Again, though, that's the difference between conspiracies and conspiracy theorists. It is not illogical or unreasonable to believe that Watergate was a conspiracy. We know it was. We also know about how quickly it fell apart. We know there are people who conspire to raise prices on things. We know there are people who conspire to commit just about any crime you can name. However, none of those fall into the definition of "conspiracy theory." Here, it specifically refers to claims of giant, overreaching conspiracies, which are presented without evidence. It tends to refer to an assumption of a conspiracy as the first-chosen explanation. It also tends to refer to someone who's never looked at the other side's evidence in the first place.
No one here has ever, to my knowledge, disputed that conspiracies exist. (Actually, a recent news item reminds us of another band of conspirators--they've found more human remains, they think, at an old Manson Family hideout.) We've never disputed that governmental conspiracies exist. What we have disputed is that conspiracies that would take the efforts of hundreds, even thousands, of people have remained secret for decades exist. We have disputed that any conspiracy presented here as "the TruthTM" is real. I think the distinction you are trying to present is valid, but I think your understanding of the terms happens to be faulty.
__________________
Gillian
"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"
"You can't erase icing."
"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"
|