Here is the situation.
There are real conspiracies and there are false ones.
Those that are predisposed to thinking everything is a conspiracy are crying wolf so much that those of us that want evidence before they absorb something as fact turn those people off, because they are wasting our time. Conspiracy theorists are poor sources of factual information when they lean too far in that direction of everything is a conspiracy.
There are certainly many valid conspiracies and when enough information comes to light to prove it, then you now have a valid conspiracy. So don't let it be said that reasonable people don't believe in conspiracies. Just that conspiracy theories are useless without enough evidence to support them.
In addition a lot of conspiracy theorists are impossible to talk to. They have so much confirmation bias that they will latch on to any tenuous argument to prove their ideas right.
For example, if a government doesn't want to comment that something like Red Mercury, a substance supposedly used in making nuclear weapons, does exist , then the conspiracy theorist says that's just the government hiding information like they always do and that this is proof that it actually does exist.
On the other hand if a government actually does deny the substance exists, then the conspiracy theorist says that is the government lying about it's existence, because they don't want the world to know it exists.
The only remaining alternative is what the conspiracy theorist believes all along, that the Red Mercury is a secret government substance that they don't want to admit exists. How do you argue or take people like this seriously?
Yes, I know. Not all conspiracy theorists are like this, but I'm sure all of us know people that think this way.
@dwinblood It is just as interesting to me as it is to you, but in the opposite way. Why is it that some people want to attribute so much to conspiracy when there isn't enough evidence? They will make the excuse that these people are so powerful they can kill and silence any whistleblower. That they can get explosives in to the WTC without being noticed and have controlled demolitions without ever having a single person in the chain slip up and either spill the beans or have a communication intercepted. Surely, the NSA has information of some sort about the conspiracy? Oh, no! The NSA is on it, they will say...
You just can't win with a conspiracy theorist which is why, I give zero credibility to them. None, zero, zilch. Because even when they have really good information it is not worth my time to weed that out versus all the bullshit that is put out there by them on the whole. Which conspiracy theorist am I supposed to trust?
I hold myself to the standard of when I'm shown to be wrong on a subject, I will back off and change my thinking. If the person I'm talking with can't do the same... I give up, and I gave up.
This world needs more moderation in everything that it does. Stop eating so much, stop being anorexic, stop being too violent, stop being too pacifist, stop being so greedy, stop hating everything, etc. It's when people take things to extremes and take things so seriously that we get dysfunctional. Don't make your world view as sacred and perhaps we as a world society could move forward more smoothly.
Nevermind, I'm a reptile person, like David Icke has discovered. We're here to control you humans, and I know all you gullible humans will never believe it, so I'm coming out and saying it first. I'm a reptile man, prove me wrong!
I actually give credibility to everyone on a case by case basis. I don't agree with someone due to appeals to authority. I prefer evidence as well. Most of the conspiracy theories that get debated the hardest and have the most conflict seem to revolve around events where even the official explanation is nothing more than a conspiracy theory. Why is this? In those cases the necessary evidence is not available to anyone to prove one thing or the other. In those cases it does seem to go with a lot of opinion and it can get truly crazy and hostile. Yet I still listen. I've heard people say a theory and think 90% of it is utter crap, but they might have some idea that was in there say 10% (pulling these numbers out of my ass... so don't take them seriously) that is something of interest. Having 10% something interesting does not mean I suddenly believe the other 90% they said as well. That is not how logic and reason work. Likewise, I don't ignore the possibility that 10% might be there. I am quite capable of reading, hearing, and watching people speak about things without having to believe them. I am also capable of finding to me things that may be hidden gems or at least things that inspire me to go look further myself.
You won't find me telling you THIS IS HOW it is... That'd be bullshit. Now on both side of the fence we get people who treat it more as dogma and won't budge. We have the conspiracy theorists who theorized something (actually hypothesized) and decide it is truth and won't budge, and on the other side we have the people who believe that no conspiracy theories exist and that no one should give such thoughts the time of day. It is my OPINION that both sides in that battle are being idiots and need a good swift kick in the ass to make them snap out of it. Reason does not mean plugging our ears and going NAH NAH NAH I'm not going to listen to you. It is stupid when either side does it. I am not one of those people. I'll do my damndest to deflate a conspiracy theory/hypothesis if I can see a way to do it. If I cannot then I'll try to do my own research. Even if I start to believe a theory is probable that does not make it the truth to me. It only means that with what facts and evidence I have available to me it seems the most probable. New information can shatter that. I am actually fine with that. I try really hard not to get dogmatic about anything. I have in the past. I guess you can say that I can look at myself in the mirror and say "Cognitive Dissonance I am coming for you!" That doesn't mean I always succeed, but I do think I'm getting better at it. I tend to notice when it is influencing me faster than I did when I was younger. Practice....
As to which conspiracy theorist are you supposed to trust? No one. You should never give into Appeals to Authority. You shouldn't trust news outlets completely either? Appeal to Authority is a logical fallacy. Trust yourself, but keep an open mind and toss aside what you can disprove, and stick the things on a mental shelf to investigate further that you are unsure of. As you do that you'll have your own ideas, and you won't have to trust any other HUMAN to tell you the answers. No one should have authority over your mind, but you.
The world needs more open minds and rational thought. Moderation is totally subjective and dependent on the opinion of the person. What you might consider moderation I might feel is extreme and vice versa. Telling other people how to live their lives does not work. Worry about your own. So I don't tell people to be more moderate. Someone tells me this I'll mentally flip them off as I smile at them. No one has the right to imply or tell me how I should live. I do think if we had more open minds and less rigid thoughts and we were all well versed in logic/reason/critical thinking that what you likely are considering moderation would happen on its own.
If you are a reptile man... pretty damn cool. We should meet so I can see you flick your eye membranes and stuff. And just in case you are taking me seriously, I am joking with you too. I have never seen anything that makes me think reptile people are probable. I don't shut it down 100% because I don't know everything and I haven't been able to study personally a single person that is reported to be such. I do find it amusing.
I also don't think there is an Alien base under Denver International Airport and I live near there and have been there numerous times. :)
Will I make mistakes... definitely... everyone does. The person that tells you that they don't make mistakes is someone you likely don't want anything to do with.