no planned obsolescence took place for a number of consumer products.
multiple and costly military invasions were to offer democracy as goodwill and for world safety.
a certain vaccine I can't dare to name is a vaccine as it does provide immunity.
the institutions of most democracies surely can't be so corrupted.
worldwide cocoa isn't mostly harvested by enslaved workers.
HIV is so far more prevalent in Africa because they can't afford treatment and understand prevention measures there.
JFK.
I could go on and on but not sure how many examples you would need to accept that the chances for enormous secrets known by even a significantly large group to not take a freaking long time before blowing up is rather close to zero. thus reconsidering your opinion on the existence of conspiracies.
and, about shortcuts to making a lot of money being kept rather well secrets: dark budgets, secret and hidden inflation, supply fudging
A critique of conspiracy theories is not a denial that conspiracies exist. It just means that the concept of a "conspiracy theory" as basis of trying to understand reality is flawed, because it relies on no or bad evidence, and very often seeks to simplify a very complex reality in a way that doesn't do that reality justice.
But I am not sure if we both mean the same things when we use the word "conspiracy". It's not a secret, for example. that cocolate has a slave labor problem. Planned obsolescence is not a secret (but it's more complex than just someone trying to screw you over). I don't think I understand the conspiracy aspect of the rest of your examples, save for the obvious JFK conspiracy theories.
> about shortcuts to making a lot of money being kept rather well secrets: dark budgets, secret and hidden inflation, supply fudging
I would put to you: If the chances of this blowing up is rather close to zero, how do you know about it ?
definist fallacy or persuasive definition, not sure which argumentative trickery you are using right there with your selected definition of conspiracy theory critique.
what is more straight to see is that you've just made a false attribution by distorting what I wrote about close to zero chances of a blow up. I don't question your intention and honesty, but read my comment more carefully, or quote verbatim without distortion, and resist the use of fallacies in general if you would like to engage in honest and fair argumentative discution.
planned obsolescence was a well kept from public industrial scheme, decided by a small group, screwing billions of consumers. it isn't a secret anymore, it blew up, it took several decades to blow up, kept being refuted by some who haven't caught up with the evidences.
and if you accept the JFK case then I suppose you are admitting to beleive in some conspiracies, while at the same time refuting the concept while it's enduring its long process of battle against deniers, during the inevitable period of evidences remaining arguably to few or too weak, simplifications of reality.
consider at least accepting there is some contradiction this logic.
edit: had pressed send before finishing the comment.
multiple and costly military invasions were to offer democracy as goodwill and for world safety.
a certain vaccine I can't dare to name is a vaccine as it does provide immunity.
the institutions of most democracies surely can't be so corrupted.
worldwide cocoa isn't mostly harvested by enslaved workers.
HIV is so far more prevalent in Africa because they can't afford treatment and understand prevention measures there.
JFK.
I could go on and on but not sure how many examples you would need to accept that the chances for enormous secrets known by even a significantly large group to not take a freaking long time before blowing up is rather close to zero. thus reconsidering your opinion on the existence of conspiracies.
and, about shortcuts to making a lot of money being kept rather well secrets: dark budgets, secret and hidden inflation, supply fudging