Investing in Precious Metals 101 ad

Re: Your input requested – How should “Controversial …

Home Forums DISCUSS General Discussion and Questions Your input requested – How should “Controversial Topics” be handled? Re: Your input requested – How should “Controversial …

  • Mon, Jun 29, 2009 - 10:15am

    #60
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1612

    count placeholder

    Re: Your input requested – How should “Controversial …

The Crash Course is full of controversial topics, some of which undoubtedly have conspiracies behind them (after all, it only takes 2 people working together breaking the law to have a conspiracy).  I think it is clear that the FED–Treasury is one locus of conspiracies that are pretty obvious (obvious because of the facts, opinions, and carefully worked arguments that CM and others have presented on this site).  They are not obvious to everyone, and hence still controversial; they are also still theories (just like evolution is a theory) but they are well argued theories and they help explain what is going on based on the facts.  As with all theories they cannot be proven, only disproven.  When the full information about the FED comes to light then what were previously theories will stop being theories and either become part of the history of conspiracy if they were true, or clearly wrong if they were false.  Until then we are left to use facts, opinions, and well crafted arguments to help us determine the state of things and how best to act/respond to the questions at hand.

The question seems to me to be not about whether controversial topics or conspiracy theories should be allowed, as they are actually the founding ground of the Crash Course.  The question perhaps is what the level of evidence and argument should be and how closely the topic relates to the themes the Crash Course and CM bring up.  I think it was Aaron who made the excellent point that personal knowledge was a great standpoint from which to contribute to the discussions.  Agitprop ask me "What is the difference between Chris’s take on the fed, and  partially substantiated speculation?  It’s partly a matter of belief, because, it’s partly factual but largely opinions based.  That being said, I do agree with Chris, I’m just trying to get a fix on believable conspiracy as opposed to unbelievable conspiracy, in the minds of posters."  This question also points to the issue of what level of facts marshaled in support of a logic argument is required to make a helpful contribution to the discussion, or what degree of partially substantiated speculation is useful or valid?  It seems like that level is something the monitors or CM would set.

Aside from the argument about the substance of the comment there might also need to be an argument about how tied to the Crash Course the topic is.  Well crafted and supported arguments about what might be going on at the FED might require less convincing about their relevance than arguments showing the conspiracies regarding world domination by the global elite, as that topic on its face is further from the Crash Course, then a topic about what the FED is doing.  And it might be helpful to make a case for how awareness of that topic might be useful in preparing or planning for the next 20 years.  Anyway, I like a lively exchange of views, but unless there are facts and logical arguments that support each position I find I don’t learn much.