reply to post by GoldenFleece
The only way for the thread to actually get derailed is to respond to such posters. There are some skeptics who truly know what they are talking
about, but its incredibly
clear who those people are. There are some believers who truly know what they are talking about, and its also
incredibly clear who those people are. The rest make little more than posts without any sort of real substance, usually with the intent of getting
the other side to respond in order to get the thread away from actually discussing anything of substance.
Why do some feel there is a need
to respond to such posters?
By doing that, it brings the thread off course. Instead of using the posts to simply ignore such people and continue talking about the topic, the
posts are instead focused on "debunking the debunker" and that
is how topics get derailed and the initial concepts buried. Fighting fire with
fire, in this case, has pretty consistent results in that the thread goes to.. well, #e That is the very intent of such people. They are not
interested in actual science, information, data, or discussion. They are "in it to win it," and the intent is to "win" the argument regardless of
"truth." they are google crusaders and their only desire is to prove their own limited view of the universe "right." Those who respond in a
similarly off-topic manner are being played like puppets.
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
I am well aware of the "crusade" as i believe i was the first one to bring up such a notion in this thread, several pages back. It was
of text though, so the percentage of people who actually will read it probably drops by several orders of magnitude.
the same will undoubtedly
apply to this post as well. it is an intentional gating mechanism to avoid discussions with google crusaders
What do you feel is accomplished by responding to such people?
Their minds will be changed on nothing, until their "purveyors of truth" tell them what their reality is. Words used to convince such people (either
"yea" or "nay") are wasted, however, they play right into the plan (intentional or not) to derail the thread in the first place (with the intent of
the initial de-railer to fortify their own limited bias, by discrediting others). If everyone were to continue discussing as if no one had ever
posted such nonsense in the first place, the thread would not get derailed. Those who respond are equally responsible for bringing the thread off
track, especially if they are aware that the people they are speaking to will never, ever be convinced of anything.
Lets use the 2012 forum for an example of a "nay." It is obvious that some have some sort of affinity for a topic, as it will tend to be the only
topic they post in.
Where some people post it is with the seemingly clear intent to derail. at the very least, it is blatant that they have zero interest in actually
discussing the topic, and is much more interests in "winning by discrediting." the original posters, and others involved, start replying because they
feel the need to "convert the heathen." or at least, make sure that no one is converted by "nay" side in the first place. The thread itself turns
into some asinine "debate" on something which none of the participants actually know with certainty anyway. Instead of posting perceptions, data, and
interpretations of data, the discussion moves into outright bickering and then eventually dwindles when those involved get bored and move on.
"mission accomplished!" Nothing of substance was related by either side. This turns the thread into a useless waste of bandwidth, with both "yea"
and "nay" sides thinking they were successful in "defending" their viewpoint.
Most people that are reading have already made up their mind on everything, as they have pre-programmed themselves to re-act and decide before a
scenario is given. The rest of the people will decide for themselves, no matter what is said by any number of individuals on some message board.
The first group has already decided on everything they will encounter in life. There is no convincing them of anything, and any words used to do so
are wasted. Those words are, however, extremely efficient in getting the thread and topic completely away from any discussion with substance, and
into bickering. The intent is to confirm the already empty bias by "winning" in an argument against the other side. This is used to justify the
illogical position of knowing "absolute truth." There is zero discussion to be had with such people, in my experience. It is best to "agree to
disagree" and simply move on.
The second group will decide after exploring every aspect of it through several different avenues. There is no individual convincing them of
anything, and any words used to do so are wasted. These are the people who can actually have discussions about things, and realize our inherent
limitations. They are also much more likely to actually know what they are talking about. If any
type of discussion will be effective in
relaying concepts and perspectives of substance, it would surely be this. This group focuses in making theories based on all available information,
but realizes the inherent difficulty in jumping into either the "yea" or "nay" side in totality due to lack of omniscience.
Either way, peoples minds will not be changed because of bickering between the "yea" and "nay" sides, ever
. It would seem that if someone
truly wanted to get information out, that they felt was important, they would just let the people who only want to "win" do their "thing," as they
have a right to say it. and then would just continue to post as if they had never posted anything anyway. Because really, coming into a thread and
saying "wheres the evidence," or a derivative, are posts without any substance and should be treated as if it was either a blank, empty post or if it
had never been posted in the first place. They might as well come into a thread about the end of the world and state "Claussen pickles are the best."
Though, such a point is obviously not up for debate, as its clear they are the best!
So, instead of turning into a personal crusade (from both
sides) why dont people just focus on the topic? It would seem the most logical way
to go about it is to not allow others to intentionally start the derailment process by not continuing it ourselves, and only focus on posters that are
actually bringing something to the table (from both
sides). By treating discussions of topics as arguments/debates, the substance of the topic
and concept are quickly buried. Instead of attempting to prove one side "right" and the other "wrong," it would be significantly
productive to just focus energy and time on those that are more interested in the exploration of a given topic. When a true scientist sees a pattern,
they aim to explore it through countless different methods. For those that have programmed themselves, the "yea" side will say it proves some concept
they already had, and if any effort is put into exploration at all (not too likely), it will be done with the notion of proving what was already known
as "right." the "nay" side will simply say the pattern means nothing, and if any effort is put into exploration at all (not too likely), it will be
done with the notion of proving what was already known as "right."
Leaving the possibility of the "wrong" side being "right," even if only partially, would seem to be the only
productive way of going about
... Even if it does ruin ones illusion of being omniscient.
edit on 28-2-2011 by sinohptik because: singling out of poster was
unwarranted and clarity