Originally posted by MrAnnunaki
Originally posted by captiva
I have a suggestion to the truthers and the OS brigade....First the Truthers, and yes I am logical and clever enough to be one. Stop covering the same
topics over and over while sitting in your safe haven...get up off your ass and go do something about it !!
To the OS believers...whether a paid derailer or someone who chooses to follow the OS, please realise that your time for affecting any change in
truther beliefs has long gone. Every bit of evidence creates doubt in the logical, open minded brain. Hense the truther movement will one day help
show that there are US murderers who need to be brought to justice.
I am personally fed up with 9/11 threads and I bet Im not alone.
Truthers...take it to a new level !
OS...........you are wasting your time.
Why cant U take it to a new level and REALY DEBUNK THIS HEADACHE TOPIC OF YOURS.
MrAnnunaki, I don't know which side of the debate you support, but you have hit the nail on the head. Also, star & flag for the OP, I also agree
100% with the sentiment that drove you to start this thread. And captiva, I agree with you, too.
Individuals on both sides of the debate have grown weary of each other, both from beating the same dead horses long after the barn has burnt down as
well as from various tactics each side plagues the other with. This is getting us nowhere nearer to the truth, which is what we are supposed to be
caring about. Remember, sometimes someone from the other side really wants to understand what you're saying, or see where you got your information,
and regardless of whose side of the debate you're on, if you really want to spread your point of view you have to retain some respect for the other
side and be willing to help them see your point when they let you. So,Tsuki-no-Hikari, your post is very apt right now.
captiva, I share your pain--the "truthers" have the numbers and they have the evidence, yet remain quagmired in the face of limitless derision and
smart-ass insults veiled as logical arguments from both main stream media sources and the entrenched opposition here on ATS. And I agree that such
barrages are acts of desperation--but that doesn't mean they don't work. QWe do need to take this debate to a new level. As MrAnnunaki says, we
need to DEBUNK THIS TOPIC.
"But isn't that what were doing?" one on either side of the debate may ask. The default reaction to the impasse seems to be one of "We can't
because the other side is cheating/lying/idiots/incapable/paid by the government/etc" more and more often. I know that's how I've felt, especially
when dealing with particular posters (dereks, you shall remain nameless in this). Recently in responding to posts by seethelight, I realized why he
has been able to insult and insinuate his way through so many arguments: "our side" of this debate has gotten intellectually lazy, myself included.
It's as if we are often so convinced of our own perceptions of the event that we think that fervent belief is sufficient to prove our case, that
since we are correct we can reactively respond to any objections with the truth and put that debate to rest.
We know longer use the rules of debate and the rigors of logic to guide our minds and our posting. I sometimes feel that if one is right, one ought
to be able to "shoot from the hip" and hit the target effectively more often than not. (Probably a meme I picked up from watching action genre
There are rules to debate that establish things like burden of proof and what form that burden takes, based on the type of argument being put forth.
There are names for the fallacies of logic that both sides have fallen into using on each other. These ideas, logic and reasoned debate, use rules
and the principles of mathematics to determine the outcome of opposing points of view. But to use them effectively takes time and some effort,
although the rewards are numerous. If either side begins to use them across the board and reject fallacious arguments by calling them by name out for
what they are, it will debunk the thread after a short period of debates about the fallacies themselves. How short that period is can only be
determined by how rigorous the side that adopts this strategy is in its analysis of the other side's flawed arguments. Sometimes it is better to
let your emotions cool down before deciding just how your cage has been kicked, so that you can accurately expose under what pretense the argument
fails, thereby limiting debate. If everyone on, say, the "truther" side of the debate were to have the discipline to always respond to ad hominem
attacks with the same tactic, to call it out for what it is and refuse to take the bait by answering the antagonistic side of the remark until the
question or statement is put forth without the fallacy, the opposition will have to put up or shut up, or resort to even more juvenile tactics, which
would amount to posts that could be protested and removed, or, in some perfect universe, blocked by the mods before they developed chain reactions
within the thread.
This will only fit the goal of debunking the thread if enough people adopt it; the more who do will allow the opposition fewer and fewer opportunities
to get away with their trolling, and we will gain the benefit of restructuring our arguments so that they are logically rigorous and easier to defend
What do you think?
Right now very little of