It is very frustrating to try and intelligently discuss a matter when a thread is hijacked and derailed by people who have no desire for truth. It is
really unbelievable how people behave here at times, when I'm sure they would never get away with such tactics in their jobs... or maybe they do
I am referring to the various tactics that I have seen employed here on ATS that are clearly either intentional disinfo and deflection, or extreme
cases of impaired mental processes.
Here are some of the tactics I am referring to:
1) If a topic dealing with Zero-Point Energy is introduced, there emerges a raft of people who spring forth claiming "impossible", or "hoax", when
they have not introduced one shred of proof that it is a hoax. And no matter what points you bring up to try and convince them, they do not come back
with counter-ARGUMENTS, they come back with more epithets of derision. This is highly suspicious of a prejudiced agenda of disinformation, and here
A) If the subject was really a hoax, why are they so enthusiastic about saying so? Why are they so passionate about resisting it with chanted mantras
of "hoax", and not with one shred of evidence? Why are they so driven to keep man bound in the current shackles of current understanding? They are
clearly afraid of something, but what? What is motivating them, if not some agenda to dissuade others from pursuing the truth in the matter?
B) If they really had any solid arguments against the supposed hoax, why do they not present them? Why do they not make a solid case to support their
accusations? Why do they commit such slander against others, not providing one shred of evidence to their claims? They say things like "if that
were me, I would do it this way, and because they are not doing it that way, it must be a hoax!" and other types of nonsensical circular-reasoning
and flawed logic.
C) If they are truly just trying to defend a position that they believe to be true, why are they not willing to have their claims cross-examined? Are
they really that unskilled in debate? Everyone knows that in a courtroom the prosecutor starts off with the premise that the defendant is guilty,
while the defender starts off with a presumed innocence. Then each argues from their prejudiced point-of-view. The lawyers are not seeking truth...
they are trying to convince an impartial jury of their position, and it it the jury's job to find the truth. Are we not supposed to be like the
JURY? Anyone who behaves like a lawyer must have some agenda other than truth, in which case we must then ask, who is paying the retainer fee?
2) Another tactic often seen is to misdirect the arguments so they focus on things that really don't matter, and are not germane to the point at
hand. For example, if a particular scientist has some trumped up accusations against him, this is brought forward as proof that the original point is
wrong. It is used in court also... destroy the credibility of the witness. The problem with this technique is that it is no guarantee that the
witness is lying or wrong. And if you bring up that the scientist was framed or unjustly maligned, that is laughed at as ridiculous! Here, on a
conspiracy site, the idea of unjust slander is laughed at!
3) Another tactic is to do smorgasbord responses, which is especially frustrating. Basically, they are doing what the MSM does... misquote or
selectively quote in order to give a different perspective than what was meant. If you say "the scientist was wrong about that particular item, but
then in subsequent tests, he found his error and corrected it...", the disinfo responder will just quote the first part "the scientist was wrong...
he found his error...", and then they will say "See, you even admitted he was wrong!" This is just such blatant manipulation and deception!
These are just a few tactics that come to mind immediately, but there are many more that I have witnessed first hand.
My question is, WHY ARE THEY DOING IT? In one case that happened recently, there was a real attempt at trying to discuss the science behind ZPE
energy systems, and there were some that just refused to discuss with intelligence. No matter what was said or presented, they kept repeating their
mantras of disinfo and deflection. I had a hard time believing they were actually that stupid or thick, so my only conclusion was that they must be
doing this intentionally with some malicious agenda in mind.
I fully agree that people should be able to voice their intelligent rebuttals and that intelligent skepticism is healthy and necessary to finding
truth. What is NOT HELPFUL, however, and actually COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE is blind and ignorant rejection, masquerading as skepticism.
If you say "aliens exist" and I say "no they don't", it then becomes necessary for each of us to present objective evidence either for or
against, if indeed any kind of progress is to be achieved. Even opinions should be informed and based on something other than pure biased conjecture,
for what value does that really hold? If we are not here to learn and progress, that what is ATS really all about?
After all, what is the process for denying ignorance? Perhaps there should be some "rules of engagement" that help to foster meaningful debate and
help to neutralize the disinfo "agents" and daft-brained thread derailleurs.