[Hasbinbad]

I don't really want to start defending this conspiracy theory or that, that was never my cause and I will not champion it. However:

Originally Posted by Ikeren [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Consistent lack of credible evidence with conspiracy theories I've been presented with thus far is good reason to be moderately sceptical of new ones

Moderately skeptical =/= throwing out all such theories out of hand without examining them.

Originally Posted by Ikeren [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

especially new ones which are presented with not much evidence and lots of language like; "government wins, hello communism," and, "Fight the ocean, you will drown," oh, and here's a real gem; "...the rotting pig stew we're in..."

I have nfi what those are, and none of them are what I was referring to, and I am not going to bring any to your attention. They are out there, they are widely available, put your skeptic cap on and do some research with an open yet cautious mind.

Originally Posted by Ikeren [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Ockham's Razor is also a decent starting point.

The exact same principle is used as a major defense of many conspiracy theories. In neither case is it valid to use as evidence of anything.

Originally Posted by Ikeren [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I think examining conspiracy theories makes sense

You start out O.K., let's see where you go with it:

Originally Posted by Ikeren [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

but many theories and proponents of theories do an exceptionally poor job of providing engaging arguments or evidence to people prior to the "buying the book" stage (which, because of the failure to provide engaging arguments or evidence, fewer people get to). Instead, vague generalizations and mockery of anyone who doesn't immediately say "Oh, look at your vague generalizations, this book seems great, I should go buy it" is generally met with mockery; which again, isn't conducive to getting people to engage with the theory.

For someone speaking out negatively about "vague generalizations," "lack of evidence," "lack of an engaging argument," and "meeting with mockery those who don't agree with you," you sure do have a knack for disengaging generilzed arguments that show an abundant lack of evidence to back up the vaguely mocking things you're saying about people who don't agree with you.

Honestly..
Some of the people you're talking about have very engaging arguments that engage people like me in very specific ways because they take into consideration the opposing views without mockery and summarily defeat them with facts and logic as evidence.

That YOU can't see it shows a lack of trying, because as I mentioned before, this information is superfluously available on the internet.