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.

 

Pseudoskeptics and Disinformants on ATS

page: 11
70
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


No problem. I wanted to give an example of how that kinda thing can get out of hand. It starts off with one guy giving it the thumbs down and picks up speed. If no one moderates the negativity and it gets too big, the resultant backlash almost always results in the thread being closed.

One individual would deliberately go into my threads and argue pointless stuff, deliberately attack me, instead of the topic, bring up old material from other threads withtout linking for reference when it was supposed to be all about proof and such, and get the thread so far off its original topic, modertors would geti involved and inevitably, the thread would be closed. I learned after a few go arounds, that when he came in and started up the same thing, to just vacate the thread or it would degenerate into the same problem. Some Skeptics are like forum hitmen lol

When it gets to that point, I go wash dishes or something lol




posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
This thread has been visited by some true skeptics (malganis, xtrozero, loneweasal) and some pseudoskeptics (no names. you know who you are).


I'll go ahead and assume you're lumping me into the latter group. Awesome.


Originally posted by Skyfloating
A true skeptic can question, debunk and refute things without resorting to bizzare generalizations, weird tactics and personal attacks.


These are the exact same tactics you have engaged in.

Producing "rules" that are so vague it would allow you to label anyone at anytime as a "paid-disinformant" or a "pseudoskeptic" and labeling someone as such without a single shred of evidence.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Thanks so much for pointing out that the very topic conspiracy/paranormal asserts that evidence is deliberately hidden from the public.


In other words: "The lack of evidence is proof of a conspiracy." If there's no proof, it must be true!


Originally posted by Skyfloating
Since "hidden evidence" is part of general conspiracy-theory, there is no logic in debunking a case just because there is no immediate evidence.


In other words, "Since there's no evidence, and you have my word alone on this, don't you dare question it. You HAVE to take our word for it. Otherwise, you are a paid-disinformant and pseudoskeptic."


Originally posted by Skyfloating
When they say "There is no evidence" what they often mean is "I aint seen it on CNN so it cant be true".


Actually, what we mean is that you have no evidence. Don't try to insinuate that anyone who doesn't agree with you, or demands you actually back up your claims, as "brain-washed" or "sheep." Let me remind you of your own words, yet again...


Originally posted by Skyfloating
A true skeptic can question, debunk and refute things without resorting to bizzare generalizations, weird tactics and personal attacks. Its as simple as that.


You engaging in those same tactics.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by SaviorComplex
 


You know the more you fight this thread the worse your motives appear to be. Then I just happened to see you on another thread being just as antagonistic. This appears to be a habit with you.

But moving on...............

The way I see it is if you

1) Don't have a hidden agenda for whatever reason

2) Aren't on someone's payroll

Then

3) Why would you be bothered by this thread.

If you are a debunking skeptic, then no one is talking about you and you have nothing to defend.

So you are attempting as a resident skeptic to "debunk" something that isn't debunkable. This is a threory being presented, is it not?

There are plenty of peeps posting in this thread who aren't trouble makers, simply members sharing a noticed phenomena on a board we all love to visit.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by interestedalways

The way I see it is if you

1) Don't have a hidden agenda for whatever reason

2) Aren't on someone's payroll

Then

3) Why would you be bothered by this thread.

If you are a debunking skeptic, then no one is talking about you and you have nothing to defend.


Including you, there are a lot of people here that needs to be reminded that this is a forum. It is not a place where you only share common thoughts, that would be amazingly boring over a short period of time i believe. We are here to discuss ... We hare here to bend the given facts so the answers become more plausible.

( I hope I got that right
)



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by tep200377
As many other skeptics here on ATS, I feel that the OP actually takes us all in one take labeling us seudos. I think it is a big grey zone from a regular skeptic to pseudo...


It is a purposeful grey-zone, and an effort to tell us what is acceptable forms of skepticism, by telling us what are and are as to make them impossible to satisfy.

Thus they won't have to back up their claims, and distract from whatever-the-topic may be by attacking the skeptics' questions and want of evidence. They can launch what amounts to an attack on the skeptics' motivation and character. They can just dismiss any questions out-of-hand, by automatically labeling anyone they want as "a disinformant" or "pseudoskeptic."



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by tep200377
 



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by tep200377
 



So is this statement you made above


Including you, there are a lot of people here that needs to be reminded that this is a forum. It is not a place where you only share common thoughts


This is what it is all about for you, the dislike you have for this thread. Could you define your understanding of the word Forum?



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 10:54 AM
link   
I believe the original poster wanted to make a distinction between skeptics and pseudoskeptics and in my opinion he made his point very clear.

Healthy skeptics agree on certain topics and disagree on others. I myself disagree with 9-11 cia conspiracy but I don't go there to argue and force my opinions on people because that would be trolling! I simply avoid the subject and move on to more interesting topics.

-Pseudo-skeptics go from thread to thread and from board to board deflecting/derailing topics, don't bother to investigate any evidence presented to them and usually they do very little(if any) research of their own.

Even worse, they always seem to gang up at the same time in an effort to make the original poster look stupid so that he will stop participating in his own thread and others will be too intimidated to post anything. Next thing you know the thread is dead.

I also think that most of the "crazy" stuff aka disinformation has a governmental point of origin. They are trying to discredit the site at all costs. The strategy seems to be:

1)Debunkers to derail legitimate conspiracies
2)Disinformation agents to create a sense of *wackiness*

You guys might be able to fool a lot of newbies but the old timers see right through the smokescreen.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by interestedalways
You know the more you fight this thread the worse your motives appear to be. Then I just happened to see you on another thread being just as antagonistic. This appears to be a habit with you.


To quote someone else...


Originally posted by undo
One individual would deliberately go into my threads and argue pointless stuff, deliberately attack me, instead of the topic, bring up old material from other threads withtout linking for reference...


You are engaging in the same tactic. Would you care to direct us to the thread you are talking about? Perhaps you would also like to include all my posts, to demonstrate how this is a pattern for me, as you claim.

But, I forgot, that is asking for evidence, with is anathema for you and the OP. Asking for evidence is just further proof to you that I'm an pseudoskeptic/disinformant.


Originally posted by interestedalways
The way I see it is if you
1) Don't have a hidden agenda for whatever reason
2) Aren't on someone's payroll
Then
3) Why would you be bothered by this thread.

If you are a debunking skeptic, then no one is talking about you and you have nothing to defend.


This is nothing but further proof that what you and the OP want is an echo-chamber. You do not want people to disagree with you.

My concern about this thread is that it is being used to label anyone who doesn't agree with you, anyone who asks for evidence, as a skeptic. We've already seen one person, CatHerder, labeled as a pseudoskeptic/disinformant, for absolutely no reason or evidence at all. I have stated my concerns that the "rules" of pseudoskepticism are so vague as to be able to label anyone as such. And how such things can be used to stifle debate.

You are doing exactly what I am concerned about -- look at your responses to our questions and our want of evidence, our concern. I'm disagreeing with you, so I must have some hidden agenda. In fact, you are the second or third person do accuse me as such, just for the sin of passionately disagreeing with you.





[edit on 22-1-2008 by SaviorComplex]



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by interestedalways
So is this statement you made above


Including you, there are a lot of people here that needs to be reminded that this is a forum. It is not a place where you only share common thoughts



So is this statement what again? What are you reffering to with "so is this"..


This is what it is all about for you, the dislike you have for this thread. Could you define your understanding of the word Forum?


Who are you to tell anyone on this forum not to participate with other views than the OP? For me its all about discussing the topic, and for me to present my proofs regarding my views. Untill now, you have only attacked me and my supposed views on the OP. You haven't contributed with anything as far as i know..


Edit : Major typos ... wohha



forum: a public meeting or assembly for open discussion

google it..



[edit on 22-1-2008 by tep200377]



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by tep200377
You are you to tell anyone on this forum not to participate with other views than the OP? For me its all about discussing the topic, and for me to present my proofs regarding my views. Untill now, you have only attached me and my suppsedly views on the OP. You haven't contributed with anything as far as i know..
[edit on 22-1-2008 by tep200377]


Don't you know you are not allowed to discuss this topic, tep? If you find some fault with their logic, or want evidence, or disagree with them in the slightest, then you must have some hidden agenda. InterestedAlways said it herself; you only disagree if you have something to hide.

This is about shutting down disagreement, nothing more.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

This is about shutting down disagreement, nothing more.


First of all, on a all-can-post forum its quite impossible to shut down disagreement, second of all, as pointed out a few dozen times this has nothing to do with disagreement and disagreement is appreciated.

The statement doesnt make any sense (in the thread-context) but the pseudoskeptic hopes that the gullible will swallow it.

The tactic you apply here is subtly implying that X is intended. But not only do I not intend X...even if I would, it wouldnt be possible.

Suggesting something impossible...isnt that what us tin-hatters are blamed for?



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by tep200377

You are you to tell anyone on this forum not to participate with other views than the OP? For me its all about discussing the topic, and for me to present my proofs regarding my views.



Absolutely. Without the critical examination of the opening post by saviour complex and tep, there would be nothing to discuss...and that would make for a boring forum.

No offense to you guys. You are doing a good job of trying to find something wrong with the opening post.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

First of all, on a all-can-post forum its quite impossible to shut down disagreement, second of all, as pointed out a few dozen times this has nothing to do with disagreement and disagreement is appreciated.

The statement doesnt make any sense (in the thread-context) but the pseudoskeptic hopes that the gullible will swallow it.

The tactic you apply here is subtly implying that X is intended. But not only do I not intend X...even if I would, it wouldnt be possible.


I am not subtly implying anything, I am outright saying it. You want there to be an echo-chamber, you do not want anyone to disagree with you. You will just accuse them of something nefarious if they do. You can claim all you want this is not about labeling all skeptics, but your actions prove you are lying. You called CatHerder a disinfo-agent/pseudoskeptic based on no evidence; you call me the same because I am disagreeing with you, pointing out the flaws in your argument, and how you are engaging in the exact same tactics you accuse the disinfo-agents of using.

You can shut down debate, and that is your goal. Now, while you may not have the power to force anyone out, you can create an atmosphere wherein debate is not only frowned upon, but met with vehement opposition. You do this by attacking the motivations and character of anyone who challenges you. The exact same thing you are doing now.


[edit on 22-1-2008 by SaviorComplex]



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
I am not subtly implying anything, I am outright saying it. You want there to be an echo-chamber, you do not want anyone to disagree with you.


If I really wanted that, that would be boring.



You will just accuse them of something nefarious if they do.


Yes, I accuse those who make nonsensical generalizations and wage personal attacks "pseudoskeptics". Thats what they are.



you call me the same because I am disagreeing with you, pointing out the flaws in your argument, and how you are engaging in the exact same tactics you accuse the disinfo-agents of using.


I am not calling you a pseudoskeptic because you disagree with me. Others have disagreed with me in this thread and I havent called them pseudoskeptic. I am calling you a pseudoskeptic because you use dishonest means of communication...such as re-defining what I am doing as "shutting down all disagreement".




You can shut down debate, and that is your goal.


No, debate cannot be shut down on ATS. If that were my goal my presence here would be pointless. The very fact that I engage with you in debate here proves your argument nonsensical.



Now, while you may not have the power to force anyone out, you can create an atmosphere wherein debate is not only frowned upon,


I enjoy debate. Im even beginning to get into this one.



but met with vehement opposition. You do this by attacking the motivations and character of anyone who challenges you. The exact same thing you are doing now.


I have some foes here at ATS which I respect. They strongly disagree with me but they also challenge me to review my opinions. So the statement you make there is again...untrue.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 01:07 PM
link   
Technical posting difficuties

[edit on 22-1-2008 by interestedalways]



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 01:07 PM
link   
Ok, I know I am going to get hit with a sledgehammer for saying this, but I'll just do it anyway to get it out of the way.

Its just that an average iq simply isn't enough to produce an answer that is acquired with THE scientific method. I have never, ever seen one such paper made by a person, who is not qualified in this particular way. It just doesn't happen, and when it does (which is extremely rare) it is done with lots and lots of help by other people. THere's nothing wrong with cooperation, but it does require a bit above average understanding to get people to get interested enough about whatever subject (to help).

I'm very well aware that anybody can shoot a photo or a video, but it doesn't mean that that any person can actually explain, in theory, his photo in a manner that is logically plausible (i.e., without any error). Average people can't do that.

Half of our entire world is below that.

Btw, I never say anybody's stupid, ever. I don't think it matters but there ARE certain things that are only learnable by above average intelligence.

I'm not a genius of any sort, but at least I understand what I cannot and most just cannot do. Some would say that for the young, intelligence starts at that point of realization.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 01:11 PM
link   


You can shut down debate,


Actually, there has to be a real debate for it to be shut down.

Most "debates" on here break every rule in the book for debate.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by rawsom
Its just that an average iq simply isn't enough to produce an answer that is acquired with THE scientific method. I have never, ever seen one such paper made by a person, who is not qualified in this particular way.


awesome rawsom. Qualified or indoctrinated in this particular method?


Are you saying that those who do not apply "the scientific method" have below average intelligence?

I must protest.




[edit on 22-1-2008 by Skyfloating]



new topics

top topics



 
70
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join