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: 5
100
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 03:22 PM
link   
The nice things about forums is that the evidence is there for all to see.

If you think we've missed something, the ALERT button awaits your click.




posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Even though Bill has covered this (twice in this thread) I get the feeling some still aren't clear.

IF you want to comment on the associations, memberships, or any other PERSONAL LIFE/PERSONALITY aspect of anyone you must source the connection and then explain how and why that connection is valid and germane to your point.

You may no longer simply make the broad brush comment that so and so is a member of PNAC (or whatever group) unless you source/prove (s)he is a member of PNAC, et-al and then go on to explain why that matters.

Does that sound like a pain? Probably, but it's called scholarly debate and it's called being FAIR. To cast a person's associations in a bad light without backing up why is simply not acceptable anymore. That's what we mean by having to work a little harder.

I should add that when we say "source" we mean a reputable, widely accepted source.


The fact someone has a public life or has fame does not diminish the need for those who seek to accuse them to back up their accusations. If there is validity to their accusation it will not be that difficult to do. Assuming your readers know and understand why a certain association is important to an accusation is folly and opens the door to flame wars from those who disagree.

While sourcing and back up remove the issue from the "debate table" since it's proven, and allows the focus to remain on the subject rather than on the personality.

Springer...



[edit on 12-13-2007 by Springer]



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Springer
IF you want to comment on the associations, memberships, or any other PERSONAL LIFE/PERSONALITY aspect of anyone you must source the connection and then explain how and why that connection is valid and germane to your point.


This is a great discription of the question at hand. And personally, I think is fair. Thanks for the clarification Springer.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
The nice things about forums is that the evidence is there for all to see.


Not if there is a big picture replacing the poster's post. It's hard to tell anymore why someone got a warning. I try to see what they did only to see a nifty picture in the post's place.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Springer
Even though Bill has covered this (twice in this thread) I get the feeling some still aren't clear.

IF you want to comment on the associations, memberships, or any other PERSONAL LIFE/PERSONALITY aspect of anyone you must source the connection and then explain how and why that connection is valid and germane to your point.



This is exactly what I did when I presented information about alleged witness Stephen McGraw being influenced by the fundamentalist catholic secret society Opus Dei in this thread.

I made the statement, sourced it with a direct quote from the witness, and explained why this is a dubious detail.

All of it is presented in the context of discussing evidence including a video taped interview with the witness that my partner and I personally conducted.

If you are saying that the same post would not be greeted with a warn and censorship today then that is totally fair.

I am only pressing the issue because I have reason to believe that the only reason it has been allowed to remain is because I posted it before the new rule.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


That post is OK under the new rules. You refereneced your connections and explained why they were germane to your topic.

Springer...



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 06:29 PM
link   
I have seen this situation occur on many other forums. And i have been kicked off of other forums for saying thins that were not even rude ,disorderly ,or out of place. Just mentioning 9-11 and controlled demolition.It is simple in my eyes. I have seen the evidence. And the evidence has led me to my decision. As a pivotal part in the 9 11 truth movement. I have spent many years learning a few things. 1st of all. When emotion is involved its hard for people to make judgement calls.Especially over something so powerful.Emotion has a way of clouding judgement and making people say things they dont mean but feel they must get out to vent thier anger. I have seen people at ground zero(i live in NY)go into tears while conversing with me over the facts and evidence.
If the answers were so easy than why wont the government explain the answers to our questions. Many of which hold merrit in civilized discourse and hold whieght in the SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION.
As far as i know, we still live in a free society where the governewmt has to answer to its people.And for those concerned citizens who do not easily subscribe to fear,more questions based in sound and just science need answering.
During WW2,many germans would not believe their country could do the things it did until the war was over and documents were declassified. Its important to understand that the 9 11 truth movement is not against the US Government.But against the smaller group of individuals in power behind the scenes.Even if you do not agree with a conspiraorial view of what happend,we can all reasonably agree that the government did a horrible and piss poor job in the cleanup and aftermath of the events.And released a report that offends the scientific community,many family members and aware concerned citizens.When Bill(skeptic overlord) came to a 9 11 truth meeting over a year ago. He commented here on how impressed he was on the manner of which we were using to achieve our goals in a just and civilized manner.And its important to understand that we do not engage in screaming matches with people who do not agree with us. Poeple will always disagree. That is part of what makes us human. I think Bills statements and his rules and guidelines need to be followed. Actions against those who would violate civilized discourse are to help show that even though your not phisically there, you can still be held accountable for your words and actions.
I will end with the statement i tell everybody while discussing 9 11 at ground zero and other 9 11 street actions. Dont believe us. Research 100 % of the evidence and make your own decision. Then truth and justice will prevail.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Springer
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


That post is OK under the new rules. You refereneced your connections and explained why they were germane to your topic.

Springer...


Excellent!

That clears up a lot and makes me much more comfortable with the new rules.

I only wonder why S.O. didn't tell me that when I first asked.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 09:03 PM
link   
If I understand this thread's posts correctly, the owners and operators of the site seem to be fed up with the "me right-you wrong-and your feet smell too" level discussions, and are making a big effort to clean house, and push the forum towards becoming more scientific and research based.

As a long time reader (and a relatively new member) of the forum, I feel I know where they are coming from and greatly sympathize with the effort. And I am curious (and hopeful) to see where this slightly heavy handed steering takes things.

However...

The events of 9/11 threaten such core values and concepts like trusting one's own kind (in this case, Americans and their own government), one's perception of self and the world he/she lives in, as well as all the spoon fed values that we acquire at home, school, and in general, life itself...

In this context, there is so much more to "9/11 conspiracies" than just a big and nasty game of whodunit. The social, psychological and philosophical aspects of the events, the conspiracy theories about the events, how people consciously or subconsciously choose to deal or not deal with the knowledge or the lack thereof, etc. (I could go on but won't) This is a once in a century (hopefully) phenomenon where a nation is forced to heavy duty soul searching and self reflection.

My hope is that, while facts and research can do their part in our quest for truth, there should be some room to discuss the "human" factor of what is happening... From the actual events to our reaction and feelings about it.

Although I doubt that it would happen, my suggestion is the separation of this forum in to two separate categories:

One would be reserved strictly to research, facts, science, and elevated standards for presenting and discussing them. I truly believe that the very valuable efforts of the relatively few who investigate all the facts and leads with dignity and integrity, are being buried and paralyzed under the barstool water cooler level banter... So much so that, by the time you get to the middle of the second page, most threads become indistinguishable regardless of their topics. This "serious" section would have to adhere to strict guidelines universally accepted for orderly, ethical and scientific investigative research, most of which ATS already follows, at least in principle.

And for the rest of us, maybe there can be a forum to discuss the whys and whos. I feel the pain and frustration of most us here with the undesirable behavior, arguments, antics, etc. But, I would argue that these people have their own valuable place in exposing the spectrum of thoughts, emotions, beliefs.... They expose how huge populations that they represent think... At what level they see these events. How they are affected by them. How much they care... Someone's slandering session with high emotions exposes his/her truest feelings which need to be learned from. This group can use the serious 9/11 forum as a wealth of knowledge to understand and learn from all the illusions being exposed one by one. And to feed our philosophical banter of course)

So, for those of us who are learners of life in search of reality, no matter how ugly, there can remain a site where we sometimes tolerate some one saying "and your mouth smells, too" every now and then.

Respectfully,

may_be_true

[edit on 13-12-2007 by may_be_true]

[edit on 13-12-2007 by may_be_true]



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by may_be_true
 


may_be_true, very well written and well reasoned.

I too have seen emotion (I've been guilty of becoming emotional) whenever the 'symbol' "9/11" comes up in a discussion.

ATS is about investigating theories, and letting them be discussed in a way that is civil. I have seen this mentioned repeatedly by people who started this site in the first place, and I think it's important to honor their achievement.

My opinion, may_be_true wrote a great piece. Seems that this ATS member 'got it'.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 10:48 PM
link   
'argumentum ad hominem'

"...the fallacy of attacking an individual, or the individual's character..."

[loosely pulled from a Wikipedia site].

I asked before...regarding the title of this thread...IS the 'Madness' going to refer to the perpetrators? Or, to the fact that six years on we are still finding conspiracies? Or, is it something else?

Didn't look up the Latin 'veritas', guess it speaks for itself (no pun there).

Now, certainly no one will accuse me of going off-topic, I am simply asking what the title of this thread means, and with that info we will know where the thread leads next....

Cheers!



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 12:09 AM
link   
OK, SO...

went back to 'square one' (page one in this case) and re-read...all seems clear, and I back up what I said, it's great to have a forum for civil discourse...

Thanks



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 02:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Springer
You may no longer simply make the broad brush comment that so and so is a member of PNAC (or whatever group) unless you source/prove (s)he is a member of PNAC, et-al and then go on to explain why that matters.

Honestly though, what's next, footnotes, and bibliographies, case law, legal definitions? That's probably more than a little intimidating to those less trained in the literary arts, and it seems a little overboard to correct a problem of personal sniping...
We can't mention so and so is a member of PNAC without referencing it? Zionists? Neocons? "Whatever group"? On a discussion board?
Is this the new Main Stream ATS?



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
We can't mention so and so is a member of PNAC without referencing it? Zionists? Neocons? "Whatever group"? On a discussion board?

I've been increasingly concerned about this trend of baseless character assassination dominating the "9/11 debate" throughout all the relevant online venues. I'll refine the wording to make it clear this nuance of requirement refers to non-public figures (for example, private citizens with first-hand testimony)... which was the intent. As always, politicians and policy makers/influencers are "open season" within the existing confines of quality on ATS.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by twitchy
We can't mention so and so is a member of PNAC without referencing it? Zionists? Neocons? "Whatever group"? On a discussion board?

I've been increasingly concerned about this trend of baseless character assassination dominating the "9/11 debate" throughout all the relevant online venues. I'll refine the wording to make it clear this nuance of requirement refers to non-public figures (for example, private citizens with first-hand testimony)... which was the intent. As always, politicians and policy makers/influencers are "open season" within the existing confines of quality on ATS.


Thank you! This is what I was trying to clarify all along. Now the oil has been cleaned up from your 50-degree slope.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 06:11 PM
link   
It's a tricky one sometimes to source some things. People will label some sources as "bad", therefore nothing can be sourced to them.

The problem here is when something small is mentioned, assuming the reference is true, there may only be generally considered "bad" sources available for it.

I think that most people, if not all (they should be!), in the forums are capable enough to judge a source for themselves, or discuss the merits of the source in the same thread, as the situation could get a bit difficult referencing some things that are "less reported" and more hidden, but still actually true (regardless of source credibility).



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 10:43 AM
link   
You may even want to be more strict and ban open sarcasm.

For example, if someone posted that they thought Elvis was flying one of the planes on 9/11, it doesn't constitute a personal attack, but it detracts from the quality of the discussion.

Some of our topics may be somewhat "extreme", but that's what this site is all about.



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 07:47 PM
link   
So how long does this warning stay on my record?

BTW, I really don't think the warn was warranted but what can I do? You ATS god's decided to strike me down and I must deal with the consequences.



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
it will be removed and replaced with this graphic:

You will also receive a warning and points penalty.




Man that was the funniest thing I've seen in ages!

You guys should set it so that that face appears in place of the current "warn" decal.

Are we allowed to change the text of it for unofficial sarcastic purposes?


[edit on 15-12-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 04:02 AM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


Had to print out that graphic in the OP and hang it on my wall. Even with the risk of being censored I have to say, " Ad homonym attackers, you suck!!"

I LOVE YOU, ATS

"Can't we all just get along?"



new topics

top topics



 
100
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join