You are citing “societal opinions” when looking for reliable news sources? Just admit it, you have no logical basis for singling out CNN and NYT as the font of knowledge. It just makes it easier for you to be lazy when looking for the Truth. And that’s all this is; lazy logic when faced with the complexity of the real world.
We have among the regular contributors to this board lawyers, practicing physicians, researchers, professional writers, editors, and educators at all levels. We have a good number of persons who can construct a solid argument and who can point out the weaknesses in others’ arguments. We might not be able to determine whether a given statement is “true” but we are very good at finding if it is “unsupported” and can give guidance on how to better state a case.
I would like to ask **Kozmik **if this is the first time he has been asked to support his ideas in this type of atmosphere, and whether he understands that objections to his statements are intended to help him clarify his position, not to necessarily disprove his ideas (except in those instances wherein his ideas are orthogonal to reality).
OK, you reject alternate theories because not rejecting them would be unpleasant - if you believed them, it would make life difficult. Do you see that this is not a logical argument? It’s true - life would be very difficult if those theories were true - but that’s not a position of logic. There’s no evidence to back up your decision. It’s just your own personal feeling.
OK, well, this is a new argument you haven’t mentioned before. Now you’re saying it’s trustworthy because other people in the past have said that it’s trustworthy. This is an appeal to authority. It’s still not a logical argument, in that there’s still no evidence to back you up. You’re choosing to trust these people based on a (presumably) educated assessment of their character, not based on any hard evidence of their trustworthiness, but fine. That can work. In fact, this is probably the best argument you’ve come up with so far. I’m not saying it’s a good argument, but it’s the least flawed out of all of them.
However, you’ve been saying all along that the upper echelons of society are controlled by the Illuminati. So how can you turn around and say that you can trust the opinions of well-respected people? Aren’t those the exact people you shouldn’t trust if your theories are true?
And also, you have yet to explain why the Times and CNN are more reliable than other, similar news outlets. There are other papers out there that are as respected - why do you reject them, and rely only on the Times?
You still haven’t explained why (because you can’t).
“Newspaper of record” means “respected newspaper,” and that’s all it means. This does not mean everything they print is true.
The New York Times buries the lead so deeply that I rarely bother to read it.
Typical New York Times first paragraph: *Sally walked down the street on sunlit autum day with her child Jimmy. They had been making this walk every day for several weeks. Their home was three blocks away from his school. They often met other parents and children walking to school. Sally and Jimmy enjoyed talking to each while walking. They talked about his friends and teachers. *
Typical BBC first paragraph: A mother and child were struck by a car in Pembry. The eight year old child was killed. The 29 year old mother was released. The driver was taken into custody.
I usually find most conspiracy theories to be illogical. But usually they at least have internal logic. But Koz your “theories” have no internal consistencies or logic. In such a glaring way that it is obvious to everyone. But you seem incapable of seeing it. Which makes me suspect mental illness and that concerns me.
I am in agreement with you. Most conspiracy theorists I have encountered have a dogged attachment to a few concepts, and have the ability to twist any further observations into accordance with their theories. Kozmik’s magpie-like attraction to whatever story catches his interest in the Times this morning shows a distinct lack of focus, and therefore never builds to anything other than a Ripley’s Believe It or Not potpourri of unrelated (and unrelatable) factoids.
Kozmik, what is the highest level of education you have received, and in what field or discipline was it?
And you know what the Truth is I take it?
Yes, this is the only place where I would do this, and I understand most objections.
Yes, it is not a logical argument - it is a philosophical argument.
Those are the exact people I shouldn’t trust, and I trust them. 
I’m smarter than most people give me credit for.
I “reject” them and only “rely” on the Times because it takes me approximately one hour to read through The New York Times. Yes, I realize that there are other newspapers out there. However, I cannot spend three or more hours of the day reading newspapers! It’s just not realistic or practicable.
What do you mean, “internal logic”? Could you give examples of CTs with internal logic?
Associate degree in pre-business.
How is the fact that he was drugged by the C.I.A. evidence that he was murdered by the C.I.A? He wasn’t poisoned, he was unwittingly given LSD at a weekend retreat so that they could study it’s effects. It was a very immoral, illegal thing for them to do, but the C.I.A. was doing the same thing to LOTS of people at the time, and they didn’t end up dead.
That’s a good example of the classic CT way of thinking. “The week before he died, he was given LSD by the C.I.A. Therefore, the C.I.A. must have murdered him.” Admittedly, the circumstances surrounding his death are suspicious but that doesn’t mean him being an unwitting participant in MKUltra is evidence that he was murdered.
What is that?
Yes I do. It is an imaginary ideal. There is no “Truth” as you are looking for it. It’s a messy, complex, confusing, contradictory world out there.
The moon landing was filmed in a movie studio because we didn’t have the technology to go to the moon, but we wanted to show up the Soviets, so the US faked the whole thing as a propaganda effort.
One can disagree with the premise that we did not have the technology to go to the moon, but the logic that the US would be motivated to beat the Soviets in the space race is reasonable, and the idea that the moon could be recreated on a sound state is also reasonable. Even though the facts do not support the conspiracy theory, the logic used to make the claim is fairly sound.
The idea that high ranking people in this world take orders from people who call them up anonymously to give them orders is not reasonable at all. It’s preposterous. If you would not eat a sandwich due to the direction of an unknown caller, and I think it is clear that the average person wouldn’t do something substantive at the direction of an anonymous caller, there is no reason to expect that people in high positions would randomly do big things (including very serious things like ordering crimes to be carried out) at the insistence of unknown callers.
Likewise, the idea that something significant would happen if all world leaders were in the same room together. I can’t even explain why you think this makes sense. There isn’t just a fault in the reasoning on this point, it’s just an absurd claim on its face. It’s like saying, “The G-192 would do big things because Illuminati,” or “Ravenman controls the world because pizza.” There’s really no logic to carefully evaluate.
Thank you, you answered it well. Although I would pick Kosmik’s Bloomberg/hurricane conclusion to be his least logical.
That dead nurse in England did something substantive based on an unverified caller. I wonder if the Duchess’ baby will be half-human/half-alien (just like Charles was).
Bloomberg wants Hilary to be the next mayor of New York City. Should I start boarding up my windows now?
I’m just going by what the Olson family is claiming:
A piece of paper that shows that I successfully completed two years of college.
It does not follow, though, that one’s understanding of the “world out there” is messy, complex, confusing, contradictory.
Yeah, but there’s a world of difference between taking complex data and simplifying it to make it comprehensible and taking complex data and creating fiction to make it nonsense.
Would any sentence in this article be such nonsense?
And there you go with a non-sequitor again. You are NOT being Socratic, you are simply being obtuse. Say what you mean; you suck at hinting.