|
Could the goverment have people on their payroll to post in forums like these? (pg. 15)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
I'm just curious if the intellectually honest proponents of the pancake theory and Al-Qaeda conspiracy theory have any arguments other than the appeal to authority logical fallacy and juvenile ad hominen trolling tactics :). You guys seem to get all bent out of shape when people don't buy your fallacy laden arguments:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority |
Present something more plausible and I'll listen. Simple as that really. |
|
|
| {b.s.e.} |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
Present something more plausible and I'll listen. Simple as that really. |
Shouldn't you be interested in a more plausible explanation? I've already let you know today that Al Qaeda does not exist. Didn't that register? |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by {b.s.e.}
Shouldn't you be interested in a more plausible explanation? I've already let you know today that Al Qaeda does not exist. Didn't that register? |
I think people should be interested in an explanation that is at least plausible :D. For me, that generally requires logical consistency and soundness, but apparently that makes one a 'conspiracy theorist' around here. If an appeal to authority is accepted, it makes you 'intellectually honest' lol. |
|
|
| {b.s.e.} |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
I think people should be interested in an explanation that is at least plausible :D. For me, that generally requires logical consistency and soundness, but apparently that makes one a 'conspiracy theorist' around here. If an appeal to authority is accepted, it makes you 'intellectually honest' lol. |
Theorising involves logic, fairy tales involve trolls. :wtf: |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
Just for kicks, and something for you guys to plagiarize anytime that other list is posted :p.
10 characteristics of self proclaimed skeptics
A useful guide by shaolin_Z
- Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are intellectually honest: independent thinkers are always "conspiracy theorists", dupes for shoddy research, Alex Jones and the 'Truth Movement' etc. They rarely acknowledge logical fallacies in their arguments.
- Relentlessness. They will always go on and on in denial no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "conspiracy nut" or "liar" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for independent thought whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length, copy pasting material they do not even understand themselves. Some of them even troll "conspiracy threads" to no end.
- Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from genuine skeptics about the claims that they make.
- Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include "conspiracy theorist," "tin foil hat," "lying ****," "truther," "paranoid," "uneducated " and "intellectual dishonesty." What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to think critically themselves.
- Inability to employ or understand logic. Aided by the principle in above, self proclaimed skeptics never notice that the small ambiguities [or unknown variables] in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any "official" accounts; a very common example would be the appeal to authority fallacy with respect to arguments regarding the cause of the WTC collapse.
- Inability to tell good theories from bad. Self proclaimed skeptics have no place for questioning the integrity of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by authority, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it supposedly answers be accepted, as if intellectual inquiry were a matter of submitting to logical fallacies. While they do this, of course, they will claim to be "educated" and abuse the skeptics of conventional (or "official") accounts for apparently lacking same.
- Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a self proclaimed skeptics admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be state propaganda, disinformation or without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections to the previous lot.
- Leaping to conclusions. Self proclaimed skeptics are very keen indeed to declare the "alternative" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the stock phrases as in 4. above. Small ambiguities [or unknown variables] in the narration of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "alternative" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these ambiguities are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist. A good example of this would be automatically assuming a non-existent terrorist network, Al-Qaeda, managed to pull of the largest terrorist attack on American soil, with out any non-controversial evidence and absence of transparency.
- Ignoring previous conspiracies and atrocities, perpetuating their pathological denial and cognitive dissonance. This dismissal makes critical thought unlikely, in order to try and demonstrate that their coincidence [or conspiracy] theory should be accorded some weight. They do not pause to reflect that the nonsense they are touting is almost always far more unlikely and complicated than observable patterns in human history and real-life.
- It's always a coincidence. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.
|
|
|
| {b.s.e.} |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
:haha:
|
Your hard work and insight is appreciated. :wtf: |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by {b.s.e.}
Theorising involves logic, fairy tales involve trolls. :wtf: |
You know what this thread has taught me? That you don't want a debate about issues. I came into this thread asking legitimate questions and asking you to back up assertions with proof. You responded by avoiding all of those questions and raising all sorts of red herrings (yes, a fallacy) - you jump from loosely-formed theory to theory without ever staking yourself to anything factual. It's all insinuation and supposition. Can you call into question the details of a popularly-accepted theory? Maybe - but how are you advancing the debate? Have you proposed a plausible theory of your own?
The shameful thing here is that there ARE real questions to be answered about many of the issues you're interested in, and you do your cause a great disservice by behaving the way you do.
You'd rather parade yourself around acting superior to all other lines of thought than offer a tangible line of thought of your own. Because you've come to your own "independent" conclusions handed to you by various youtube videos, you have the almighty authority to declare who is intelligent and who is not. You've raised interesting questions, but do so in a brazenly arrogant way and never even make an attempt at discovering answers. For you the question is the end result - if you can discredit some detail, the whole world system is to be doubted by extension.
The Council of Foreign Relations is an extreme example of this. Your visceral hatred of this group is based on one thing (I gather from what you've posted thusfar): the prominent role David Rockefeller played in its incorporation. Yet you've backtracked from your initial vehement assertion that Rockefeller was a Nazi. And you've yet to point to any actual activity that CFR undertakes to support your claims. It's mainly a supposition based on the fact that influential people are members and some of those influential people have other associations you don't like.
The world is too complex to be orchestrated. Anyone who has studied the myriad of complexities in the world knows that no group of fifteen people, no matter how rich or influential, could in any way control the world. My area of expertise is Africa. You know what that's taught me? Expect the unexpected and you'll still be wrong.
I'm not a physicist. I'm not an engineer. I don't know the mathematics behind the structural failings of the World Trade Center.
I do know a thing or two about United States foreign policy formulation. I know a bit about the Council on Foreign Relations through both research and practical experience. I know that there's scarcely an iota of truth to your fears about their power or aims.
I also know a thing or two about electoral politics. I certainly know enough to realize that despite their membership in the same fraternal organization, there were extraordinarily significant differences between John Kerry and George W. Bush. And between Barack Obama and John McCain. Maybe what to me is a clear division appears as nuance to others. But to cast them both as "the same" simply because neither one is agreeable to you just makes you look uneducated.
I also know a thing or two about civil conflict and development efforts in the global south. In fact, these are probably the issues I know most about, but nobody seems interested in discussing them. Should I parade around as the font of knowledge and wisdom in all things related to foreign policy and the third world? Should I call all people who dare ask questions of me or expect me to support my assertions stupid?
I digress.
The idea that your thoughts and opinions are "independently formed" is farcical at best, but the notion that by extension everyone else's opinions must be implanted by some mythical alliance of authoritarian shadow figures is absurd. Have you ever observed our government firsthand? They can't get even basic things right, and yet you seem to think that in a slow-moving bureaucracy with no secrets there exists any number of nefarious plots to control the world. We're talking about a society in which not even Sarah Palin's shopping habits can be kept secret.
Yet you don't stop there - you think there's a shadow government of neo-Nazi communists running the world. Mind you, there's no evidence you've brought to bear to support this, but doggone it you think David Rockefeller is a shady individual so it must be true.
No, you're not interested in a debate. You'd rather sit at home and pretend to know the world's secrets. You can't provide proof of anything, but surely anyone who doesn't believe you on faith must be somehow less intelligent. Grow up and maybe people will start giving credence to the things you say. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| Umm, that list was all in good fun as we've seen the other one countless times. :wtf: |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Umm, that list was all in good fun as we've seen the other one countless times. :wtf: |
My comments were directed entirely at b.s.e. - I've tried for a while now to have a civil discussion with him on his own terms to no avail. There are, however, other posters on this sub-forum who behave similarly, and in some cases much worse. |
|
|
| {b.s.e.} |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
You know what this thread has taught me? That you don't want a debate about issues. I came into this thread asking legitimate questions and asking you to back up assertions with proof. You responded by avoiding all of those questions and raising all sorts of red herrings (yes, a fallacy) - you jump from loosely-formed theory to theory without ever staking yourself to anything factual. It's all insinuation and supposition. Can you call into question the details of a popularly-accepted theory? Maybe - but how are you advancing the debate? Have you proposed a plausible theory of your own?
The shameful thing here is that there ARE real questions to be answered about many of the issues you're interested in, and you do your cause a great disservice by behaving the way you do.
You'd rather parade yourself around acting superior to all other lines of thought than offer a tangible line of thought of your own. Because you've come to your own "independent" conclusions handed to you by various youtube videos, you have the almighty authority to declare who is intelligent and who is not. You've raised interesting questions, but do so in a brazenly arrogant way and never even make an attempt at discovering answers. For you the question is the end result - if you can discredit some detail, the whole world system is to be doubted by extension.
The Council of Foreign Relations is an extreme example of this. Your visceral hatred of this group is based on one thing (I gather from what you've posted thusfar): the prominent role David Rockefeller played in its incorporation. Yet you've backtracked from your initial vehement assertion that Rockefeller was a Nazi. And you've yet to point to any actual activity that CFR undertakes to support your claims. It's mainly a supposition based on the fact that influential people are members and some of those influential people have other associations you don't like.
The world is too complex to be orchestrated. Anyone who has studied the myriad of complexities in the world knows that no group of fifteen people, no matter how rich or influential, could in any way control the world. My area of expertise is Africa. You know what that's taught me? Expect the unexpected and you'll still be wrong.
I'm not a physicist. I'm not an engineer. I don't know the mathematics behind the structural failings of the World Trade Center.
I do know a thing or two about United States foreign policy formulation. I know a bit about the Council on Foreign Relations through both research and practical experience. I know that there's scarcely an iota of truth to your fears about their power or aims.
I also know a thing or two about electoral politics. I certainly know enough to realize that despite their membership in the same fraternal organization, there were extraordinarily significant differences between John Kerry and George W. Bush. And between Barack Obama and John McCain. Maybe what to me is a clear division appears as nuance to others. But to cast them both as "the same" simply because neither one is agreeable to you just makes you look uneducated.
I also know a thing or two about civil conflict and development efforts in the global south. In fact, these are probably the issues I know most about, but nobody seems interested in discussing them. Should I parade around as the font of knowledge and wisdom in all things related to foreign policy and the third world? Should I call all people who dare ask questions of me or expect me to support my assertions stupid?
I digress.
The idea that your thoughts and opinions are "independently formed" is farcical at best, but the notion that by extension everyone else's opinions must be implanted by some mythical alliance of authoritarian shadow figures is absurd. Have you ever observed our government firsthand? They can't get even basic things right, and yet you seem to think that in a slow-moving bureaucracy with no secrets there exists any number of nefarious plots to control the world. We're talking about a society in which not even Sarah Palin's shopping habits can be kept secret.
Yet you don't stop there - you think there's a shadow government of neo-Nazi communists running the world. Mind you, there's no evidence you've brought to bear to support this, but doggone it you think David Rockefeller is a shady individual so it must be true.
No, you're not interested in a debate. You'd rather sit at home and pretend to know the world's secrets. You can't provide proof of anything, but surely anyone who doesn't believe you on faith must be somehow less intelligent. Grow up and maybe people will start giving credence to the things you say. |
First of all, this isn't even in context to the thread. We were speaking about gravity and physics. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by {b.s.e.}
First of all, this isn't even in context to the thread. We were speaking about gravity and physics. |
Whoa, sorry to write a post directed to your behavior in more than one thread at a time. |
|
|
| {b.s.e.} |
I don't understand where I am coming across as vehement or condescending.
I provided links to support my claims, now you attack me saying that I have no interest in debate? |
|
|
|
|
