ATS Troll or Enemy of Ignorance?

page: 3
82
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 12:54 PM
link   
problem with many that they don't read the references but they are very quick to debunk the thread. I salute all those that take their time and based on their intelligence and skills try to inform us. And I also salute all those who genuinely see problems with the thread and tries to refine it. We must also be aware that this sight doesn't discriminate between young, old, experienced or non experienced mentally sick or healthy.We all have some thing good to offer. When I read a quality thread, I appreciate it very much. Again to all those who do a good job, don't be discouraged from criticism. Those with the knowledge and experience, encourage them to come back to this sight. I personally enjoy this place better than any other place.




posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by KyoZero
 


I dont think anyone is expected to believe anything, I think the probolem starts with people feeling like they have to believe what everyone else feeds them. So they have to attack and defend their opinions when in fact no one was forcing them too.
So is there crazy ideas out there? Yes
Do they some how have evidence to support it? Sometimes yes.
Does it make it true? No, not always.

So just because someone share ideas doesnt mean you have to force to believe, remember, your the one (not you KyoZero in general) who clicked on the thread, no one forced you to read and believe.

Peace!



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by conar
 


While I do agree that skepticism in healthy doses is fundamental, there are quite a lot of pseudoskeptics out there practically running this forum down.

Too often I'll read stuff from arrogant people making fun of an author's thread altogether without adding any value whatsoever.

I'm sorry, but this whole gallant "ATS Skeptics keep it alive" sounds a bit arrogant and egotistic. To me, it feels like troll food, giving the wannabe skeptics a pat on the back.



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Mr Mask
 


Just a question:

What should we be skeptical of?

Should we be skeptical of the propaganda that the US Government feeds its citizens, or should we be skeptical of the person who is trying to show us the propaganda?

Or should we be skeptical of both?



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 01:35 PM
link   
The problem with people who are so called skeptics is that they many times:

1. Do not study the facts and make judgments without studying the facts, or use theories as facts, evolution for example a theory often used as a fact.

2. Use name calling or tagging, says anyone who questions 9/11 is labeled a truther, which the main stream media uses as more of a derogatory term.

I am always skeptical, but I take the facts and common sense into consideration, also faith.

Just because someone isn't good at typing up a response or had a college degree doesn't mean they are not intelligent and don't have common sense. In fact normal working people tend to have more common sense than so called experts do.


and why is Alex Jones on your little picture? This guy speaks more truth than anyone on the main stream news, and makes sure he tries his best to document everything he says.






[edit on 19-2-2010 by crusaderiam]



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by the way

This is a conspiracy website- people are entitled to believe what they want and others are free to debunk, its just the way that the debunking is done sometimes that really annoys me...

I agree with you in principle, but I have seen many a "polite and civil" skeptical post have its author immediately labeled "dis-info agent" just because the skeptical poster does not agree with the more "fantastic" explanations and instead has a very plausible mundane explanation.

This labeling a civil and intelligent skeptic as a dis-info agent doesn't happen often, but it happens enough to get me a little mad. In fairness to ATS, the civil skeptic in this case is usually defended by all of the more civil posters (on both sides of the issue), and the person making the unfounded allegation of "dis-info agent" is usually chastised.

[edit on 2/19/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 01:50 PM
link   
My view is, contrary to the OP's conclusion, that the skeptic/debunker is a savior or hero. I have saw many skeptics/debunkers who are as closed minded as the sensationalist poster. What I detest is either of them not having their facts organized and able to reason without resorting to belitteling the other.

It takes some courage to start a thread realizing you'll have to face ridicule from "automatic debunkers" who are dedicated, it would seem, to being negative, regardless. Also, I think there are far to many OP's who do not research to see if the topic has been covered in the past. They throw out a youtube video as fact that has been throughly debunked several times before.

We are a communty, seeking truth, here on ATS. Encountering unreasonable people as OP's or skeptics is ineveitable in a free and open exchange. But a free and open exchange is needed in order to seek truth. So, we have to endure each other's prejudices in order to. on occasion, catch a morsel of truth. All of us need to, at the very least, be civil and understanding with the other and remember none of us "know it all".



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 01:56 PM
link   
corruption of reality is a bigger threat than political corruption. Political corruption subverts government; corruption of reality subverts everything we do, from religion to science to how you and I think about how we're going to plan our day. Ignoring reality and receding into ourselves makes us blind to the consequences of our actions, and fills our heads with insane babbling produced by the neurotic social mind.



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 02:02 PM
link   
Skeptics are really just closed minded and/or stupid in my opinion.

They have their use, as does any lower form of life in the grand scheme of things but when applied to the bigger picture skeptics look really stupid almost across the board.

I'll explain,

On a case by case basis, yes skeptics are useful for debunking. They will give reasonable explanations for a certain event, or UFO video, or bigfoot picture or something like that. But, they can't explain everything regarding most of the phenomenon dealt with on this site, which means as far as the big picture regarding whatever phenomenon, they can't explain anything!

Example:
Big foot, there's a thread featuring an in depth analysis of the Patterson video. The video has been around for decades, so hurry up and debunk it. Here's the thread. Good luck debunkers, I'll be waiting for your brilliant explanations. I'm sure you'll take into account all the information presented and explain it piece by piece...you always do..


UFO's. Anyone who doesn't believe something is going on regarding this phenomenon is complete fool. Yeah debunking a little grainy vid of lights in the sky is easy enough but how about the mountains of evidence to suggest there's something to this, you can NEVER explain it all. Skeptics won't even touch the best UFO evidence. Basically because they're chicken and lack the integrity to concede that there IS something to this. Larry King always has a skeptic come on, this one kept repeating over and over that people were just mistaking lights in the sky, he wouldn't even respond when people would bring up other testimony, like actually physically touching a craft in broad daylight, or close up sightings from multiple witnesses who don't even know each other, who all pass lie detector tests, etc etc etc.

9-11, A good example is a thread recently, you can check it out right here, where the OP asks people to come in and explain a couple aspects of 9 11. Simple enough, but why is that when people bring up some interesting points he just disappears from the thread? Typical debunker behavior. Either he's str8 stupid for posting the thread in the first place without having well thought out explanations for the S-storm of evidence he would be seeing, or he's just a total coward.

My conclusion is that most skeptics, are heavily left brained people. Completely unbalanced. They're every bit as ignorant as people that believe people like prophet Yahweh(btw the pic in the OP is complete fail for not having him it, by far the funniest of all UFO crazies), just the other side of the coin.

NEXT!



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 02:06 PM
link   
Your image is golden Mr. Mask


Sorry I do not got time to read all the replies atm.
Just wanted to comment on a great post and his image, obviously.



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Mr Mask
 




Oh man! I can't stand it!!!!!



GREAT thread Masky-Mask. Who does your artwork for you? Somebody really, really talented and professional, obviously.


"I have a message to send you. Most of what goes on at ATS is harmless enough, but don't ever start trying to do something actually really serious like getting people to build free energy devices, or - KABOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!!!"



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by romanmel
My view is, contrary to the OP's conclusion, that the skeptic/debunker is a savior or hero. I have saw many skeptics/debunkers who are as closed minded as the sensationalist poster. What I detest is either of them not having their facts organized and able to reason without resorting to belitteling the other...

In my opinion, close-mindedness on ATS is a two-way street -- i.e. there are just as many closed-mind "blind believers" as there are closed-minded skeptics. Some blind believers are apt to "automatically" believe a sensational and fantastic explanation for an event, just because that explanation is sensational and fantastic (because it's more "fun" to believe in sensational explanations).

I would say that a blind believer is equally as close-minded as the worst skeptic.

...and those blind believers can be just as belittling towards others, and go out of their way to discredit a skeptic who has a plausible mundane explanation.



[edit on 2/19/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 02:11 PM
link   
That is because ATS is worthless for anything except breaking news that you won't find on other news websites. If you listen to any of the freaking moronic 0-discernment posters on this site... well....



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 02:13 PM
link   
Personaly I find that both the quality of OPs aswell as the the quality of the skeptics retorts has gone way down.

I used to see both sides of arguments using evidence, linking photos, snipping external info, for fodder in their arguments. Now I see a childish playground attitude. It's all insults and counter attacks. It's this I'm rubber your glue mentality that is spoiling ATS as a whole.

We all know what trolls do and some of them are very disruptive. Lately however, I find even seasoned skeptics and believers alike getting into the highschool mudslinging.

The best part is when someone calls out someone else with real evidence the person who is wrong seems to want to blame it on Fugue. Does no one have any scruples anymore. Has holding your tongue when you can do nothing but insult gone by the wayside?

Really though it all boils down to being the biggest and best public forum for alternative topics. I guess it just stands to reason that when your on top you get an unreasonable and disproportionate number of trolls, discenters, and basic all around haters.

[edit on 19-2-2010 by constantwonder]



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 02:19 PM
link   
I don't like many skeptics on this site. Oberg might be an example. Pompous and arrogant are immediate turn offs.

However, there are people here that could be called "skeptic", if you want, that i adore. They are not truly "skeptics", they are just people who are wanting truth, be it fantastic or mundane. Phage is an outstanding example of this. Of course people wait to hear what he has to say. He is brilliant in his material and presentation, and rarely acts in a way that would be construed as rude or arrogant.

Armap is another that i have often praised for "doing it right".

But, at the end of the day, it isn't "skeptic" or "believer" that i am here for. I am here to see reasonable, rational arguments for various topics. Whether we find something fantastic or mundane, it is the truth that matters. Everything else would be called "fiction", and is why i don't watch TV.

Edit to add: Mr Mask hasn't been here long. He tends to be a little crass from time to time. But it is nice to see a sense of humor.

Good thread, absolutely hilarious picture, it is good to have folks like you here, sir.

[edit on 19-2-2010 by bigfatfurrytexan]



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by liquidsmoke206
 


Your examples are silly.

1. From what I read no one even tried to "debunk" that thread (yet).
You have no idea what skeptics think of this of the video. you just assume all skeptics should have it debunked.

2. The BEST UFO evidence .. where bud ? Debunking is on a case to case and from what I seen a very high percentage of the videos posted here at ATS get debunked (by believes a lot of the time). "What is this best evidence "?

3. I stay away from 9/11 theories. no comment.

NEXT

[edit on 19-2-2010 by nophun]



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by nophun
 


maybe not as silly as you think...



1. From what I read no one even tried to "debunk" that thread (yet).
You have no idea what skeptics think of this of the video. you just assume all skeptics should have it debunked.

my point. They cant debunk it, so they just scurry away with their tail between their legs. I know there are people on this site that don't believe in bigfoot, so where are they? Come on, shut it down. I mean it's just a dude in a suit right?





2. The BEST UFO evidence .. where bud ? Debunking is on a case to case and from what I seen a very high percentage of the videos posted here at ATS get debunked (by believes a lot of the time). "What is this best evidence "?

Like I said, debunking some lame videos is easy. As far as best evidence, well there are plenty of threads on this site that present really good cases, they aren't hard to find. Just use the search tool. Also a good book to check out would be UFO's and the national security state by Rickard M. Dolan. Do skeptics ever read books that present arguments against their simplistic explanations? No they don't.



3. I stay away from 9/11 theories. no comment.

fair enough, but can you at least tell me why you stay away from them?



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by liquidsmoke206
 



Skeptics are really just closed minded and/or stupid in my opinion.

They have their use, as does any lower form of life in the grand scheme of things but when applied to the bigger picture skeptics look really stupid almost across the board.

I'll explain, On a case by case basis, yes skeptics are useful for debunking. They will give reasonable explanations for a certain event, or UFO video, or bigfoot picture or something like that. But, they can't explain everything regarding most of the phenomenon dealt with on this site, which means as far as the big picture regarding whatever phenomenon, they can't explain anything!


Usually you make a good point, I've starred a few of them. This one is way off beam. Good skeptics challenge ideas and support their points with evidence and links. The evidence is then open to debate or criticism. On the one hand you're saying they present reasonable arguments...on the other, you're saying they don't have all the answers. Nobody has 'all' the answers for all the phenomena discussed on ATS.

You spoil it by somehow concluding 'they can't explain anything.' That's a big leap and wholly rhetorical. Skeptics don't have all the answers and good skeptics don't even claim to. As usual we're all bogged down in perceptions and definitions of wtf a skeptic means.

On the best Bigfoot thread, I disagree once more. IMO the best Bigfoot thread is Gemwolf's...Patterson Bigfoot may be bigger than first thought. I didn't entertain the idea of Bigfoot....thanks to that thread I'm not so sure...



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Mr Mask
 


I don't want to p*** on your parade there OP but a while ago I was privy to some information which proved that this site was teaming with contracted members. This is one of the reasons, many of the experienced members left this site.

Disinfo agents / cointelpro whatever the you want to call them patrol these sites no questions asked, however, each member would never know who they are because thats the beauty of their game, a paid contracted member would never be as dumb to argue in the open, its done by various channels normally involving 4 or more people in order to manipulate opinions. Very clever indeed.

People who are called disinof agents such as Armap, IRM Kadinsky e.t.c they are all sceptical people who offer insight backed by science, unfortunately some members, normally younger cannot handle looking at science aswell as the unknown, so automatically they label them dis info operatives. You gotta laugh. Now phage on the other hand



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 02:52 PM
link   
skeptics and debunkers are a needed presence on any conspiracy forum.

There is also a difference between a person debunking something based on scientific principles, logic, reason, and perception and someone whom simply dismisses and ridicules something because it doesn't fit the current mainstream explanation of anything





new topics

top topics



 
82
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join