The psychology of Conspiracy Think

[Micah Mileto]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Do you think your precious liberty has greater value than the lives ruined by heroin dealers? And the burden heroin addiction puts on society?

What you say is actually a great argument against libertarianism. The ideology of selfishness.

 

On your "lives ruined by heroin dealers" - you seem to be conflating cause and responsibility. The concept of responsibility is a subjective political opinion, and is often used as a mere a construct of practicality, not a perfect philosophical way to judge morality. "Cause" could be something like somebody who had a crime committed against them by somebody who thought their skimpy clothing was a motivation for their crime - but you can see how obviously horrible it would be to conflate cause and responsibility in that situation.  Another example: a horrific car accident happens shortly after somebody legally passed somebody else on a road - the passing of the car could have been a necessary part of the chain of events, but it would be wrong to hold them responsible in the court of law or the court of public opinion.

 

Personally, I blame the government for "lives ruined by heroin", not the dealers, because the government is responsible for drugs being illegal, and legal drugs certainly could have changed the situation. That is my subjective opinion on responsibility.

Edited December 21, 2022 by Micah Mileto

[Lawrence Schnapf]

Lance- the same approach can be use for those supporters of the lone gunman whose own belief system prevents them from considering the possibility of a conspiracy. these are the "false patriots" who believe they are defending America's honor and its institutions by rejecting any evidence of multiple gunman as not credible. This line of thinking was revealed in Bugliosi's book around page 986 where he says what would it mean if the critics were correct. he says it would mean that the US is no different than the Europeans and that our institutions are no better than a third world country. In other words, it would put the lie to the thought of "American Exceptionalism" as Chris Mattews says. 

The warren report was really designed to assuage our european allies that America had not been taken over by right wing  plot.  Take a look at the reports pouring in from our embassies in the months after the assassination. They were convinced the assassination was an effort to stop the move towards  relaxing tensions with the Soviets.   

[Lori Spencer]

55 minutes ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

 

 

The warren report was really designed to assuage our european allies that America had not been taken over by right wing  plot.  Take a look at the reports pouring in from our embassies in the months after the assassination. They were convinced the assassination was an effort to stop the move towards  relaxing tensions with the Soviets.   

 

And they weren’t wrong… although I would argue America was being run by closeted Yahtzee  sympathizers (and actual Yahtzee’s, brought here by Dulles & the Agency) since 1945. 
 

These were many of the same actors who hated FDR for his diplomatic recognition of the USSR; his wartime alliance with Stalin; who plotted to overthrow him in 1933 — and who hated Kennedy for the same reason — being “soft on communism.” 

Also, great questions for Lance, @Jim DiEugenio, although I doubt he will actually answer them. Our spooky new friend seems to have vanished like a ghost. 👻 

My conspiratorial mind is always suspicious when a new member arrives on a forum, makes a big splash with incendiary insults towards longtime members, and passionately defends the CIA before rage quitting in a huff when challenged. 
 

Rather interesting this fellow Lance registered here on the 12th, 3 days prior to the JFK Records deadline — as if to blunt the impact the Agency surely knew was coming.  Once his mission failed, he skedaddled like a hound being chased by a panther!
 

I’d be surprised if he returns. Clearly he wasn’t here to engage in civilized debate, or discuss admissible evidence. Lance just did a classic hit-and-run, as feds (and their affiliated attorneys) always do. 
 

 

Edited December 21, 2022 by Lori Spencer

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

If one does not subscribe to the principal of liberty over security, then they may as well admit to not believing in any liberty at all. This is because there is no shortage of important-sounding arguments in favor of increasing security at the expense of liberty.

Well, I hope you have fun in Antarctica. There's this unwritten agreement in all societies, that a certain amount of liberty must be sacrificed for the greater good. Just as there are laws against speeding...because speeding leads to the deaths of innocent people, there are laws against certain drugs, because the widespread use of these drugs leads to the deaths of innocent people. Now it's obvious marijuana was wrongly included on this list of dangerous drugs, but I don't think anyone can make a similar case for heroin, meth, or crack, etc... 

I suppose you think felons should be allowed to own machine guns, too. I mean, purely theoretically, where do you draw the line between freedom and security? Or how about philosophically? Are people more "free" when they are in constant fear for their lives? Or are in constant fear of some person (or company) seducing their children for sex, or money, after getting them addicted. 

Now, there are harmful addictions that are not illegal, such as looking at porn, trolling on the internet, viewing TikTok, and eating at McDonald's, but even these addictions are controlled at times. You can't create or view porn involving children, for example, and the government cracked down on the sugar content in children's cereals. 

Not to get too personal, but in my experience, people who "subscribe to the principle of liberty" rarely have children. It's not that they hate children, IMO, it's that once they become a parent, they understand why the "principle of liberty" needs to be balanced by the public good. I suspect that this is because being a parent means controlling someone's liberty for their own good. I mean, I can't imagine any parent supporting the right of pornographers to recruit at high school pep rallies, or the right of anti-semites to show up at Hebrew School with their AK-47s. 

Edited December 21, 2022 by Pat Speer

[Micah Mileto]

16 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

 

 

Pat, I never said that I believe freedom has infinite importance, or that safety has zero importance. All I said was that freedom is more important than safety. Think of freedom as being worth a dollar and safety as being worth a dime - a truckload of dimes is not worth less than one dollar.

 

I believe that my position in naturally resistant to strawman arguments (like all murder being legalized) because a minimum level of safety is required for a state to enable the it's citizens to enjoy other kinds of freedoms. Compare that to somebody who would claim to believe that safety is more important than freedom - a state could technically exist without any freedom at all, so their position does not have any naturally built-in requirment of freedom.

Edited December 21, 2022 by Micah Mileto

[Gerry Down]

1 hour ago, Micah Mileto said:

Pat, I never said that I believe freedom has infinite importance, or that safety has zero importance. All I said was that freedom is more important than safety. Think of freedom as being worth a dollar and safety as being worth a dime - a truckload of dimes is not worth less than one dollar.

 

I believe that my position in naturally resistant to strawman arguments (like all murder being legalized) because a minimum level of safety is required for a state to enable the it's citizens to enjoy other kinds of freedoms. Compare that to somebody who would claim to believe that safety is more important than freedom - a state could technically exist without any freedom at all, so their position does not have any naturally built-in requirment of freedom.

Drugs steal a persons freedom. Drugs take a person over and makes them a slave. That's why its important to keep them illegal. 

[Mark Knight]

6 hours ago, Evan Marshall said:

People who pontificate using ten-dollar words to explain 17 cent solutions have never been punched in the mouth.

That's a very valid conclusion.

[James DiEugenio]

6 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

 

@James DiEugenio are you playing Max Cady? 

This was a great one Chris.

I could not have done better myself.

"You mean you faked a case against me!'

[James DiEugenio]

As for Larry and Lori, just recall what JBC said to reporter Doug Thompson. as reported in McBride's book.

Doug asked him if he believed the verdict in the Warren Report.

Connally said, "Not for five seconds did I buy it."

Doug said, "Well why did you not speak out?"

Connally said something about the country needed healing at that time.

I could not disagree more, as I think you two do also.

BTW Larry was on Fox today again.  

 

 

Edited December 22, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Micah Mileto]

2 hours ago, Gerry Down said:

Drugs steal a persons freedom. Drugs take a person over and makes them a slave. That's why its important to keep them illegal. 

That's none of your business. I don't want the government to decide what drugs go into my body. I also believe in the right for any adult to buy cyanide for the purpose of killing themself - so clearly I am not going to think addictive drugs should be illegal. I think you have the attitude of a freedom hater - the definition of a freedom hater is somebody who is always willing to accept unprovable arguments in favor of taking away people's freedom, but never willing to use unprovable arguments in favor of giving people more freedom. It is conceivable that the state could still exist even if the addiction rates got higher as a result of drugs being illegal (and you can't prove that they would). I believe in only sacrificing enough freedom to result in the minimum amount of safety necessary to protect the existence of the state - not necessarily the people inside of the state (although sometimes both interests overlap). Drugs being illegal is why I think that literally all police figures are bad people on a personal level.

 

Again, I am not even bothering to explore the basic arguments for why legalizing drugs would lower addiction rates. And you probably already understand that legalized drugs would lower the accidental overdose rates.

Edited December 22, 2022 by Micah Mileto

[Micah Mileto]

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

 

Also, I don't think it should be legal to force children to learn Hebrew. In fact, I believe that a large portion of school is just pointless child abuse, financial abuse and slavery because most of the information taught at school is not useful to the careers of average people. How is it fair that I make enough money to afford an apartment, and yet the average middle schooler works more than twice as hard as me? Child labor never ended, it just got stupider.

Edited December 22, 2022 by Micah Mileto

[Bob Ness]

13 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

That's none of your business. I don't want the government to decide what drugs go into my body. I also believe in the right for any adult to buy cyanide for the purpose of killing themself - so clearly I am not going to think addictive drugs should be illegal. I think you have the attitude of a freedom hater - the definition of a freedom hater is somebody who is always willing to accept unprovable arguments in favor of taking away people's freedom, but never willing to use unprovable arguments in favor of giving people more freedom. It is conceivable that the state could still exist even if the addiction rates got higher as a result of drugs being illegal (and you can't prove that they would). I believe in only sacrificing enough freedom to result in the minimum amount of safety necessary to protect the existence of the state - not necessarily the people inside of the state (although sometimes both interests overlap). Drugs being illegal is why I think that literally all police figures are bad people on a personal level.

 

Again, I am not even bothering to explore the basic arguments for why legalizing drugs would lower addiction rates. And you probably already understand that legalized drugs would lower the accidental overdose rates.

Yeah. Then there are the Mexican cartels taking over the pot business in Oregon. A little blow back there. Not pretty, and not very well known... yet.

[Micah Mileto]

10 minutes ago, Bob Ness said:

Yeah. Then there are the Mexican cartels taking over the pot business in Oregon. A little blow back there. Not pretty, and not very well known... yet.

I blame the immoral actions of the cartels on the freedom-hating governments and peoples who choose to keep drugs illegal. If drugs are ever legalized, it will take decades or centuries for society to reverse the damage caused by drugs being illegal.

Edited December 22, 2022 by Micah Mileto

[Bob Ness]

Just now, Micah Mileto said:

I blame the actions of the cartels on the freedom-hating governments and peoples who choose to keep drugs illegal. If drugs are ever legalized, it will take decades or centuries for society to reverse the damage caused by drugs being illegal.

It is legal in Oregon, Micah. I've been doing this for too long to argue with you but suffice to say legalizing pot has had unintended consequences. 

Oregon State Police seize illegal marijuana valued at $500 million | CNN

[Micah Mileto]

36 minutes ago, Bob Ness said:

It is legal in Oregon, Micah. I've been doing this for too long to argue with you but suffice to say legalizing pot has had unintended consequences. 

Oregon State Police seize illegal marijuana valued at $500 million | CNN

Do you think that legalizing all drugs in the United States would strengthen the cartels south of the border? Even if that were somehow true, I would simply say that the problem should be blamed on the government. Who's the reason why legal weed isn't cheaper than corn?

 

Drugs being illegal is a holocaust. Holocausts don't heal overnight.

Edited December 22, 2022 by Micah Mileto