5 ms·
Isn't calling them "conspiracy theorists" itself an attach on their character? Personally, I like to play devils advocate, and I'm curious about what happened
by 20yrs_no_equity 10y ago
Isn't calling them "conspiracy theorists" itself an attach on their character?
Personally, I like to play devils advocate, and I'm curious about what happened on 9/11. It doesn't add up for me. So I have taken the "conspiracy theorist" side several times... I don't see people making arguments against the theorists data.
I see the same common fallacies, most often variations of appeal to authority. "Popular science debunked that" for example in response to an argument that Popular Science didn't address.
"If it were a cover up it would have gotten out" in response to people pointing "it getting out" is my favorite, of course. Sort of a "I don't believe it, therefore it can't be right". Not sure what fallacy that is.
- colejohnson66 10y ago> Isn't calling them "conspiracy theorists" itself an attach on their character? I've never thought of it like that. For me, I've always looked at it as a literal definition. They theorize that there is a conspiracy. However, I guess it could be seen as an attempt on someone's character because it does have a negative connotation.