Why do you think Zinn, who spent a lifetime casting a critical eye on history, has not managed to connect all the dots that you and Nastynice have? He clearly doesn't have any sacred cows, and is willing to take on any part of the established narrative, right? He clearly has a pretty comprehensive knowledge of US history, right? Is Zinn "defending the government results"? Is he a shill along with everyone else besides a tiny moon-landing-skeptics crew, the ones who really know everything?
Originally Posted by WES445
You guys accuse the rest of the world of being gullible fools who eat up falsehoods daily. Only you and a few others have the special insight and knowledge to see the world clearly. Only you are wise and informed, in the know. Does this sound like any other group?
Better yet, your views are not susceptible to being changed by facts. Correct me if I'm wrong. If there is some fact out there that would reverse your 9-11 conspiracy belief, what is it? If not, how is this kind of non-fact-based nonsense different from a religion? (Not that I want to veer too far over into that territory, I am interested in the epistemological similarities.) Your group requires belief because it can almost never produce enough evidence to create knowledge. Conspiracy theorists pretend to ask questions for which they believe they have the answers. Here is the dirty little secret -- they almost never have real answers that stand up to rational scrutiny. It's questions all the way down, and they'll happily resort to saying so each time the "answers" the provide are refuted with hard facts.
Are there exceptions over the course of history? Sure. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then. You know the difference between those exceptions and 99% of conspiracy theories? There is enough evidence to support them. See the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the prime example of something that began as a conspiracy but is now textbook history. Why isn't a fictionalized moon landing, or the Illuminati or the fiendish fluoridators conspiracy accepted as textbook history? For the simple reason that there is not enough evidence to convince reasonable people they are true.
I'm in favor of liberalized immigration because of the effect it would have on restaurants. I'd let everybody in except the English.