It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Stay strong in your beliefs! Don't let the agenda spreaders win!

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in

+7 more 
posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 08:16 AM
(I'm going to try not to quote members directly here for T&C reasons, if a quote looks like it is from you don't take offense but feel free to chip in!)

This thread may seem a bit simple.

But let's not overlook the groundwork.

Never be afraid to question the agenda of the day.

I've seen a few theories shot down recently with some pretty simple debating techniques that are effective. I often keep telling myself/going over the following points in order to keep me confident in my assertions:

"You are relying on Youtube and the internet to do your investigation, therefore your research is rubbish bunk!"

This is a good one, because 99% of information on the internet is bunk! However, not all of it is, look at some of the enlightening TED talks etc. Be strong in your ability to figure out what is bunk and what is hunk, because after all - almost all information is available online now, where else would you go?
It's about the researcher's ability not the sources they trawl through.

Stay strong and carry on using Youtube as ONE of your libraries.

"To believe that you must be uneducated/stupid/naive!"

At best this will make the conspiracy theorist feel a bit small - We can handle that though can't we? However...
Those 'lurkers' who read and do not post (there's millions of them) - they are influenced easily. Especially if the member has high credence, the readers will often believe that one is naive for believing such incredulous tosh!

"Conspiracy theorists are lunatics"

An obvious one this one. A label that has been openly pushed by leaders and authors to make us less confident in the public domain. But we need to ask WHY this label has been emphasised so much.

Let's take a look at where I think this comes from. Liberals in the UK are the ones more likely to believe CT. However there are a few bestsellers about written from a loaded point of view that when read leads the reader to believe they are taking the intellectual high ground above the 'lunatic conspiracy theorists'.

Take Jon Ronson's book about extremists, from the off it's written as a "Can you believe people believe this sh*t?" but presented as an unbiased approach to extremism/conspiracies.

Jon Ronson, Wil Self, Theroux, they all take this position and easily manipulate the less aware into thinking that they are taking the intellectual high ground by poo-pooing conspiracy theories.

That's the problem with liberals, they're too eager to please and therefore too easy to lead.

I'm no expert but here's a great list the tricksters use Fallacies/Arguing tricks

A good read here

posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 08:23 AM
a reply to: and14263

Well written and14263 as usual!

Nothing to add but a S&F but I think you're preaching to the choir with this thread

posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 08:35 AM
a reply to: and14263

Great! Thank you for the post and the document, all knowledge of arguing tricks lead to a better comprehension of the truth.

posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 08:52 AM
It can be an arduous task staying confident in your beliefs when many around you are ridiculing and criticising you for what you believe. It takes courage, resilience and resolve to overcome those who want to silence your message and shut down debate on controversial topics.

posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 08:59 AM
a reply to: Dark Ghost
Three more things I often think about to keep me strong:

1) Most people in authority, who we look up to - once you get into them you realise they are blagging it. Especially those at the top.

2) Remember (I think this is true) most geniuses are seen as outcasts (I'm not saying I'm a genius).

3) Actively disagree with authority in the politest possible way to keep the brain lubricated

posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 09:10 AM
a reply to: and14263

Nicely worded and14263, SnF for you.

One of the most unique things I love about the ATS is such common sense as portrayed in the OP, which needs to be preached over and over again. Another thing I have noticed so far as well, is that the level of responses as of late seem to have gone as low as one liners of absolute certainty, that's quite annoying at times.

There are some others that have a high tendency to attack "the messenger", thus closing off any further investigation into the information presented or simply close their minds of matters that may be of significance to the overall discussions at hand.

Anyway, good OP and it's good to encourage some new Posters on here and be good not appear over-authorative and discourage the truth seekers on here. Let's deny ignorance shall we.

Sorry and14263, hope I didn't go too far off in search of the legendary pterosaur...Sorry meant of topic...LOL


edit on 11-9-2015 by InnerPeace2012 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 09:13 AM
a reply to: InnerPeace2012

Not at all! The links I clicked inspired me but then the Victorian ones reminded me of an old thread on here.

If my reply was short it's because I'm supposed to be doing a responsible job not spilling thoughts on here!

posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 09:34 AM
a reply to: and14263

Understanding logical fallacies is important in any debate. It's good to recognize them in both your argument and opponents. Many times people use them without realizing they do.

This is a kick ass site that outlines some of the common fallacies. They also have a free poster that you can download, or order from them

Thou Shalt Not Commit Logical Fallacies

edit on 11-9-2015 by ghostrager because: Spllng

posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 09:38 AM
a reply to: and14263

I just looked at and read both of your links.

They were helpful in understanding debating techniques, but I have to say that the "good read" was nothing but anti-liberal frothing. Still, in a way, it was like getting a conservative's "class notes" to cheat off of.

That John Reed guy's constant slurs against liberals defeat his entire premise.
Particularly liked the one about "shouting down", where he wrote:

41. Shouting down, jamming, or intimidating the opponent.

This is another left-only dishonest debate tactic. Republican or conservative speakers are routinely shouted down at college campuses and elsewhere, e.g., the Wisconsin statehouse when they made WI a right-to-work state.

"Left-only"? I can't even stand the sight of Bill O'Reilly because that is what he does whenever he is backed into a corner. The author is entitled to his opinion, but that statement is a bald-faced lie.

posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 09:42 AM
a reply to: and14263

It's not really your beliefs you should feel strongly about. It is what you can prove that holds weight. There are lots of beliefs that are way out there. I wouldn't recommend telling someone to hold fast if they are promoting a belief that is unprovable or one that has obviously been proven wrong.

posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 09:47 AM
a reply to: and14263

Love this! Finally, a voice of reason.
I have seen so much of these arguments (in the link provided) employed and it is so frustrating to try to have a logical debate with those that employ these techniques. Thanks!

posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 09:48 AM
a reply to: Woodcarver

Can we, however, really prove our beliefs? How many of your own personal beliefs do you need to verify personally before you accept them as truths?

posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 10:09 AM
Thank s&f. Well thought out OP. Especially apt for the day. I hope it garners more attention.

This info is good for a reference point.

I've seen a few theories shot down recently with some pretty simple debating techniques that are effective. I often keep telling myself/going over the following points in order to keep me confident in my assertions:
-OP quote

Same not going to go into detail, but it's unfortunate how some of that causes a circular argument, going no where, and only bringing more off topic bickering.

posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 10:32 AM
not saying a new member can't have a valid opinion, but the join date, is usually a good indicator for me as to weather the poster might be agenda driven. It's easy to spot.

posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 11:02 AM
a reply to: network dude

Depends on the subject matter I think. Those Putin ones were new members but other topics like 911 etc differ.

Often the agenda is just a member rising to the challenge of debunking a new thread. Which I respect when done right (I'm obviously terrible at doing it right, I lose my head).

posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 12:09 PM
since your theory of inaccurate info on internet are 99% bunk, does this thread fall into that very same category, or is it part of the 1% -_^

posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 12:31 PM
a reply to: odzeandennz

Trust your own judgement on that one.

posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 02:12 PM

Hypothesis Contrary To Fact: arguing from something that might have happened, but didn't.

ALL politics is this.

Never forget it.

Because politics is about PERCEPTION.

posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 02:51 PM
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

That was my take on John Reed too.

His anti-left rants were bothersome and we completely misses the science behind global warming, and instead claims it is about politics and 'left winged' dishonest debate techniques.

I do find the irony of his rants kind of funny.

posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 03:16 PM
I get the intent...
But isn't the purpose of this thread to spread the "agenda" of not letting "agenda spreaders" win?
Isn't that a contradiction?

edit on 11-9-2015 by paradoxious because: Spelling and complete my thought

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in