Conspiracy theories were always irrational ideas without evidence that’s what a “theory” is so if you have proof you have to have the dates, witnesses, because anyone can fake a video or picture with the help of video editing. Though many people use the term debunk to infer that they have falsified an idea, over the years, it has become less rational an endeavor. Today many debunkers are actually pseudo-skeptics. Instead of considering an idea and trying to falsify it, many debunkers just assume science is on their side and instead try to a priori dismiss the idea, and worse to discredit the person who proposes the idea. That is not rational skepticism or critical thinking. Debunking isn’t always falsification or refutation but as often as not just name-calling and denial.
Answer
Since anything can be called a conspiracy theory, and since debunking can be achieved by put-downs and shaming; any idea you don’t like, you call a conspiracy theory and its proponent a conspiracist, and then contemptuously mock the idea and the person who advocates it. Easy-peezy-debunky-sleazy.
88 views
2
Related Questions (More Answers Below)
Answer:
Explanation:
Hamilton, although he had expressed substantially the same view in The Federalist regarding the power of reception, adopted a very different conception of it in defense of Washington’s proclamation. Writing under the pseudonym, “Pacificus,” he said: “The right of the executive to receive ambassadors and other public ministers, may serve to illustrate the relative duties of the executive and legislative departments. This right includes that of judging, in the case of a revolution of government in a foreign country, whether the new rulers are competent organs of the national will, and ought to be recognized, or not; which, where a treaty antecedently exists between the United States and such nation, involves the power of continuing or suspending its operation. For until the new government is acknowledged, the treaties between the nations, so far at least as regards public rights, are of course suspended. This power of determining virtually upon the operation of national treaties, as a consequence of the power to receive public ministers, is an important instance of the right of the executive, to decide upon the obligations of the country with regard to foreign nations. To apply it to the case of France, if there had been a treaty of alliance, offensive and defensive, between the United States and that country, the unqualified acknowledgment of the new government would have put the United States in a condition to become as an associate in the war with France, and would have laid the legislature under an obligation, if required, and there was otherwise no valid excuse, of exercising its power of declaring war. This serves as an example of the right of the executive, in certain cases, to determine the condition of the nation, though it may, in its consequences, affect the exercise of the power of the legislature to declare war. Nevertheless, the executive cannot thereby control the exercise of that power. The legislature is still free to perform its duties, according to its own sense of them; though the executive, in the exercise of its constitutional powers, may establish an antecedent state of things, which ought to weigh in the legislative decision. The division of the executive power in the Constitution, creates a concurrent authority in the cases to which it relates.
I would say that the answer is:
<span>c. tolerance and consideration.
Hope this answer helps!</span>
Answer:
any nation so convieved and so dedicated
we cannot dedicate... we cannot consercrate... we cannot hallow this ground
of the people... by the people... for the people
Explanation:
