Feldon said:
[SIZE=medium]I’m not changing the definition of the words at all – but you are. You are the sophist here, not me.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]My definition of ‘conspiracy’ and ‘propaganda’ are entirely orthodox. Look up any dictionary.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Your meaning is the sophism dating from the 1960s used to put down any viewpoint you don’t agree with,while avoiding rational argument. It’s a cheap hit-and-run approach. [/SIZE]
No, what you're doing is the very definition of sophistry. Your definitions are literally accurate but not orthodox. "Conspiracy theory" and "propaganda" are universally understood to refer to things much grander and more sinister than minor schemes or polemics by one or a few random morons.
And it's you who avoids rational argument -- I responded to your absurd claim with an argument based on reason, namely that reason says simpler solutions are more likely, and that reason rejects arbitary, untestable assumptions, and you responded with bait-and-switch sophistry by pretending the loaded term you used (conspiracy theory) wasn't really loaded when you used it.
The whole allure of conspiracy theories (in the sense of the term understood by the rest of us) is that, like religions, they're inherently impossible to disprove. They define themselves out of testability, because they can draw on a bottomless well of nameless, as-yet-unidentified conspirators:
"What's that? The records contradict my theory? Well, somebody must have changed them."
"What's that? They found the rocket launcher in a rebel's ute, and it was Russian-made? Well, the CIA must have paid off the rebel and given him a US-made replica of a Russian launcher."
"What's that? A fossil's been dated to 10,000 years ago? Well, the devil must have put it there to tempt me out of my belief in Genesis."
The world consists of two kinds of people: those who take comfort in beliefs not grounded in evidence, and those who find such beliefs comical.