Fatal Exception wrote:Cal wrote:Rhubarb wrote:Why is an article about the BBC in a "Conspiracy Theories" thread?
Because I believe that the BBC is a biased, left-wing job creation scheme. Because I have no evidence for this it is a conspiracy theory. Clear?
That's not how theories work cal. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Most conspiracy nuts would back up their claim with at least some circumstantial evidence or pseudo-science.
Is this a conspiracy theory thread or not, FE? Or did someone just try and enforce a standard of proof on what is supposed to be a free arena in which to exercise...well, conspiracies? If you want to redefine what we all mean by a conspiracy to mean something with evidential support then by all means, let's have that out in the open. It was my understanding that this thread exists to discuss conspiracies - however loony tunes and unfounded they may/may not be.
I'll state my cases:
1. I believe so-called 'climate change' is a left wing conspiracy driving a political agenda.
2. I believe the BBC is a brazenly left wing, heavily biased and thoroughly impartial broadcaster with a political agenda.
These are my two top conspiracy theories. I can't prove either of them. If I could, they wouldn't be conspiracy theories.