> I think that's a slightly narrow-minded view of it, as there's no black and white single line between being a conspiracy theorist or not. It's all subjective, and while some conspiracies most of us may agree are obviously that, others can be far more subtle/debatable.
The user begins by saying I might be a troll due to having a young account, finds my account is old, but uses it to confirm his belief rather than realise I am arguing honestly.
> Not that long ago, people who believed the NSA were spying on people to the extent that we now know they are
We still don't actually have any particularly firm knowledge on exactly what the NSA is doing. I blame a lot of the reporting to be honest, but many systems like this have been theorised by perfectly rational people for a while.
> All in all, there are two options about 9/11
This is a little bit of a false dichotomy, but there is no chance whatsoever that any of the major conspiracy theories are valid. You don't have to trust me on this, just go and look at the website of the largest activist group, AE911Truth and read their self contradicting list of evidence.
> Why don't you go and have a good long thing about your life, how you interact with others, and what you want to achieve when you talk to people, especially strangers. What you are doing now is, long term, going to do you no good at all.
Your example is nothing to do with conspiracy theories, just to do with how people when losing an argument with grasp at any straws possible.
9/11, I already believe (as I previously stated) that none of the conspiracy theories are valid. That doesn't mean that small things can't help support the theories in valid ways. If I have a theory that Michael Jackson was murdered by Osama Bin Larden using a trained hedgehog, and I find out that Bin Larden did actually own a trained hedgehog, that backs up a small part of my theory. That doesn't mean my theory is true.
> Your example is nothing to do with conspiracy theories, just to do with how people when losing an argument with grasp at any straws possible.
What you must realise is that this user believes I am posting with ulterior motive, essentially he only trusts his interpretation of my text. This is symptomatic of conspiracy theories.
I agree with the rest of your post without reservation though.
You'd be surprised how often it comes up, see this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6244147
The user begins by saying I might be a troll due to having a young account, finds my account is old, but uses it to confirm his belief rather than realise I am arguing honestly.
> Not that long ago, people who believed the NSA were spying on people to the extent that we now know they are
We still don't actually have any particularly firm knowledge on exactly what the NSA is doing. I blame a lot of the reporting to be honest, but many systems like this have been theorised by perfectly rational people for a while.
> All in all, there are two options about 9/11
This is a little bit of a false dichotomy, but there is no chance whatsoever that any of the major conspiracy theories are valid. You don't have to trust me on this, just go and look at the website of the largest activist group, AE911Truth and read their self contradicting list of evidence.