placing any credibility on news reports means someone is already off to a false start.

 

[Dak]

I mis-typed something above. I didn't intend that the arguments on television are illogical; I meant that you believe that believing the arguments on television is an illogical thing to do. It has nothing to do with the logic of arguments on television, and all to do with your accusation that placing any credibility on news reports means someone is already off to a false start.

Credibility is not to be assumed, for any particular aspect of what is being said (whether on TV or in print). Now that doesn't necessarily mean there is any intentional misleading. They are just someone with a microphone (or a computer). Those are not automatic indicators of truth.

There's something about "being on TV" or "being published" that somehow makes those people "Special" in the eyes of others. Like you've been "validated". A little anecdotal evidence of how absurd this gets: Years ago my dad had about a 2 second spot on a TV ad for the business he worked at. Suddenly, customers who had seen him in the business for years (but never spoke), began to come up to him "We saw you on TV!". Like woooooooooo. Big deal. And that was just an advertisement. TV anchors must rate up with the Gods for people like them.

 

[Einherjar86]

Of course not, but that can be applied anywhere, which is the tactic you seemed to be taking earlier. For instance, you haven't published anything and haven't participated in any authoritative discussion. If credibility should not be assumed on television or through publication, then there is also no reason why it should be through the mouthpiece of one single person; in fact, if we discuss degrees of credibility, then publications and television networks attain the higher degree simply because of the degree to which different sources find commonality.

No one is revering the television or publication gods simply by granting them more credibility than, say... you. They just happen to actually have more credibility.

 

[Dak]

Of course not, but that can be applied anywhere, which is the tactic you seemed to be taking earlier. For instance, you haven't published anything and haven't participated in any authoritative discussion. If credibility should not be assumed on television or through publication, then there is also no reason why it should be through the mouthpiece of one single person; in fact, if we discuss degrees of credibility, then publications and television networks attain the higher degree simply because of the degree to which different sources find commonality.

No one is revering the television or publication gods simply by granting them more credibility than, say... you. They just happen to actually have more credibility.

You don't see the problem with this?

 

[Einherjar86]

I see less of a problem than believing you.

 

[Dak]

I see less of a problem than believing you.

That's a false dichotomy. I never suggested it was believe me or believe the "mainstream media".

Why is it more believable if a whole bunch of corporate media outlets all quote the AP release, vs a bunch of conspiracy sites all quote Rense or something? They all "agree" right? So then it's a matter of who has more money behind them for validation? What if there's a whistle blower from x major media conglomerate? Since the rest of the conglomerate obviously says something different from the whistleblower, the whistleblower is automatically disqualified on "degrees of credibility".

I'm talking about doing personal due diligence on things rather than just swallowing a particular storyline, which is most likely going to lead you knowing that you will never know for sure, which is the truth of the matter. On the other hand, the majority of America "knows" that whatever they were told about the bombings is what happened. No, you don't know. You only know what someone told you.

 

[Einherjar86]

I know what you're talking about. This whole thing started because you disparagingly commented on people choosing to believe what they see on television. The truth is, neither option is doubtlessly believable. As far as credibility goes, it hurts the efforts of conspiracy theorists since most of them have ulterior agendas they're trying to push, including you. That's not to say that the media doesn't have an agenda too; but their agenda is more removed - they're alienated from it. Conspiracy theorists attempt to reduce the intentionality to specific intra-governmental actors without accounting for the way the entire system might, in fact, inspire two lone bombers to blow up a bunch of marathon runners.

If power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely (which I'm not granting you, since that's a highly ideologized premise), then there's no reason why those same premises can't lead to the conclusion that two brothers acted alone; and no flawed reasoning need be involved to arrive at that conclusion.

 

[Dak]

Conspiracy theorists attempt to reduce the intentionality to specific intra-governmental actors without accounting for the way the entire system might, in fact, inspire two lone bombers to blow up a bunch of marathon runners.

That's an inaccurate reduction of "conspiracy theorists". "Blowback" is, although a CIA term, something that is commonly referenced by people labeled as "conspiracy theorists" and other similar pejoratives. If the incident is indeed the work of two loners (or even working in affiliation with "terrorist groups", it's merely an example of blowback. Which is caused by government policy.

If power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely (which I'm not granting you, since that's a highly ideologized premise),

I see it as rather empirical.

 

[Einherjar86]

"Empirical" doesn't mean it isn't ideological. Much of what counts as ideological is derived from the senses.

And my reduction isn't inaccurate; it's the common critical interpretation of what conspiracy theories do. They allow people to representationally account for events in a system is unrepresentable. Some of the best thinkers of our age have accounted for this trend in conspiracy theories.

Finally, something to go toward your point: NBC is reporting that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is "unable to communicate." Apparently he is so wounded that we may never be able to orally communicate with the victim. Now THAT raises some serious fucking questions.