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: 13
70
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by musselwhite
one good point about this pissing contest is you gets points. ha! ha! ha! always a positive to a negative. right?


Above a certain point-count there´s not much you can buy with your points. Hope they offer some more stuff in their points shop soon.



what? there's a store? ha! ha! ha! thanks for the heads up. i haven't been shopping for some time now. found out i don't need much and want less.




posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Talk about "rubbing it in". Typical pseudoskeptic-standard. The opponent makes one mistake, apologizes for it, but he will continue to point it out again and again.


There are two reasons I bring this up:

First, I want to make sure this does not happen again. I told you I was not going to allow you to randomly malign people.

And since you are embarassed by the fact you were proven wrong, you are trying to intidimate me into not bringing it up as evidence of how wrong you are, by throwing around the label pseudoskeptic. Like I said, you are attempting to shut down debate. Don't dare say you are wrong, and especially do not present evidence of that!


Originally posted by Skyfloating
And now you are baiting me to elaborate on CatHerder even more. Nice try.


And you go ahead and do it (but without really doing it...)




Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by SaviorComplex
 


To visit a website dedicated to Topic X not to chat about topic X, not to open a thread about topic X but onlyto discredit topic X and those who talk about topic X.


Is this the standard you applied to CatHerder? So someone comes in, they present their argument, and because it runs contrary to conspiracy-theories, you label them as a disinfo-agent. Brilliant. Further proof you are just trying to shut down anyone you don't like.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 03:01 PM
link   
Not everything is based on solid evidence. People(including myself) believe in god and the bible without being 100% sure. But what difference does it really make?

How many people have been put to death with only moderate circumstantial evidence against them? How many prisoners have been aquitted after already serving a long sentence when new information has been presented to the courts?

My point is that most of the time no one can be 100% sure of anything regardless of the quantity or quality of evidence. Science itself evolves through experimentation of hypothesis. Just because we can't prove a hypothesis now does not mean the hypothesis is wrong! Come on people...I thought you were smarter than that.

When it comes to ghosts, ufos, stopping or reversing time, extra dimensions, underground bases, masonic conspiracies, 9-11, secret weapons, etc..etc...what is reasonable evidence and more importantly where can it be found? Should we storm area 51 just to please you?!

Give me a break! IMO the people that constantly demand evidence in every thread should be banned because they do absolutely nothing to help the community while creating unneeded tension!



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Actually, we'd all be preaching to the choir if there was never any skepticism. And it's rather hard to isolate out what is and isn't legitimate skepticism, with the exception of the one line wonders and most of those are infrequent posters who probably have 3 other personas on here on different computers (at home, at the job, at school, on their friend's laptop, etc). one flub up is not enough to convict someone on, anyway.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
I want to make sure this does not happen again.


Protecting people from the big bad poster, yes? You have skillfully turned an example I gave of what MIGHT be disinformation, into "you have accused this person of disinformation". After me having apologized you continue to bring it up in every second post in attempt to intimidate and discredit (rather than respond to my recent outline of the threads purpose).

You then twist my words to mean "I was proven wrong" with the implication that due to a slight mistake I made, my entire OP is proven wrong.

Quite manipulative behaviour, wouldnt you agree?


Whats more, you have twisted the threads meaning to "anti-skeptic". And you have done so succesfully as people show up here saying "nothing wrong with skeptics". But this was never meant as an anti-skeptics thread.

While you may be fooling some, you are not fooling me.


[edit on 22-1-2008 by Skyfloating]



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


he was a lawyer in another life.
you can spot 'em a mile away. no worries though. it's a hung jury!
he'll never take ya down, and if he does, you'll become more powerful than he can possibly imagine.

nl.youtube.com...

Two guys, duking it out with shiny sticks.






[edit on 22-1-2008 by undo]



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Cant open that youtube link but I´ll assume you posted something refreshing for inbetween (boxing match break).




posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 04:32 PM
link   
I fixed it

it's Ryan vs. Dorkman Part 2. Awesome amateur lightsaber duel.
nl.youtube.com...

[edit on 22-1-2008 by undo]



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


just watched it. nothing better than a good fight.

savior complex: give it a watch and lighten up.

I apologize for ever opening this thread without your approval



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


at first i posted the duel between obi wan and anakin, the one where anakin becomes vader?

the opening comments from obi wan were perfect:

"only a sith deals in absolutes." lol but it was just too depressing, so i changed it to ryan vs. dorkman 2, primarily because it's so well done and isn't quite as
violent. close though.


[edit on 22-1-2008 by undo]



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by SaviorComplex
 


What I had in mind when I opened this thread is the following scenario:

An enthusiastic but naive poster opens a thread on any given alternative subject...lets say UFOs.


I see what your saying, and I can see the outcome you mention in your example. I haven't personally seen that happen, but it doesn't mean that it hasn't (most assuredly, purely on odds alone) or doesn't.

I don't ever want my posts to have the effect you outline. As a mater of fact, if they did I would loose sleep over it! Truly.

Let me use 9-11 conspiracies as an example. I know this isn't the point of your recent post (or even the OP). I only mention it here not to change the discussion, but to offer an example. I tend to interject when I see words like 'incontrovertible', 'undeniable', 'proof positive' or when someone says something like "...there is no way any other explanation can work...". That particular forum is positively full of people making wild claims, fantastic assertions and incredibly complex 'conspiracies' based on - IMO - outright lies, lack of understanding, context and a dismissal of the amassed evidence.

For example, lots of people insist there was no airplane wreckage in (FLT 93) PA. Many conspiracy theories are born from this (incorrect) belief. The problem is, it isn't true. Not even a little bit. Even a cursory glance at publicly available information supports the fact that a whole lot of airplane wreckage, bodies, luggage, etc were recovered. At that point I am asked to believe the whole 'accident scene' was staged. Staged! When I ask for something creditable to support that (say, one.......just one....fireman at the scene supporting that assertion), none can be provided and I am asked to accept the 'no plane' assertion as valid, possible and probable. If I don't, then then name calling begins.

I just don't think that way. I am no disinformation agent. I am someone who likes to base a discussion on reality. If someone wants to kick around conspiracy theories in the realm of theories.......no objection there. I object when those who are so tightly attached to their theories start demanding I, too, ignore reality and buy into something being presented as 'fact', when it's clearly not. Shoot, I am good with plausible most of the time.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 


Aomething has achieved that you will hear many ats-members (me included) to say "I dont go over to9/11".

And this is where (for me) possible disinformation comes in: To muddy the waters and cause confusion and conflict.

Its reached a point where I dont understand the first thing about 9/11 anymore.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 05:08 PM
link   
I don't go to 9-11 threads at all. I avoid 'em like the plague.

Planetary/Moon anomalies, UFOs, Aliens, Ancient Astronaut theory, occassionally a religious topic, but other than that, I don't stray much in this place. I avoid crypto-zoology, cause it' really doesn't interest me.
Politics just irritate the kajeebas outta me. Paranormal is only marginally interesting to me. I dunno even know how I ended up in this thread. Must've been cause it was a hot topic and I saw your plight.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 


You lose sleep over it? Yeeech.
ATS is interesting but not worth losing sleep over.

that's a fair and equitable approach, i think. it only bothers me when someone posts in one of my threads that i'm working really hard on presenting, and in a couple of sentences, declaring it unfounded nonsense.
might as well not respond at all if it seems that useless ya know?



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 07:01 PM
link   
Look, one of the critical skills of the pro debunker is to be able to pose as an ordinary skeptic and gain acceptance into the skeptic community.

That way if they are ever accused of being a pro debunker, they can go "How DARE you accuse me! I just want the truth like everyone else, I am here to find the truth using logic, reason, critical thinking, and scientific method!", and have the rest of the skeptics support them and come to their aid, give them stars etc.

Thus it is pointless to try to point fingers at any specific user, and tends to backfire, as has already happened with Skyfloating in this thread.

But those of us with discernment do notice that certain skeptics never do any positive research or otherwise lift a finger to try to find the Truth; they ONLY post to put the really good researchers and believers on the defensive and do whatever it takes to discredit them. As Skyfloating correctly pointed out


It sure seems odd that all they EVER do is debunk and attack people, in spite of their professed desire to discover the Truth with science and critical thinking



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Star, flag, slap on the back, high-5 etc.

I too wish I had been on this earlier. Without the time to be a thoughtful participant in the last few days I decided to wait. The read was a bit lengthy also, but I found some time today.

Skyfloating, and others here are echoing the same sentiment of many I suspect, myself included.

Since entering ATS in November, I have spent much of my time just defending an OP’s right to continue discussion without submitting to a cavity search and shakedown. I was horrified at the real loss of value this forum had by those obstructionists who would focus on attacking, rather than thoughtful intelligent questioning.

I was able to account for much of this by realizing that anyone who could write and operate a connected computer was likely here. Including very young energetic and maybe ill informed or uneducated with only an opinion, to name but a few possibilities.

This is a microcosm of the same conditions, potentials and problems we are having socially and globally with our culture, sciences, political, ideological and belief systems. Also, the real interesting component here, that seems to be challenged from all others, is Experiential Data. In other words, actual experiences, as opposed to second party or officially sanctioned or accepted expert information. These poor souls have nowhere else to discuss their experience. It’s like having an angry crowd psychoanalyzing a person with depression.

I think the answer is basic. Education. But I digress.

I have seen good people who with no more than an honest need to understand what they have experienced run into the ground by insulting and psudo-investigative quotes and demands for proof. I got 1000 points burned out of me for expressing anger about this, (and, also mentioning a subject that the moderator was not intelligently informed about and prejudiced with fear of the social implications.)

Even moderators are human and make some glaring mistakes. Some, simply supporting policy dictated by ATS lawyers, insurers and owners on blanket liability issues without any ability to explain or discuss any reasoning. I have scars as others from that barbwire fence.

I’ve found Skeptics, Researchers and serious thinkers here refreshing and important to process, yet others more accurately cynical than anything. They posing as Skeptics that are more obstructionist when actually observed. I cannot possibly know in any absolute their objectives, whether subjective self-supporting, disinformation operatives or even emotionally dysfunctional, and who isn’t to some extent emotionally challenged in the present world? I know I am.

I cannot find a right in my heart to judge anyone. I “can” tell when I or another does not have enough information or familiarity with a subject to be valuable to the discussion. I can also sense when an OP is not given an honest ear. We have lost many incredible opportunities for invaluable experiential information because the OP was not an expert in the subject they actually experienced and scared off. How irrational is that?

In most cases my first response to an OP-badgering is to educate. Very Sisyphus-like, this direction. This also severely reduces #1. my enjoyment of the thread, and #2. my ability to actually engage in discussion myself. Yet it is a responsibility I feel is important. Even at the prospect of loosing my place in a discussion. This also then exposes me as someone who thinks he knows something. So I try to substantiate my cred by being less discreet about my own experience, which then feels more like you would be seen as bragging or self worship.

Some here (not me you can tell) are well known writers and thinkers who, by enjoying animosity can communicate without the subjective audience who might know their work and reputation. For a writer, I would imagine the greatest challenge is to give a reader an experience, idea, reasonable hypothesis worth consideration simply by the integrity of the words. Without a reputation or scholarly designation skewing the response. Ad a PhD, or a Best Seller badge and people will automatically be more inclined to believe. Avoiding this, the writer can gain a self perspective that is objective and honest. (Like a king, who dresses as a peasant to mingle and see the kingdom from the other side.) I truly respect such thoughtful introspective and self discovery. I also respect his or her privacy as I would anyone’s. They are here too, yet are in the same class as you and me.

My question to everyone, is how can we manage our intelligent communicating culture here to work fairly, without an act of Homeland Security or the Inquisition, or disclosure of personal information, and, thereby possibly, cut down on the attitudes and methods that corrupt the process of fair and reasonable discussion? Simply leaving it to the moderators won’t work, and trying to change ATS policy is not appropriate other than suggesting new ideas.

We need to inspire a constructive response from each other to make this work. Otherwise they (any forum corrupted by dis-harmonics) will pull out the outlets and we will have no power to discuss in the light of reason.

Let's don't just define the problem here or simply defend our own opinions. Let's discuss some fair and enlightening approaches to solving these problems, but in ways ATS or social networks need not tool for.

We have very bright and talented people here who if we engage their creative, might help us all bootstrap some great ideas.

ZG



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by tep200377
Ok, now my turn ..

1. Tinhat A presents conspiracy theory, attempts to discuss.
2. Skeptic A walks in, asks how he got to this conspiracy conclusion.
3. Tinhat A answer a question that hasn't been asked.


etc. etc.


I'm sorry, I stopped reading after you used the term 'Tinhat' to describe OP's who start threads.

You pseudo-skeptics exagerate things to such a proportion that I can't even take you seriously anymore


Yes, all conspiracy theories MUST be the product of Tinhats! Despite the fact that numerous are corroborated by EXPERT opinion from government officials, scientists etc.


Seriously, why pigeonhole an entire discussion right off the bat by going in with the 'anti-tinhat' mindset? That is the DEFINITION of abiased and unscientific approach.

Again, I must say, "Yawn" and point out that conspiracy discussion is for the OPEN MINDED.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 07:49 PM
link   

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.

In fact, most of the "believers" on this thread have been skeptics towards one topic or another at one time.


Couldn't have said it better myself


It's fairly easy to spot the pseudo-skeptic upon their arrival as they will almost ALWAYS throw out a generalization, gross exaggeration or employ some other method to belittle the OP and the topic.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewWorldOver

Originally posted by tep200377
Ok, now my turn ..

1. Tinhat A presents conspiracy theory, attempts to discuss.
2. Skeptic A walks in, asks how he got to this conspiracy conclusion.
3. Tinhat A answer a question that hasn't been asked.


etc. etc.


I'm sorry, I stopped reading after you used the term 'Tinhat' to describe OP's who start threads.

You pseudo-skeptics exagerate things to such a proportion that I can't even take you seriously anymore


Yes, all conspiracy theories MUST be the product of Tinhats! Despite the fact that numerous are corroborated by EXPERT opinion from government officials, scientists etc.


Seriously, why pigeonhole an entire discussion right off the bat by going in with the 'anti-tinhat' mindset? That is the DEFINITION of abiased and unscientific approach.

Again, I must say, "Yawn" and point out that conspiracy discussion is for the OPEN MINDED.


Yea, some labels people think are OK to use indicate bias or prejudices. In some cases though they are accepted into the community language. In this case I error toward the former.

Without proof (You actually cannot prove anything with pure science), you have to use your gut and your collective senses and listen carefully for the pattern in the noise. Or like MIT Physics professor Phillip J. Morrison says, "The ring of truth."

The tree may have fruit, but it's bitter. Character is a qualitative reality and cannot be quantified. But we know in most cases when someone's character is exposing an agenda. We don't have to measure. Just feel. We still can be mistaken you understand.

Science is just one of the tools of perception. A big one, but until we unify our tools, science, spirit, creativity, knowledge we have to be good at using them all.

Tool-Up!

ZG



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

Originally posted by Skyfloating
awesome rawsom. Qualified or indoctrinated in this particular method?


No, I'm just stating the obvious. I have had enough experience with such a method to know that not all can do that.



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

I'm not saying that either. Look, I really don't care that much about iq, but there are things that an average person cannot do.



new topics

top topics



 
70
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join