Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

ATS Troll or Enemy of Ignorance?

page: 5
82
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Point of No Return
 


I would comment on your comment but I'm indifferent to it.




posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by davec0021
 


Uhuh.

But you did just comment on my comment, so your not indifferent to it.

I rest my case.



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 04:07 PM
link   
This quote would sum up this thread nicely:

"Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it." - Andre Gide



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 04:09 PM
link   
I think it's going a bit too far to say that posts from "skeptics" are the only ones worth reading, but I have S&F'd this because I agree with the sentiment. People who label those who disagree with them as disinfo agents, etc., do themselves and the other users of this website a great disservice.

I doubt many minds will be changed by this thread, and I dislike the idea of a hard dichotomy between "believers" and "skeptics." But I would like to see more faith in empirical research and more use of reliable primary sources when discussing anomalous phenomena and controversial events/people/hypotheses. Those who reject what they call "mainstream science" and other aspects of objective reality are ultimately as boxed in as they accuse others of being; they're simply trapped in a different-shaped box.



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Mr Mask
 


Well if you like, we can all agree all the time. That way, we know that everyone has the same thought processes, the same beliefs, the same motives, and none of those little diversions known as...the critical thought processes.

Hitler was pretty successful at it...for a little while.

And I understand your concern. But, the truth is...There are disinfo agents out there, there are people who are paid to skew the facts, and there are people who simply lie to meet their ends. We don't live in a perfect world, and some people need to be identified.

So, although I'm not against what you have to say...there are exceptions to the rule. And there may be many more exceptions to the rule than we are aware of.


[edit on 19-2-2010 by EvolvedMinistry]



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Point of No Return
reply to post by davec0021
 


Uhuh.

But you did just comment on my comment, so your not indifferent to it.

I rest my case.


OK PONR,

I'll bite. As a digital citizen of ATS, I simply expressed my right to agree or disagree. In my case, I thought the picture was funny, regardless of what I believe, I starred and flagged the post. It is a good topic of discussion and I like humour, therefore I gave it some attention.

Isn't it great that places like ATS exist? You can express your opinion and I can express mine, who cares what either us believe, and sincerely I don't.

Please feel free to question anyone here, it's your right as it's anybody's right who disagrees with any post here. Therefore the OP hasn't violated anyone, or insulted anyone by using satire to illustrate a point.

Dave



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 04:33 PM
link   


I do not understand why so many people boo the debunker/skeptic.


ATS is a conspiracy website. Where ideas, opinions and theories of such are the foundation of the very being of this website. Conspiracies along with the people who post and discuss such topics are who keep the site alive, well and growing.



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry
 


I wish people would learn that when one recruits Hitler into an argument for or against anything in particular, one will no longer be taken seriously. At best, it's disingenuous, offensive and intellectually lazy.



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Skepticism can only be used in a case to case basis, the whole idea is to question every case. This is how I think of it anyways.

Credulity is the opposite of skepticism, So a skeptic should not just ever accept a anything until it is proven or observed.

Even when I see something I can not explain or has not been explain does not mean I should switch to pseudoskepticism. This would again is not skepticism.

I am trying to show that when you start to believe something because something is unexplained you are no longer in the area of skepticism.

Also skepticism is not the denial of the unexplained, it is the questioning of everything.

I know some "skeptics" seem to think they have the answer before they enter a thread here at ATS (or anywhere in the world) but they are not truly skeptics in my eyes they are not questioning anything they are just giving a robotic answer.

A skeptic is not necessary the same as a "debunker". I see some debunkers right here on ATS that just flat on deny everything and everything not giving a example or reason. Again not questioning not skeptic.

The reason I am posting this is because I feel some of you think skepticism is the opposite of anything questionable, when in fact it is to question everything.



In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved.

– Marcello Truzzi, On Pseudo-Skepticism


In short, Prove your claims and you will have skeptic followers.

Here is my favorite definition of skepticism.



A method of obtaining knowledge through systematic doubt and continual testing.


Deny Ignorance.



[edit on 19-2-2010 by nophun]



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by articulus
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry
 


I wish people would learn that when one recruits Hitler into an argument for or against anything in particular, one will no longer be taken seriously. At best, it's disingenuous, offensive and intellectually lazy.


That's comedy gold.

So why would anyone take you serious?

Take your own medicine boy!




posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Point of No Return
 


I'm not entirely sure what you mean, but it seems fairly clear that you've missed my point. I don't want to start flying off-topic, so I'll keep it brief for you.

I don't completely disagree with what EvolvedMinistry said above, but I disagree with the characterization, and that is what I was addressing. Hitler analogies are almost never smart rhetorical devices, unless we are speaking about genocide, or totalitarianism, or the military conquest of Europe. When you equate a person's actions or viewpoints to those of Hitler, you are using an extreme form of hyperbole which is nearly always wildly off-base. When you do that, it makes it sound like you don't know what you are talking about, and so you compare the person you disagree with to Hitler as a way of marginalizing or demonizing them.

We see this with anti-Obama protesters today, who paint a Hitler-esque mustache onto a portrait of the US president. We saw it as well with the anti-Bush protesters during that president's two terms. Did any of those signs, posters, or slogans make you think differently? Did they really make sense?

Hitler was a vegetarian. Would you find me credible if I compared vegetarians to him? Have you ever read Nietzsche or Jung? So did Hitler. See what I did there?

I don't actually ask to be taken seriously by anybody; I do hope, however, that by conveying my points in a respectful and level headed manner, people will be more inclined to hear what I have to say.



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by davec0021
 





I'll bite.


You'll bite?

Can't you just say you'll answer my question?




Please feel free to question anyone here, it's your right as it's anybody's right who disagrees with any post here. Therefore the OP hasn't violated anyone, or insulted anyone by using satire to illustrate a point.


The only point he proves with that pic is the mindset that some people must be crazy idiots for believing what they believe, and that they should be ridiculed.

You endorse that, no matter how you look at it, by starring and flagging.

Off course you are entitled to that, it's just very weak, that's all.



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 05:03 PM
link   
I think it is safe to say that in order for ATS to remain where it is sceptics are welcome along with true believers, surely thats what makes good conversation here. IMHO this thread should be stickied that way any new member or existing member can see what ATS is all about, and that is its not just about the them and us mentality its about hearing both sides of the conversation and learning new things.

There isn't anyone on this site that can say they know it all, (although I know there are some members that would disagree with me) the truth is to say that everyone who disagrees with you is a truther,debunker e.t.c is ridiculous and should be treated as such.

ATS is a platform that we can all use to learn together simple as.



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by articulus
 


Lol, you accuse a poster of something, yet you do exactly the same in your own post, and continue doing so in your last post.

Lol.



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 05:07 PM
link   
"Skeptics are often the ONLY thing worth reading on ATS at ALL!"

Really? I mostly come here to read the absurdities. It's like picking up a copy of Weekly World News for free.



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Point of No Return
 


I haven't accused anyone of anything, I was commenting on the use of the "Hitler did that too" argument. And I have not employed that argument myself, I merely attempted to demonstrate its inefficacy as a basis for disagreeing with somebody. I'm sorry you are unable to grasp the difference.



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Point of No Return
 


Crikey, Point of No Return, I have been reading some of your posts tonight and I have to ask...........have you ever been labelled a troll? you seem to write with some conviction.

Definition of troll:



In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion


Source

[edit on 19-2-2010 by franspeakfree]



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Mr Mask
 





Skeptics are often the ONLY thing worth reading on ATS at ALL!


Yet another blatant sign of the real problem here.

This is a conspiracy site, and you feel the skeptic posts are the only ones worth reading.

What's the point of comming here then?

It just shows that your mind is already made up, it's pathetic.

Stick to the mainstream media from now on.



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Mr Mask
 




All parades made of crap will get their final pooping on.


That will be so, see below!

My experience with pseudo-skeptics, especially one's who have superhero logos all ready to go:
1) They probably wet the bed and were not let out much as children.
2) They never spent much time outdoors, nor had any experiences in the wilderness after dark (booo!).
3) Boy or Girl scout camp was terrifying to them, and the ghost stories made them call their mommy. 1 summer max.
4) If they asked the priest or psychologist if something was true, even if they saw it with their own eyes, they would believe the authority of the dogma.
5) They read some science books, but mostly majored in drama.


When you have experienced some real phenomena on your own, you'll be back, trying to tell the story like many before you.


[edit on 19-2-2010 by 1SawSomeThings]



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by articulus
 





I wish people would learn that when one recruits Hitler into an argument for or against anything in particular, one will no longer be taken seriously.


Isn't this exactly what you did, 3 times already?





new topics

top topics



 
82
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join