|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
 Posted - 06/28/2007 : 05:29:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Name some current conspiracies. |
But isn't part of the conspiracy that it's secret? Else, it's not much of a conspiracy, is it? So they only way to name current conspiracies is to a) expose one in which you are currently participating, or b) offer spurious relationships as proof of conspiracies to which you are not actually privy.
|
Open conspiracy? |
But then it's not a conspiracy! Right? I mean, the word connotes secrecy. Do can't tell people that you're conspiring to do X. At that point, it's just hubris. |
 |
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2007 : 09:02:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Name some current conspiracies. |
But isn't part of the conspiracy that it's secret? Else, it's not much of a conspiracy, is it? So they only way to name current conspiracies is to a) expose one in which you are currently participating, or b) offer spurious relationships as proof of conspiracies to which you are not actually privy.
|
Open conspiracy? |
But then it's not a conspiracy! Right? I mean, the word connotes secrecy. Do can't tell people that you're conspiring to do X. At that point, it's just hubris.
|
Websters:
conspiracy: the act of conspiring together
conspire: to act in harmony toward a common end
No, a conspiracy does not have to be secret.
 |
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2007 : 09:28:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Websters:
conspiracy: the act of conspiring together
conspire: to act in harmony toward a common end
No, a conspiracy does not have to be secret. |
Wow. You couldn't be more dishonest, could you? The full entry is:conspire
–verb (used without object)
1. to agree together, esp. secretly, to do something wrong, evil, or illegal: They conspired to kill the king.
2. to act or work together toward the same result or goal.
–verb (used with object)
3. to plot (something wrong, evil, or illegal). |
You opted to cite the second definition, but the primary definition emphasizes secrecy. It doesn't make much sense to publicly conspire to kill the king, because the king-- by definition!-- knows and will have you executed in short order.
Indeed, you yourself suggested that secrecy was important to a conspiracy in this post! But feel free to ignore this and, despite the contrary evidence staring you in the face, claim that the term "conspiracy" is, in general, understood to mean an open and publicly known plot. Because to admit I'm right may suggest that you're giving in to Soviet propaganda. |
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 06/28/2007 10:19:33 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2007 : 11:05:02 [Permalink]
|
Websters:
conspiracy: the act of conspiring together
conspire: to act in harmony toward a common end
No, a conspiracy does not have to be secret. |
So, you say that you're a honest person? Well, when you said that you must have been lying.
So by your working definition a baseball team is a conspiracy or the salvation army or a quilting bee.
You really are a joke, an embarrassing joke.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2007 : 19:06:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Websters:
conspiracy: the act of conspiring together
conspire: to act in harmony toward a common end
No, a conspiracy does not have to be secret. |
Wow. You couldn't be more dishonest, could you? The full entry is:conspire
–verb (used without object)
1. to agree together, esp. secretly, to do something wrong, evil, or illegal: They conspired to kill the king.
2. to act or work together toward the same result or goal.
–verb (used with object)
3. to plot (something wrong, evil, or illegal). |
You opted to cite the second definition, but the primary definition emphasizes secrecy. It doesn't make much sense to publicly conspire to kill the king, because the king-- by definition!-- knows and will have you executed in short order.
Indeed, you yourself suggested that secrecy was important to a conspiracy in this post! But feel free to ignore this and, despite the contrary evidence staring you in the face, claim that the term "conspiracy" is, in general, understood to mean an open and publicly known plot. Because to admit I'm right may suggest that you're giving in to Soviet propaganda.
|
I said it does not have to be secret. I did not say all conspiracies are open. I said a conspiracy could be open. The funny thing is with this type of inability to understand; this is how a an open conspiracy can occur.
If fact you definition says especially secret, not always secret.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2007 : 19:07:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by furshur
Websters:
conspiracy: the act of conspiring together
conspire: to act in harmony toward a common end
No, a conspiracy does not have to be secret. |
So, you say that you're a honest person? Well, when you said that you must have been lying.
So by your working definition a baseball team is a conspiracy or the salvation army or a quilting bee.
You really are a joke, an embarrassing joke.
|
I hope you know that if you do not understand the words in a definition you can also look those up.
 |
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2007 : 21:18:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
I hope you know that if you do not understand the words in a definition you can also look those up. |
Leading you, Jerome, to the bizarre idea you have that the fourth amendment seeks to protect one's "essences" from government seizure. Argumentum ad Websters is a sure sign that you, Jerome, can't put together a winning logical argument on whatever point it is you're discussing. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2007 : 21:28:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
I hope you know that if you do not understand the words in a definition you can also look those up. |
Leading you, Jerome, to the bizarre idea you have that the fourth amendment seeks to protect one's "essences" from government seizure. Argumentum ad Websters is a sure sign that you, Jerome, can't put together a winning logical argument on whatever point it is you're discussing.
|
Can a police officer stop you on the street arbitrarily and require, under penalty of law, that you to present I.D.?
No, of course not.
So, I ask you why not?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2007 : 21:58:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Can a police officer stop you on the street arbitrarily and require, under penalty of law, that you to present I.D.? |
Since when is "I.D." a synonym for "essence," Jerome?
Edited to fix quote |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2007 : 03:08:39 [Permalink]
|
Most of us are using our best knowledge of the legal definition of conspiracy, Jerome, not one of your loose, suspiciously flexible "common knowledge" definitions. In the the holiday song, "Winter Wonderland," the following lyrics use a loose definition. They probably do not indicate two people plotting a criminal act (though this may depend upon the local laws): Later on
we'll conspire
as we dream by the fire
To face unafraid
the plans that we've made
walking in a winter wonderland |
From Wiki:Conspiracy in the United States
Conspiracy has been defined in the US as an agreement of two or more people to commit a crime, or to accomplish a legal end through illegal actions. For example, planning to rob a bank (an illegal act) in order to raise money for charity (a legal end) remains a criminal conspiracy because the parties agreed to use illegal means to accomplish the end goal. A conspiracy does not need to have been planned in secret in order to meet the definition of the crime. |
[My emphasis.]
In essence, conspiracy is two or more people plotting an act that would crimimal if only one person did it. No secrecy is required to meet the legal definition, though secrecy may be logically implied as being likely in most cases since it is a criminal plot.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2007 : 05:09:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
I said it does not have to be secret. I did not say all conspiracies are open. I said a conspiracy could be open. The funny thing is with this type of inability to understand; this is how a an open conspiracy can occur.
If fact you definition says especially secret, not always secret.
|
I agree, Jerome, and note that I didn't say that it always had to be secret. However, in general, conspiracies of the type you're talking-- where powerful individuals work to manipulate things in their favor, usually while breaking the law-- are done in secret and through obfuscation.
You wouldn't argue that the CIA (or whomever it is) openly conspired to kill Kennedy, right? The Soviets didn't openly conspire to brainwash us, right?
Indeed, can you name some current conspiracy of this type (and that's key, Jerome) that is done in the open? What current plots are there by the government to kill the President? Tell me which foreign governments are nefariously but openly introducing communist propaganda into our schools? What government agencies are openly plotting to ram planes into buildings? |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2007 : 07:55:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
I agree, Jerome, and note that I didn't say that it always had to be secret. However, in general, conspiracies of the type you're talking-- where powerful individuals work to manipulate things in their favor, usually while breaking the law-- are done in secret and through obfuscation. |
This all started because Jerome asked Ricky to name a current conspiracy which he believed existed. If we are to take Jerome's further clarifications at face value, then apparently Jerome would have been perfectly satisfied if Ricky had answered "my college's softball team" to the original challenge.
Does anyone here really believe that would have been the case? Or do you think Jerome might have been the one bitching that Ricky wasn't answering his question in context?
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 06/29/2007 13:44:31 |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2007 : 13:12:35 [Permalink]
|
Thinking about this subject after my last post, I almost came to the conclusion that all conspiracies, despite it not being a legal requirement, must be plotted in secret.
Then a simple exception came to mind: Civil disobedience. If a law is thought to be unjust, plans are sometimes openly made to violate that law. That's an "open conspiracy." (Those committing civil disobedience generally accept -- or should accept -- that they will be punished.)
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 06/29/2007 13:13:03 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2007 : 13:50:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Thinking about this subject after my last post, I almost came to the conclusion that all conspiracies, despite it not being a legal requirement, must be plotted in secret.
Then a simple exception came to mind: Civil disobedience. If a law is thought to be unjust, plans are sometimes openly made to violate that law. That's an "open conspiracy." (Those committing civil disobedience generally accept -- or should accept -- that they will be punished.)
|
Actually, I think the second definition was made broad enough to encompass any informal use of the word "conspire" to mean "plan." Like "my mom and I conspired to help my dad lose weight by throwing away all the sweets in the house," even if dad is a willing participant in his weight loss and agreed to the action.
It is definitely not the sort of conspiracy implied when talking about "conspiracy theories."
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 06/29/2007 13:51:33 |
|
|
|
marty
BANNED
63 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2007 : 18:34:25 [Permalink]
|
Here's my concern...This is completely off topic. First, a conspiracy can be open (known) or closed (secret), but they must include a few people getting together to accomplish a goal. That goal usually, but doesn't have to be sinister.
Next, I believe the conspiracy that was originally discussed was that of the Vice-Presidency and whether Cheney's declaration of being separate from the Executive is in fact a power-grab that will set a precedent for future administrations. It could, in effect, if unchallenged or endorsed by the Supreme Court, become a position more powerful than the President solely due to it's lack of checks or balances.
...and now for my opinion...
...Yes, I do believe that it was an intentional power grab that can very easily lead to a undermining of the limits set forth in the Constitution. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
US Consitution is Defunct
