3 ms·

I don't see it. I was adding to the argument that you are using the word "theory" with a negative connotation, which makes absolutely no sense. And that mistake

I don't see it. I was adding to the argument that you are using the word "theory" with a negative connotation, which makes absolutely no sense. And that mistake is very common in America, since you have religious folks spreading misinformation all over the country, including schools. On the other hand, I can see an ad hominem here: > the idea of Americans/Zionists/Illuminati/Nibiru pulling the strings behind every major event is no doubt very exciting for conspiracy theorists Someone is a "conspiracy theorist", so whatever he finds exciting must be wrong.

wololo 14y ago
It's ad hominem because (a) bringing up creationism make the US look bad and (b) has nothing to do with conspiracy theories about the US having orchestrated the Arab Spring and plotting to overthrow the PRC. Are you saying I'm a creationist, or am being secretly influenced by them? In fact, believing in creationism fundamentally relies on conspiracy theories and makes one more likely to believe in conspiracy theories. > Someone is a "conspiracy theorist", so whatever he finds exciting must be wrong. From a Bayesian perspective, I would get behind "much more likely", yes. I'm claiming the conspiracy theories involving those four all assume magical powers in similar ways and are just as unlikely, so I think they're OK to associate with each other, as they inform on each other.