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.

 

Double standards - where is the consistency, and who's with me?

page: 2
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by deezee
 


Most of the threads you are talking about are in Skunkworks, which is for speculative theories.

How much more labeling do you need?




posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Enthralled Fan
reply to post by deezee
 


Most of the threads you are talking about are in Skunkworks, which is for speculative theories.


What in my opinion is plain stupidity, because all the conspiracys start to be speculatives!! And they remain a speculation untill some one show solid proof! must we move all the site to the skunks!?

The other problem is, what each of us designate as "evidence"!
If i find a clay tab, writed in aramaic, talking about Christ favorite drinks, that is a evidence untill correct and serious tests can be made in order to know if it is a true artifact from Christ time.After the tests, in case of positive results, it is no more a evidence, but a proof. So far so well, but
a guy caming here saying that was contacted by a alien that looks like Mikey Mouse...is also a evidence!
All the ones calling the guy insane, hoaxer, moron, will be just ignoring the possible facts behind this evidence. We can't ban storys, theorys, ideias, just because it looks insane! Untill further serious investigation, nothing can be proofed. But evidences...well a evidence is much more then what people normaly use.

Another exemple: I see a footprint in the mud, and "I" think it is from a bigfoot!! That foot print plus my theory are bouth evidences!!
Some time later some one could make some tests and as a end result ...it was footprints from a Rabbit... so...they proof nothing.
But the fact is: Until tested they are evidences of a possible big foot.

I hope you guys could understend what i am trying to explain, because it's hard for me trying to explain me in english.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Umbra Sideralis
 


I understand. You are saying that it's unfair to judge the credibility of one conspiracy theory over another, since they are all just theories anyways.

The real issue is that certain topics just happen to have more credibility among the majority, and others have less. Not saying it's fair, but understandable.. and it has nothing to do with truth, but what topics the ATS community would rather discuss.

[edit on 5-1-2008 by scientist]



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 01:08 PM
link   
I definately understand were you coming from, but to say people are spreading fear with 2012 claims, is totally wrong.
If you don't believe in it, you won't be scared. If you do believe in it, you might be scared, but warned, and it's your own choice.

If there possibly would be something wrong with the brakes of your car, and I would suspect that, would it be fearmongering for me to say you might have an accident?



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 01:59 PM
link   
Yes let's limit our conversations here only to things that can be proven... what a boring site that would be.

If you don't buy into the 2012 bit, that's fine, simply stay off the 2012 threads, but don't come here and try to tell us what not to talk about because YOU find it less credible than seeing Elvis at Dunkin Doughnuts or UFO's.
Conspiracy THEORY... At one time people THEORIZED that the Earth was round, revolved around the sun, they had people like you to tell them not to talk about it then as well. I can't believe you have people agreeing with you.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
Yes let's limit our conversations here only to things that can be proven... what a boring site that would be.

If you don't buy into the 2012 bit, that's fine, simply stay off the 2012 threads, but don't come here and try to tell us what not to talk about because YOU find it less credible than seeing Elvis at Dunkin Doughnuts or UFO's.
Conspiracy THEORY... At one time people THEORIZED that the Earth was round, revolved around the sun, they had people like you to tell them not to talk about it then as well. I can't believe you have people agreeing with you.


Another exelent opinion in a diferent way

What is certain today, can be not so certain tomorrow! That's a great true!
And in fact science had teach us exactly that over history



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by verylowfrequency
But what do I know I'm just a paranoid schizophrenic out having some fun at the virtual bar full of delusional cyberfreaks.




Next round's on me.

Let's just hope that the gullible, usually true believers, naive, youthful, inexperienced, game addicted folks can develop a sense of skepticism, cynicism and critical thinking like you LoneWeasel. It takes time.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 06:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Enthralled Fan
Most of the threads you are talking about are in Skunkworks, which is for speculative theories.

How much more labeling do you need?


Me? I don't really need any labeling. I'm just slightly bothered, when people claim their beliefs to be prooven facts, that's all.

But i know this is a complicated issue. Should we really limit our discussions just because of a few emotionally unstable people, who can not decide what's true and what isn't?

I mean, i feel for them, because i've had friends like that, who ruined their lives because they believed too hard. On the other hand, people like that always find a way to do just that.

So i don't really think anything can be done. That's why i wrote "But what can we really do?" in my first post in this thread.

I think there already is enough information on those threads for people to come to a logical conclusion. If they still can't, there's not much more that can be done...

[edit on 6-1-2008 by deezee]



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by whaaa

Originally posted by verylowfrequency
But what do I know I'm just a paranoid schizophrenic out having some fun at the virtual bar full of delusional cyberfreaks.




Next round's on me.

Let's just hope that the gullible, usually true believers, naive, youthful, inexperienced, game addicted folks can develop a sense of skepticism, cynicism and critical thinking like you LoneWeasel. It takes time.


So what are you saying? That anyone who believes these things is gullible, naive, youthful, inexperienced, game addicted, non-skeptical, non-cynical and non-critical?
Here's an adjective to describe you: arrogant.
I've been a man of science and a skeptic all my life, until I realised that sometimes, it takes thinking outside the box. You severely limit your thinking if you only think in terms of proof. Ah well, it takes time.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by scientist
it's imortant to note though, that just by clicking on a thread about UFOs, 2012, reptilians or the hollow earth, you are automatically entering an unspoken/unwritten agreement that states you will take everything with a grain of salt.


Actually what I find once you get pass the title that many times is designed for sensationalism, but ends up having little to do with the discussion there is a hidden interesting hypothesis.

This interesting hypothesis then gets blown out of proportion with massive leaps in logic. As example; to talk about other life in the universe is one thing, but when it leaps to spaceships flying around our world in a Star Trek type scenario the interesting hypothsis takes an incredible leap that so many just see as the next small step forward. And so the illogic in this case like so many others is if there is mold on another planet that also means there are 100,000s of space faring alien races too.

I think it is this type of thinking that the OP is referring to in his post.


[edit on 6-1-2008 by Xtrozero]



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by enigmania
I've been a man of science and a skeptic all my life, until I realised that sometimes, it takes thinking outside the box. You severely limit your thinking if you only think in terms of proof. Ah well, it takes time.


Well then a person should label their hypothesis a faith/belief base scenario and let the discussion go in that direction.

A person should not take a subject based on faith or a belief only and then turn it into empirical data, or take questionable data that has a lot of confounding and state it is proof positive.


[edit on 6-1-2008 by Xtrozero]



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


Well, as long as it is put in Speculative Theories, I don't see the problem.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by enigmania


So what are you saying? That anyone who believes these things is gullible, naive, youthful, inexperienced, game addicted, non-skeptical, non-cynical and non-critical?
Here's an adjective to describe you: arrogant.
I've been a man of science and a skeptic all my life, until I realised that sometimes, it takes thinking outside the box. You severely limit your thinking if you only think in terms of proof. Ah well, it takes time.


I'm just saying that fantastic claims require equally fantastic backup.
An thinking outside the box is great until you slip into fantasy and "I wish"
style of thinking.

I admit to the sin of arrogance at times.

welcome to the boards enigmania!



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by whaaa
 


Fair enough, and thank you.

Sorry for the one-liner.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by enigmania
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


Well, as long as it is put in Speculative Theories, I don't see the problem.


The really sad part is that many interesting speculative hypothesis that do not have any empirical data (yet) get buried in a sea of "yes it is real' and "no it is not" that sooner or later just kills the original idea.

Just a lot of wasted time and effort with no enlightment at all...



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

The really sad part is that many interesting speculative hypothesis that do not have any empirical data (yet) get buried in a sea of "yes it is real' and "no it is not" that sooner or later just kills the original idea.

Just a lot of wasted time and effort with no enlightment at all...


I think this just about hits the nail on the head, actually.

I appreciate all the arguments, and the points made in response to my post. To some extent I concede I may have been wrong to suggest any limit at all on what people can post.

But I still maintain there is a key difference between a theory postulated by someone as an idea they've had, and a statement of supposed fact posted by someone who wants to appear to be an all-knowing seer, when they've no basis for doing so.

And much as I appreciate that people do not need the likes of me as a nanny, I still think it's worth pointing out that some people have claimed to be genuinely affected by such posts. If that makes one attention seeking halfwit think twice before fabricating nonsense that contributes nothing to the debate and is based on absolutely nothing, I think that would be a good thing, myself...

LW



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by LoneWeasel
But I still maintain there is a key difference between a theory postulated by someone as an idea they've had, and a statement of supposed fact posted by someone who wants to appear to be an all-knowing seer, when they've no basis for doing so.
LW


I agree with your comments.

I have a few thoughts, observations and questions at hand (or rather at keyboard).

The thing that also concerns me is that people hardly question some of the “big wigs” on the ATS board. Too often their ideas have been instantly glorified by many forum regulars as they release more "information". This has become really evident in one section of the board especially where it appears that one person appears to be simply making up information to see how gullible we are - or at least that's my impression of some of their claims.

I understand the theme of the forum and I’m also aware a lot of what’s on offer is theorized, illogical, unknown or hearsay. My question is why do some people take everything they say as fact? I have an open mind or I wouldn’t be here. If I see info that my brain filters as solid and brown laid cable I am aware of it or at least I think I am!


What I’d like to see is the same sort of (or at least some sort of) diligence used for these members as with anyone who posts comments. Some people are offering ideas without any hint of rhyme or reason and those ideas become embraced for whatever reason.

This is my two cents for what it’s worth; I hope I’m not the only one who can see this as an issue. Please remember these are my ideas and opinions in relation to the thread topic and I do enjoy ATS or I wouldn’t be here.

I believe everyone should be able to express their ideas on here and say what they think (including the big wigs) but it comes down to the forum users showing some intelligence of their own rather than just accepting stuff as fact or based on something that might be factual or so forth.

any thoughts? If I am totally wrong about this I apologise. I do enjoy this forum or I wouldn't be here. This has bugged me lately and I thought it was appropiate to ask in this thread.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 04:28 PM
link   
While I agree with so many of the recent postings about too much crap on ATS lately, the only way to stay true to the ideals of this site is to keep an open forum for every subject, no matter how out-there. (Until evidence is produced to the contrary of a claim.)

1. Ultimately, it's up to the individual what they believe, how they process the information and how they react to it.
2. I agree that people who tend to be easily excitable and easily influenced should stay away from such material, lest they end up in the loony bin with tin hats on. But far be it from my authority to tell anyone what to do. All you can do is make these judgements for yourself and hope for the best, lest YOU become the censor.
3. As far as WHY I personally think that people are so interested in the coming of 2012, I cite several reasons:
a. It is the end of the Mayan calander, one of the most interesting calendars in known history because of all the information, complexity, and predictions associated with it.
b. The astrology surrounding 2012.
c. Due to the explosion of the information age we're living in, there are more ideas, theories, and facts being presented to a wider range of the populace more than ever, increasing awareness AND influence.
d. There are more "whistleblowers" and witnesses coming forward than ever before, credible AND questionable. Even here on ATS, we've got John Lear! (A true pioneer.)







 
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join