It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Dealing with 9/11 Madness (argumentum ad hominem veritas)

page: 3
100
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 05:22 PM
link   




posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
So is your point that I am only allowed to bring up these types of connections if I launch into a dissertation about the dubious or questionable history of these organizations.

If you're going to attempt to show the background or relationships of a person discredits their position on something within your 9/11-related post, you're going to have to explain why, and make the connection.

Blanket guilt-by-association styled attacks will not be tolerated in any form within the context of 9/11 discussion without backup.

Sorry. That's the way it is.



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord


Blanket guilt-by-association styled attacks will not be tolerated in any form within the context of 9/11 discussion without backup.



But in none of the examples did I express guilt by association or attack anyone.

I merely expressed their association.

Association was sourced in all of them.

I just posted the factual information that they are associated with these groups.

How is that an attack?

High profile official story supporting witnesses are actually suspects in an investigation into a 9/11 conspiracy which is what this forum is supposed to be about.

Don't you agree?



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Maladroit
 


Rather interesting, up until the part where you started turning BLUE in the face. Red, Blue, whatever... need not come into play here.


$.02



[edit on 12-12-2007 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
it should be clear that we can not assume the innocence of high profile witnesses who have been heavily cited by the suspect in support of the official story so to specifically have these individuals "protected" against scrutiny of this type built into the rules of this forum seems like a direct contradiction to the entire point of having a "9/11 conspiracy" forum to begin with.



nothing personal craig but this one paragraph (which i did cut down for space reasons) is an example of why i myself am ok with the new stricter rules.

regardless of anyones opinions about what they may or may not have been involved with, the concept of "innocent until PROVEN guilty" is one we as a society should never set aside. no matter how right we may think we are.

this isnt salem...



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
High profile official story supporting witnesses are actually suspects in an investigation into a 9/11 conspiracy which is what this forum is supposed to be about.

Don't you agree?

It doesn't matter if I, or any other staff members agrees or not. What matters is how we on ATS present ourselves. It's not proper to attack someone who, on the surface, is merely relating what they experienced. If you cannot refute their account with appropriate evidence, don't assail their character.

Why is this very simple concept of civilized behavior so difficult to understand?



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 07:50 PM
link   
Well I was going to skip this thread as I figured it was just another "bait thread". Glad I came in after checking my U2U. I believe SO asked the question of why the 9/11 topic above others that brings out the worst.

I feel it is because the reality of the event can not be denied the way UFO's, ghosts and Svengali's leading the gullible. As a side note--those three examples are very real to me. For many 9/11 caused a suspension of acceptability that forever impacted them. No longer was the US an impregnatable fortress. After the initial shock wore off the five W's came to mind. Some answered on their own, some waited for the gov't. In the end we all said okay or no way.

For some, 9/11 was their indoctrination into Conspiracy Theory. It is easy to see the emotion and passion of youth (not always meaning age in this context) brings out such ferver and sometimes venomous defence of what the individual guards and reguards as "THE truth".

I respect and support the staff, admin and memebers of ATS to "clean up their act" in discussing 9/11. But I caution that "ye old ban stick" not be swung in anger as the person removed may have eventually been rehabillitated to make their presentations (perhaps holding the holy grail of evidence) in an appropriate and intelligible way.

And I admit that I find some of John Leer's presentations to be rather out there in scope, but I also would love to sit in a coffeeshop for an afternoon with him and swap stories. I somehow feel that we would end the afternoon arguing over who was picking up the tab. And that I feel is the difference between civility and stupidity when making your points. Despite being opposite ends of the spectrum, in the end you should be able to call each other an aquaintence or even perhaps, a friend.



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Ahabstar
 


I would give you the old "above..Award" if I could. The difference between a civil thread and a hand grenade, is how long they last in the minds of those seeking to learn the truth.

It may not be as sensational, but I'll stick with the more low key approach. It is easier to learn in an air of civility than a war zone.

Glad to see the new stance.



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 08:07 PM
link   
The greatest terror attack in history has caused the greatest madness on ATS. You gotta love it
.





posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 08:11 PM
link   
Two words:

"Thank You".

Say no to trolls.

It's amazing how discussion can improve when ridiculous and outrageous insults aren't thrown in your face.

The third level of disinformation occurs by abusing the man (AD HOMINEM) in attacking the author or the editor of a work on irrelevant or misleading grounds that have little or nothing to do with the position the author or editor represents.

9/11 Disinformation and Misinformation: Definitions and Examples


Why is this very simple concept of civilized behavior so difficult to understand?


It is easy to understand, but not in the interests of some to follow. For example, those who promote deliberate hoaxes. Personal attacks are used as an evasion; to evade discussing the issue. When false information is promoted deliberately, this becomes an effective tactic to AVOID discussing the issues at hand. This is an intentional strategy of DISINFORMATION.

9/11 Truth and Division: Disinformation, Agent Provocateurs, and False Adversaries



Jim Hoffman suggests that we need to establish basic guidelines of behavior within the 9/11 community to help create an environment that is sympathetic to our goal of justice:

“If people are going to inject racism or ad hominem attacks and disruption—why do we waste our time opening our forums to people who do that? There should be these basic guidelines, norms that we follow, and I’ve seen so much resistance to establishing that kind of environment from some of the leaders of the movement. [It’s essential to have a] civil environment in which we can [critique each other] and show that 9/11 was an inside job… the nature of this 9/11 cover-up is—to inject nonsense into the investigation, surround our valid analysis of the attack that can be used in straw-man attacks in the Media, and to create this culture within the movement that is hostile to critique. Our challenge is to create a culture that has these guidelines that doesn’t accept this over-the-line, outrageous [behavior]. What people are making excuses for it, and what people are pointing it out? Maybe that’s a better indicator of who should be recognized as who is really contributing to this movement.”

Understanding the Psychology of Disruption

While it is human to be upset or angry, those who disrupt intentionally are on a mission. They hope that moderators, those in control of forums, and everyone else will ignore their destructive behavior so that they can keep doing it. They want to fight—they do not want to have dialog. Their only purpose is to disrupt. Their chief weapons are divisive labels, accusations, straw-man arguments, controversial issues, and ad hominem.


[edit on 12-12-2007 by Arabesque]



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles

this isnt salem...


And discussing evidence on an internet forum isn't a trial.

Investigators don't assume suspects are innocent.

If they did crimes would never be solved.



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord


Why is this very simple concept of civilized behavior so difficult to understand?


I don't believe it is.

I personally feel that the posts you are referring to are nothing more than "nitpicking of the highest order".

While I have certainly been accused of "testing the limits" or some other nonsense around here, a few of these guys are exemplifying the testing of limits and patience.


That's just my 2 pennies, of course.

It is not often that I will say this, but you may well be wasting the energy of your fingers by replying to these "questions".

Jasn



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
High profile official story supporting witnesses are actually suspects in an investigation into a 9/11 conspiracy which is what this forum is supposed to be about.

Don't you agree?

It doesn't matter if I, or any other staff members agrees or not. What matters is how we on ATS present ourselves. It's not proper to attack someone who, on the surface, is merely relating what they experienced. If you cannot refute their account with appropriate evidence, don't assail their character.


Mentioning factual information is not a character assault. Clearly these people are not ashamed of being apart of these groups since they joined them willingly. Plus I most certainly do provide evidence that refutes their accounts.

In none of my examples did I attack the witness or assault their character.

I merely mentioned personal information that IS in fact relevant to conspiracy.

No doubt there have been entire threads in this forum dedicated to all of these groups (PNAC, Opus Dei, CFR, and FBI) because they are so heavily associated conspiracy or government corruption.

The notion that we have to be silent about the involvement of a 9/11 witnesses in these groups in a 9/11 conspiracy forum makes little sense to me.



Why is this very simple concept of civilized behavior so difficult to understand?


Wait a minute.......I am not disagreeing with being civilized or any part of your new rule other than the specific part I quoted and am discussing about 9/11 evidence.

I exhibited no uncivilized behavior in my examples.



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 09:03 PM
link   



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimiusDei


It is not often that I will say this, but you may well be wasting the energy of your fingers by replying to these "questions".

Jasn


Why would you say that?

I am trying to clarify these strict rules that even limit discussion of 9/11 evidence.

A big focus of Pentagon attack research involves analyzing eyewitnesses.

A post that I made yesterday referencing McGraw's involvement with Opus Dei was perfectly acceptable but today it would be removed and I would be warned.

There are many dubious witnesses involved with the Pentagon attack and if 9/11 was a conspiracy as the forum name considers openly then it would stand to reason that operatives would be used as planted witnesses.

The notion that suspect witnesses are protected from close scrutiny in a 9/11 conspiracy forum doesn't seem right.

Don't you think it's relevant and important if a previously published witness actually signed the PNAC document?



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


I say that because Bill has answered your (and other's) questions here SEVERAL times, yet you guys keep posing them.

One is NEVER to launch personal attacks against someone else.

However, one CAN relate personal events/statements/etc to the topic in question SO LONG AS that person can FACTUALLY provide evidence for the usage of the personal "event" (whatever that event may be).

As a TOTALLY hypothetical example:

"So and So is a disinfo agent and a complete horse's ass" -- Unacceptable

"So and So is totally uncredible. Here is a quote from him where he says Blah (with link to reputable source) and here is a quote where he is saying the exact opposite (with link to reputable source)" -- Acceptable (unless I am totally misunderstanding the rules here)

Basically, do NOT criticize anyone in ANY WAY unless you can back it up with facts and sources. And if the criticism is used AT ALL it absolutely MUST be relevant to the discussion at hand.


Jasn



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by SimiusDei
 


Uh huh.

I agree with all of that.

But I am not talking about personal attacks.

The rule specifically addressed 9/11 eyewitnesses whose accounts are evidence and who are natural suspects when considering a 9/11 conspiracy particularly in regards to the Pentagon attack.

The examples I provided in this post are not attacks at all.

Just important information relevant to the conspiracy that is apparently now forbidden to be discussed.

Would you classify those examples as attacks?



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 09:53 PM
link   
Good! I have no problems with the new rules. --------------------------PC



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 






personality attacks directed toward........those who have been in the mainstream news as reported witnesses the events on 9/11/2001.

[...]


PERSONALITY ATTACKS. That should be fairly self explanatory. A personality attack is, by default, a personal attack.




....or tell their first-hand 9/11 stories, then do so with facts and reasoned analysis. Simply stating they're a member of a "sect,".....or any other simplistic "guilt by association" statement will result in a "9/11 Madness" warning.

[...]


I already addressed this, as has Bill (several times).

"SIMPLY stating they're a member of a "sect" OR ANY OTHER SIMPLISTIC "guilt by association" statement

Notice, this is immediately preceded by

THEN DO SO WITH FACTS AND REASONED ANALYSIS

Is this NOT exactly what I said in the examples in my previous post? It does not say that one cannot use VALID, FACTUAL and PROVABLE "personal" points when discussing a certain person related to a specific issue.

It says, PLAINLY, that they must be done with FACTS and REASONED ANALYSIS.


To "dumb it down a bit",

"He's just a stupid no-planer! Nothing he says is worth a *bleep*" --- Bad.




Jasn



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by SimiusDei
 


Yes yes I understand.

But the wording is such that things that don't really classify as attacks are still not allowed.

Particularly the simple fact that an eyewitness may be a member of Opus Dei, the PNAC, CFR, or any secret society, think tank, or institution associated with the elite.

Please look at my examples in this post and tell me if you specifically believe discussion of these very real and sourced facts should be forbidden.




top topics



 
100
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join