Why don't CTers lose credibility?

[HidariMak]

In an ideal, rational world, CTers would still exist. However, people in general would see details from the CTers which they know contradict facts and reality, and drop them like a bad used car salesman.

Most of the people I work with are fairly intelligent, and their jobs require them to analyze what is going on, and to find rational and logical causes for it. But many people from this same lot are not so picky about what they believe. They believe that jets were not used in the 9/11 attacks, that explosives had to be used to bring down the World Trade Center towers, that tens of thousands of people were really involved in a single massive conspiracy led by a government that can't even keep illegal wiretaps under wraps, and other nonsense.

Does anyone have any ideas as to why this is the case? I can understand, to an extent, their wanting to believe that the government couldn't be so uninformed and without full control of events in their own country. But why is the phrase "enough is enough" so rarely used by those who ever buy into the CTers? If somebody were to visibly lose their lunch on the buffet table, most people would stop eating. You wouldn't have to point out "uhh.... are you aware that you're eating bile?" And even if you did have to point that out to them, they wouldn't be insisting that what looks like a bit of mashed potato or a corn kernel is bile-free.

But with this CT nonsense, if they point out seven elements that they believe to be true, and you can give them evidence that all seven things are false, they'll give you an eighth. And in their mind, if you can't counter that eighth element on the spot, then they and the CTers are correct and you're the one who is mistaken. And sometimes, even when you give them access to all of the facts (like 911myths.com or Gravy's excellent Loose Change rebuttal), they'll refuse to even look.

So again, why do people insist on hearing and spouting stupidity, even when you point that out to them? I'm stumped.

[strathmeyer]

So again, why do people insist on hearing and spouting stupidity, even when you point that out to them? I'm stumped.

Uhh... because they're stupid?

Maybe it's just because people are accustommed to believing things that nobody else does and that they can't back up with facts, logic, or thought..

[Regnad Kcin]

There seems to be a general need for a kind of storybook narrative, the more dramatic the better. President Kennedy being murdered by a two-bit thug is not as thrilling and emotionally satisfying as if he were the victim of a sinister and far-reaching plot.

Also, the rise of the mass entertainment industry over the past 60 or so years has fed this need. From pulp fiction to Pulp Fiction, there's been no shortage of stories designed not only to provide for the need but to encourage it, like a drug that gives a little thrill. That the clever ones have the side-effect of suggesting possibilites which seem so real doesn't matter. Better still!

[SFB]

"Why don't CTers lose credibility?"

A better question may ask why they don't lose their credulity!

[tkingdoll]

Jeff Wagg made an excellent point recently that the CTers keep stories and events alive. I think that speaks volumes.

[Desktop Icon]

Why don't CTers lose credibility?

If you can find the answer to this, then I really think you've found the answer to why people believe in all the different woos out there. I think that at the root of it, the CT audience, passionately wants these things to be true and thus will always provide a ready and willing market. You could, of course, substitute "religion," "homeopathy," "astrology," etc. for "CT" in that last sentence.

[Regnad Kcin]

...I think that at the root of it, the CT audience, passionately wants these things to be true and thus will always provide a ready and willing market...Yes, but why?

I humbly suggested one possibility in post #3.

[hellaeon]

loose credibility? I never realised they had any to start with.

[Ersby]

Further to the storybook narrative idea:

Some people (maybe most people) like to know things that other people don't. When I was young, part of the attraction of the paranormal was that it seemed to offer truths and secrets that the average man in the street didn't know. If I learnt those things, then I'd feel like I knew more, could understand more and, yes, was "better" than them.

I think it's a similar thing here. CTers like the idea that they know something other people don't. It makes them feel good about themselves, and with internet forums it's pretty easy to find like-minded people and get some positive feedback and a social aspect. So, after a while it becomes something that they use to define themselves. Once that happens, it becomes hard to shake.

[dubfan]

So again, why do people insist on hearing and spouting stupidity, even when you point that out to them? I'm stumped.

There are two reasons the 9/11 CTs seem to be taking root among otherwise rational people:

1. Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Derangement_Syndrome).

2. The government did some legitimately foolish things after 9/11, and wasn't completely open about things it had obviously screwed up.

Combine those two and you've got a volatile mix.

[Flo]

Some people (maybe most people) like to know things that other people don't.


Not only do they like to believe they know things other people don't, but that they're not sheeps easily fooled by "the establishment". In addition, conspirations and the paranormal are the only field where ignoramusses can pass for experts to the eyes of the gullible. As someone said, it's easier to become a guru than a Nobel laureate.

[Operaider]

Not only do they like to believe they know things other people don't, but that they're not sheeps easily fooled by "the establishment". In addition, conspirations and the paranormal are the only field where ignoramusses can pass for experts to the eyes of the gullible. As someone said, it's easier to become a guru than a Nobel laureate.Ironicly many of them would consider themselves skeptics.
In many ways they are similar to us, only in a twisted way.

Like true skeptics they research areas and hold opinions that are counter to the majority of the public. Many of them meticulously research their areas of interest and try to persuade those who they see as having been deceived.

The main problem I see with them is that they start with the conclusion that an event happened, and then work backwards to find the evidence. This, as I see it, is their fatal flaw. It makes it nearly impossible to be proven wrong, and goes against the scientific method. If they could learn how to properly research these claims, some could probably become true skeptics.

P.S. This is coming from someone that once bought into the JFK conspiracy to the point of taking a trip to Texas to visit the site of the murder and talk to some of the people that witnessed it.

[Operaider]

Further to the storybook narrative idea:

Some people (maybe most people) like to know things that other people don't. When I was young, part of the attraction of the paranormal was that it seemed to offer truths and secrets that the average man in the street didn't know. If I learnt those things, then I'd feel like I knew more, could understand more and, yes, was "better" than them.

Do you think that skeptics might be drawn to skepticism for some of the same reasons. After all, we do know the tricks used by psychics, how to fake UFO and ghost photos, the holes in the excuses used for believing, etc.

I must admit to getting some guilty pleasure in knowing that while many people believe in this junk, I know better.

[Ersby]

Do you think that skeptics might be drawn to skepticism for some of the same reasons. After all, we do know the tricks used by psychics, how to fake UFO and ghost photos, the holes in the excuses used for believing, etc.

I must admit to getting some guilty pleasure in knowing that while many people believe in this junk, I know better.
Of course, but I'd say that skeptics are less supportive of each other (for want of a better word). On the Loose Change forums, some "anti-Zionist" stuff was posted which quickly turned into "anti-Jewish" and the other CTers were very reluctant to argue. They merely said nothing or said it was interesting. On skeptic boards, it doesn't matter who your are or how many posts you have, if you say something stupid, people let you know.

Whether you acknowledge you just said something stupid is another matter :D

[Operaider]

Of course, but I'd say that skeptics are less supportive of each other (for want of a better word). On the Loose Change forums, some "anti-Zionist" stuff was posted which quickly turned into "anti-Jewish" and the other CTers were very reluctant to argue. They merely said nothing or said it was interesting. On skeptic boards, it doesn't matter who your are or how many posts you have, if you say something stupid, people let you know.

Whether you acknowledge you just said something stupid is another matter :DToo true, thats kinda part of my point.

Doesn't realy matter to any of them how they reach the conclusion, as long as they all reach the conclusion that a conspiracy is in progress.

Where as with us the path to the conclusion is just as important as the end result. Or, atleast it should be

[Kenny 10 Bellys]

I would think that skeptics are, almost by definition, more self-reliant mentally than those who take everything at face value, and so tend to need or seek support less than those at the other end of the spectrum. If you're willing to stand up and say "that's a crock!" then you're not someone who needs a gang behind you for confirmation first.

I have to just reiterate what Dubfan said, that if it wasn't for the fact that many governments go out of their way to cover up their own small foul-ups in relation to major events then most of these conspiracy theories would have never got going. People can see them hiding something, and it's a small leap from there to shape-changing lizards that rule the world in some minds.

[gfunkusarelius]

in regards to the OP, every time one of these classic CT posts pops up, there are several posts asking this basic question. the theories are wide ranging and there are actually a few books on the subject (i am reading why people believe weird things" right now). for people i know, i would definitely say the "bush derangement syndrome" is responsible for some of the more recent CTs, tho it doesnt explain things over history. a lot of CT's do stem from an inherent distrust of those in power...the old "power corrupts" adage. to some extent, it is good to question power, and i am certain there are a lot of underhanded dealings that the governements dont want us to know about and we probably should...i just dont think they are quite as sexy as what people dream up.
i also agree that, to some extent, it is the pulpy entertainment value, but, to be honest, i think the real story is just as interesting if not more interesting than what the CTs come up with a lot of the time.

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

I think what they do is dissect an event in history, find something that seems to go against what is the official story, and add in some paranoia. This appeals to people who already have a mistrust in authorities, most commonly government. The most popular conspiracies tend to be ones where the official story isn't all that satisfying. The exception to that is the moon hoax, the idea that it was a hoax probably wouldn't have ever crossed most people's minds if it werent for CTists.
Probably the most unfortunate part of CTs is that they often try to utilize gradeschool science to prove their points, when infact their use of science is often, kinda always, incorrect. Mooners use principles of shadows and the van allen belt, 9/11ers use the melting point of steel, and JFKers use the force and angle of an entering bullet. Of course shadow angles can vary based on object shape, the astronauts werent exposed to the worst of the van allen radiation, heated steel can loose strength at temps well below that of melting, and as a bullet exits the jet stream created sends the head towards the shooter.

[J. Arthur Hastur]

I think most CT theories gain traction in instances where investigations are slow and or botched. A lack of actual facts and clues causes people to create their own and the authorities inability or refusal to release relevant data and materials gives the speculation a semblance of validity..

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I think most CT theories gain traction in instances where investigations are slow and or botched. A lack of actual facts and clues causes people to create their own and the authorities inability or refusal to release relevant data and materials gives the speculation a semblance of validity..

Plus, many consider facts, scientific process, and mundane explanations to be boring. Whereas, spin, conjecture, and flashy multimedia films are fun!

[Yahzi]

The main problem I see with them is that they start with the conclusion that an event happened, and then work backwards to find the evidence.
And why not? It's the only technique they've ever used for anything. Culture has carefully arragned their lives and their beliefs so it works for the 99% that matters and keeps us driving on the right side of the street. So you can't blame them for doing exactly what they were taught from birth.

We can't expect people to disbelieve in ghosts as long as the belief in spirits is considered unassailable.

Also, as has been pointed out, CTers provide a story. Have you looked at prime-time lately? All we get anymore are cop shows and reality tv. The CTers come off as positively creative compared to that. :D

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

And why not? It's the only technique they've ever used for anything. Culture has carefully arragned their lives and their beliefs so it works for the 99% that matters and keeps us driving on the right side of the street. So you can't blame them for doing exactly what they were taught from birth.

We can't expect people to disbelieve in ghosts as long as the belief in spirits is considered unassailable.

Also, as has been pointed out, CTers provide a story. Have you looked at prime-time lately? All we get anymore are cop shows and reality tv. The CTers come off as positively creative compared to that. :D

Your post touches on a lament voiced by many a great mind (Sagan jumps to the top of my memory queue). The US educational system is failing miserably at teaching people how to Think.

[Polaris]

P.S. This is coming from someone that once bought into the JFK conspiracy to the point of taking a trip to Texas to visit the site of the murder and talk to some of the people that witnessed it.

When you finally get up to the sixth floor, and you see where the motorcade would have been relative to where Oswald was, and you watch the Zapruder Film (including the low speed at which the limousine was travelling), Oswald's marksmanship no longer seems so impossibly difficult - especially when you consider that he had a scope.

[HidariMak]

Sadly though, it seems that it's more a matter of refusing to think, and refusing to see the obvious even when it's pointed out to them. Isn't it dramatic enough that a disturbed individual ended the life of a beloved acting US president? Isn't it dramatic enough that NASA was able to send people to set foot on the moon back in 1969? Isn't it dramatic enough that 19 religious fanatics commited an act so horrible as to be unimaginable to most of us before it actually happened?

Primetime TV shows that the majority of the population is most relaxed with their brains in neutral, so they can be forgiven for not questioning a lot of the idiocy which gets presented. Even normally sane, rational, intelligent people may not notice the absurdity of some of these claims at first. But when the facts are presented, to the obvious, blatant, Daffy Duck in a tutu levels of absurdity that they are, and people insist on abandoning the proven and rational realities that's being given directly to them, it's stunning.

Yeah, I know that some books were published which goes into the psychology of this stupidity. Perhaps one of these days I'll find the time to actually check one of them out. (It's not that the books aren't worth my time, just that I have precious little these days.)

[Belz...]

Not only do they like to believe they know things other people don't, but that they're not sheeps easily fooled by "the establishment". In addition, conspirations and the paranormal are the only field where ignoramusses can pass for experts to the eyes of the gullible. As someone said, it's easier to become a guru than a Nobel laureate.

Flo, your French is showing.

[Flo]

Flo, your French is showing.


***** ! And me that was sure everybody was fooled by my perfect mastery of ze English language ! ;)


(Note for tonight: "conspiracy" to be written down 20 times in the secret notebook ..... )

[Hellbound]

Just as a notice, National Geographic channel showed an episode of their "Seconds from Disaster" show last night (US, Dish Network) that dealt with Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. Very interesting, as they wen into detail on how the plane impacted (wing parts were found buried in the dirt just outside the building, where the left wing hit the ground almost simultaneously with the plane impact), showed where the right wing impacted the outer wall, described the structural features of the building that kept it standing for the 20 minutes it did and accurately explained the collapse, etc, etc, etc.

I thought it was a very good study of the incident. They usually rerun these shows, so if anyone is interested check your local listings :)

[kookbreaker]

Just as a notice, National Geographic channel showed an episode of their "Seconds from Disaster" show last night (US, Dish Network) that dealt with Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. Very interesting, as they wen into detail on how the plane impacted (wing parts were found buried in the dirt just outside the building, where the left wing hit the ground almost simultaneously with the plane impact), showed where the right wing impacted the outer wall, described the structural features of the building that kept it standing for the 20 minutes it did and accurately explained the collapse, etc, etc, etc.

I thought it was a very good study of the incident. They usually rerun these shows, so if anyone is interested check your local listings :)

See! National Geographic is the head of the media conspiracy!

Oww! Stop hitting!

[gfunkusarelius]

Just as a notice, National Geographic channel showed an episode of their "Seconds from Disaster" show last night (US, Dish Network) that dealt with Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. Very interesting, as they wen into detail on how the plane impacted (wing parts were found buried in the dirt just outside the building, where the left wing hit the ground almost simultaneously with the plane impact), showed where the right wing impacted the outer wall, described the structural features of the building that kept it standing for the 20 minutes it did and accurately explained the collapse, etc, etc, etc.

I thought it was a very good study of the incident. They usually rerun these shows, so if anyone is interested check your local listings :)

oh crikey, be careful or this will turn into another l00se ch@n8e thread!!! (typed silly so people dont find this link when searching, thus turning my email into a self-fulfilling prophecy)

:D

[pgwenthold]

When you finally get up to the sixth floor, and you see where the motorcade would have been relative to where Oswald was, and you watch the Zapruder Film (including the low speed at which the limousine was travelling), Oswald's marksmanship no longer seems so impossibly difficult - especially when you consider that he had a scope.

Actually, the most important thing to remember about Oswald's markmanship is that what he did was NOT all that successful from a marksmanship standpoint. It took him 3 shots to hit the mark he was aiming for. Why 3? Because he was successful in the third shot. If he had missed, there were probably more bullets in the rifle for him to try again.

It's not like he was trying to hit both JFK and Connally with the second shot. In that shot, he got close to the target, but didn't hit it.

Even if he only had a 20% chance of hitting his target in any shot, that means that he would have a 50% chance of hitting it at least once in three shots. And when you are assassinating the president, it only takes one.

[epepke]

Heard on an episode of Quantum Leap, said by Al: "It's more comforting to believe in plots, because if Kennedy could be killed that easily by one sicko, what hope is there for the rest of us?"

[Orb]

I was actually taught in HIGH SCHOOL that the JFK assassination CT was true. Honest to FSM. I took an elective course on the 60's, and the teacher spent a quarter of the semester discussing it. Like most kids, I just took is as fact. Imagine my disappointment when I found out I was lied to at school by a teacher I really liked. *Sigh*. :(

[Polaris]

I was actually taught in HIGH SCHOOL that the JFK assassination CT was true. Honest to FSM. I took an elective course on the 60's, and the teacher spent a quarter of the semester discussing it. Like most kids, I just took is as fact. Imagine my disappointment when I found out I was lied to at school by a teacher I really liked. *Sigh*. :(

If I believed everything I was taught in high school, I'd believe the following:

1.) German was 1 vote away from being the official American language.

2.) Reagan was actually killed by Hinckley and was replaced by a double to keep up appearances.

3.) Americans used bigger ammo than the Axis did in WW2 so they could load captured ammo into their small arms.

4.) The Civil War was fought to end slavery.

5.) The Lusitania was why America got into WW1.

6.) That the T-34 was the best tank not only of WW2 (actually true) but could still hold its own today (by "today" I mean 1994).

Etc... If any more come to me I'll post them.

[fuelair]

[QUOTE=Polaris;1659988]If I believed everything I was taught in high school, I'd believe the following:

As a teacher who gets mad when he locates minor errors in the textbook (usually science textbooks, I hate to admit) , I apologise for the effects of the teachers like that - to me they are not teachers and need to be eliminated from the field ( I tend to choose my words carefully, if you get what I mean and I think you do). Opinions may well be asked for - and less often given - but they should ALWAYS be identified as opinions - especially if they are counter to currently established fact/theory. :eek: :jaw-dropp

[Orb]

I think I remember my social studies teacher telling the "ring around the rosie" myth too.
But the JFK one really stung hard. I felt totally betrayed because I respected the teacher so much. She was super charismatic and I hung on her every word. 14 years later I still remember her lectures. When I learned it was bunk, I had one of those "I need to sit down" moments and it still pains me to think about it.
I learned a hard lesson, but at least I think I'm a better person for it.
Sorry for the derail.

[Belz...]

***** ! And me that was sure everybody was fooled by my perfect mastery of ze English language ! ;)


(Note for tonight: "conspiracy" to be written down 20 times in the secret notebook ..... )

Personally I've got the inverse problem. My second language, English, is starting to affect my French. Damn them all !!

[blutoski]

As a teacher who gets mad when he locates minor errors in the textbook (usually science textbooks, I hate to admit) , I apologise for the effects of the teachers like that - to me they are not teachers and need to be eliminated from the field ( I tend to choose my words carefully, if you get what I mean and I think you do). Opinions may well be asked for - and less often given - but they should ALWAYS be identified as opinions - especially if they are counter to currently established fact/theory. :eek: :jaw-dropp


Are you aware of the Textbook League? (TTL)

http://www.textbookleague.org

They've been involved in skepticism and education for at least a decade. Based in California, but their target textbooks usually apply inother regions, and their identified errors are frequently found in syllabuses (syllabi?) all over the world.

[Polaris]

I think I remember my social studies teacher telling the "ring around the rosie" myth too.
But the JFK one really stung hard. I felt totally betrayed because I respected the teacher so much. She was super charismatic and I hung on her every word. 14 years later I still remember her lectures. When I learned it was bunk, I had one of those "I need to sit down" moments and it still pains me to think about it.
I learned a hard lesson, but at least I think I'm a better person for it.
Sorry for the derail.

The Ring Around the Rosie myth was stated as fact by none-other than Sam Waterston on none-other than The History Channel between shows for years.

I'm sure if I thought hard enough about it I'd find tons of Civil War (being in the eastern Panhandle of West Virginia, we got the hint that if we didn't love the Civil War we were going to Hell - half the year of every history class was Civil War stuff) and Indian mythology in my high school history classes.

[fuelair]

Are you aware of the Textbook League? (TTL)

http://www.textbookleague.org

They've been involved in skepticism and education for at least a decade. Based in California, but their target textbooks usually apply inother regions, and their identified errors are frequently found in syllabuses (syllabi?) all over the world.
No, Dogpile had not led me their way - buy I have seen several of the stories that showed up when I went to their site. I will add them to favorites!!

Thank you kindly for the information!!

[Soapy Sam]

Another of the same-

Why are some memes so effective at parasitising human minds?

[blutoski]

Another of the same-

Why are some memes so effective at parasitising human minds?

I think conspiracy theories have more going on than just memetics. In a previous thread, other members came up with suggestions for conspiracy theories' resiliancy, and I composed this:

http://www.bcskeptics.info/resources/skeptopaedia/index.cgi?key=conspiracy%20theories.html

[CFLarsen]

If I believed everything I was taught in high school, I'd believe the following:

1.) German was 1 vote away from being the official American language.

I haven't heard that one before, but...

2.) Reagan was actually killed by Hinckley and was replaced by a double to keep up appearances.

3.) Americans used bigger ammo than the Axis did in WW2 so they could load captured ammo into their small arms.

You were taught that in high school? Seriously?

4.) The Civil War was fought to end slavery.

Ehhhh...what's wrong with that? While it wasn't the only reason, slavery was definitely an important one.

5.) The Lusitania was why America got into WW1.

It certainly helped the decision. Kinda like Pearl Harbour.

6.) That the T-34 was the best tank not only of WW2 (actually true) but could still hold its own today (by "today" I mean 1994).

...depends on what it goes up against, I suppose...

[maurysis]

As maurysis, my name is Maury, a new member, first post, and 78 today. Re: CTers and continued credibility with each other, would like to offer a partial possible account for this behavior. One cannot 'prove' a negative (cannot prove the absence of a plot); they seem predisposed to favor pessimism in events and in people; and they are not able to cope with notion that behavior and especially that events can be random. CTer's seem determined that always there must be an explanation or a reason. These three factors seem, to me, to prevail and govern CT behavior.

Anyway, thanks for your ear to a newbie. I've admired James Randi and enjoyed his efforts for many years. I'm enamored by new discoveries and knowlege; very disappointed by misuses of science in making political policies. More another time. Sincerely, Maury&Dog

[CFLarsen]

"Why don't CTers lose credibility?"

A better question may ask why they don't lose their credulity!
...maybe they should start with losing their virginity...

[brodski]

...maybe they should start with losing their virginity...
In which case they're into the wrong kind of woo, they would probably do better getting into horoscopes, tarot and aromatherapy. They're more likely to meet (and possibly impress) women that way.

[Anacoluthon64]

Apart from many of the excellent suggestions regarding the reasons for, and motivations behind, CTists' rabid defence of the untenable, I think that there's also some of the same substance at play that underpins religious beliefs in supernatural entities. Even though it may seem as if we are in control of our lives, there are mysterious and/or incomprehensible forces at work that actually rule us. Many of us seem to require the perverse "comfort" of "knowing" that there are aspects of our lives that we cannot "reasonably" be held accountable for. Children, especially younger ones, often exhibit the same basic behaviour pattern when trying to evade blame for wrongdoings through various means, usually by inventing a perpetrator.

For CTists, it is the (sometimes unnamed, sometimes favourite opponent) "they" who are the point of focus in this regard. "They" are surreptitiously superhuman and exert a great deal of influence over everyone's life, apart from being able to manipulate minds, perceptions and facts clandestinely. It's always a whole lot easier to find a fuzzy and convenient scapegoat outside ourselves than to face up to the fact that we're hardly perfect and that our good intentions on their own are rarely sufficient, and we all need to pass through the filter of our own approval. More than that, it's perhaps a distant outgrowth from the obvious survival advantage of seeing a tiger in the bush who isn't there over not seeing one who is.

'Luthon64

[Mojo]

See! National Geographic is the head of the media conspiracy! This is one of the important points about conpiracy theroies: if people start from the assumption that there is a conspiracy, then however much evidence is presented showing that they are wrong, they can just dismiss it as being part of the conspiracy, or even claim that it is evidence for the conspiracy ("what are the chances that someone would be in precisely the right place to take that piece of film?" - they currently seem to be doing this with the Naudet brothers).

[Anacoluthon64]

In which case they're into the wrong kind of woo,
...snip...
which might be called an "immaculate misconception," perhaps? If so, losing their virginity would then turn it into "tainted twaddle"... :p

'Luthon64

[chipmunk stew]

As maurysis, my name is Maury, a new member, first post, and 78 today. Re: CTers and continued credibility with each other, would like to offer a partial possible account for this behavior. One cannot 'prove' a negative (cannot prove the absence of a plot); they seem predisposed to favor pessimism in events and in people; and they are not able to cope with notion that behavior and especially that events can be random. CTer's seem determined that always there must be an explanation or a reason. These three factors seem, to me, to prevail and govern CT behavior.

Anyway, thanks for your ear to a newbie. I've admired James Randi and enjoyed his efforts for many years. I'm enamored by new discoveries and knowlege; very disappointed by misuses of science in making political policies. More another time. Sincerely, Maury&DogWelcome, Maury (& Dog), and happy birthday. I think you've nailed it.

[CFLarsen]

In which case they're into the wrong kind of woo, they would probably do better getting into horoscopes, tarot and aromatherapy. They're more likely to meet (and possibly impress) women that way.
Perhaps....perhaps...

[Polaris]

I haven't heard that one before, but...
Look it up on snopes.


You were taught that in high school? Seriously?
Yeah. By a history teacher, in the 10th grade.


Ehhhh...what's wrong with that? While it wasn't the only reason, slavery was definitely an important one.
Slavery was central to it all. It wasn't fought to end slavery, but it certainly was fought over slavery.


It certainly helped the decision. Kinda like Pearl Harbour.
Not at all. The ship was sunk in 1915. In 1916 Woodrow Wilson won on the platform, "He Kept Us Out of War". The decision to enter the War came from the Zimmerman Telegram promising Mexico the regain of the territory is lost in war with America, and the unrestricted submarine warfare policy of Hinderburn and Ludendorff - a campaign in which the Lusitania was not sunk.

...depends on what it goes up against, I suppose...
Yeah - against a technical!