Debunking and Rebuttals - as an option?

reply to post by MarkJS


I learn a great deal from people who disagree with my position.

If there is any merit to my opinion etc............. well it should stand up to some scrutiny.




Click Here To Engage In Confirmation Bias

No thanks.

mark, i get what you are saying. and in the perfect forum world, people would just simply use the "star" system once someone had said what they wanted to say, and not restate the same thing over and over again. i, personally, try to adhere to that policy, but admit that sometimes i will repeat something stated earlier in a thread, if i feel it got glanced over to quickly and needs to be emphasized.. plus, you know human nature... everyone has an opinion and everyone wants to be heard... lol

Originally posted by MarkJS
reply to post by GringoViejo

 

What would stop me from just checking "rebuttal?"

What if my rebuttal debunks something?

Debunking and rebuttal posts go hand in hand, and would be grouped under the same checkbox. The reader would simply choose to include them- or not.

In this line of thinking, if a person wanted to debunk or provide a rebuttal in a thread, but also had something to add to the core conversation- a link, whatever. They then would intelligently just make two posts accordingly.

Or, I could just not check either. Or you could accept the fact that no matter how much you try to censor the views of people who don't agree with you, that this place will always allow them a voice of dissent, or reason, or what have you.

We're trying to deny ignorance, not promote it by censoring views contrary to a threads OP.

Either way, this idea will never fly, might as well give up

reply to post by MarkJS


I'm afraid that your experience of ATS might not be broad enough if you are dividing things into "debunking" and "rebuttals." It is not unheard of for a political thread to turn into a heated and well thought out debate between, say, a Free Marketeer and a Neo-Keynesean. Who would you consider the "debunker" on that thread?

reply to post by DJW001

I'm afraid that your experience of ATS might not be broad enough if you are dividing things into "debunking" and "rebuttals." It is not unheard of for a political thread to turn into a heated and well thought out debate between, say, a Free Marketeer and a Neo-Keynesean. Who would you consider the "debunker" on that thread?

It's not a perfect system... You're right, sometimes the debate is such that the debunker is vague. Most times not, though. Most times they are clear as day. But to answer your question, my feeling is that a good rule of thumb to go by is: the viewpoint that opposes the OP is considered as the candidate.

reply to post by GringoViejo

Or, I could just not check either. Or you could accept the fact that no matter how much you try to censor the views of people who don't agree with you, that this place will always allow them a voice of dissent, or reason, or what have you.

We're trying to deny ignorance, not promote it by censoring views contrary to a threads OP.

For this to work, the moderators would be forced to check off that checkbox. Maybe after repeated infractions, points can be deducted, or some other minor consequence.

But not checking neither (or actually- the one checkbox is for both) may show that that particular poster wants to force everybody to read their debunker post, if they want to or not. How is this courteous and considerate to the board? How is this considered a positive attribute? If the reader wanted to read these, then they have that option. This is not censorship.... Consider it more like streamlining the threads. I think that it's the best of both worlds.

Originally posted by MarkJS
reply to post by GringoViejo
This is not censorship.... Consider it more like streamlining the threads. I think that it's the best of both worlds.

It is the automatic promotion of ignorance. I shouldn't be forced to self-identify as a debunker so that someone else doesn't have to be offended my debunking posts or even have to scroll past my name because they are that intolerant. What I say may have merit and may be important, you have no way of knowing that if you automatically exclude me and all others who might debunk the OP. To be frank, it's really just another form of bigotry. It's discrimination against debunkers and to add insult to injury, I'd be required to identify myself so that I could be discriminated against.

reply to post by ngchunter


Me thinks you are taking this too personal. If you checked off a post to identify that it is a debunking post- that is a little --> a lot different than labelling yourself as a debunker. The checking of the checkbox is only for that particular post. Your next post, even in the same thread, can be anything- even possibly agreeing with the viewpoint of the OP.

To be frank, it's really just another form of bigotry.

Thank you for your input. To me, the system as it is promotes bigotry. Debunking posts are by definition against the validity of whatever the main topic is at the time: which can be interpreted as bigotry. The two-tier thread system would eliminate that.

Originally posted by MarkJS
reply to post by GringoViejo

 

Or, I could just not check either. Or you could accept the fact that no matter how much you try to censor the views of people who don't agree with you, that this place will always allow them a voice of dissent, or reason, or what have you.

We're trying to deny ignorance, not promote it by censoring views contrary to a threads OP.

For this to work, the moderators would be forced to check off that checkbox. Maybe after repeated infractions, points can be deducted, or some other minor consequence.

But not checking neither (or actually- the one checkbox is for both) may show that that particular poster wants to force everybody to read their debunker post, if they want to or not. How is this courteous and considerate to the board? How is this considered a positive attribute? If the reader wanted to read these, then they have that option. This is not censorship.... Consider it more like streamlining the threads. I think that it's the best of both worlds.

Actually, its a pretty dumb plan. You assume that these posts are of no value, or need to be treated differently. Yet there is no way to conclusively decide if a post fits your (naive) definition.

The thing is, it doesn't matter. This idea is ridiculous, not just because it won't work.

Like I said, we're here to deny ignorance, not foster it.

Originally posted by MarkJS
reply to post by ngchunter

 

Me thinks you are taking this too personal. If you checked off a post to identify that it is a debunking post- that is a little --> a lot different than labelling yourself as a debunker. The checking of the checkbox is only for that particular post. Your next post, even in the same thread, can be anything- even possibly agreeing with the viewpoint of the OP.

To be frank, it's really just another form of bigotry.

Thank you for your input. To me, the system as it is promotes bigotry. Debunking posts are by definition against the validity of whatever the main topic is at the time: which can be interpreted as bigotry. The two-tier thread system would eliminate that.

edit on 6/10/2011 by MarkJS because: bold added

edit on 6/10/2011 by MarkJS because: added paragraph

edit on 6/10/2011 by MarkJS because: (no reason given)

Like I said, I could just not check the box.

But I knew it, the bigotry comments proved it, you believed or believe in something and a few (or more) people disagree with whichever "side" you support, and now your here trying to change the forum so your beliefs aren't challenged any more. Totally get it now.

Originally posted by MarkJS
reply to post by ngchunter

 

Me thinks you are taking this too personal. If you checked off a post to identify that it is a debunking post- that is a little --> a lot different than labelling yourself as a debunker.

Semantics. Most of my posts are debunking posts, so I'd be checking off nearly everything I post.

Thank you for your input. To me, the system as it is promotes bigotry. Debunking posts are by definition against the validity of whatever the main topic is at the time: which can be interpreted as bigotry.

Contradicting the OP based on the merits of what they said is not bigotry. Forcing people to self-identify themselves as debunkers (even on a post by post basis, which just makes it more annoying for us) so that they can be automatically discriminated against regardless of the merits of what they say, THAT is bigotry.

reply to post by ngchunter

Forcing people to self-identify themselves as debunkers (even on a post by post basis, which just makes it more annoying for us) so that they can be automatically discriminated against regardless of the merits of what they say, THAT is bigotry.

This is a good discussion.

I think- from a 'not wanting to read' perspective, the Ignore User approach is the one typically taken in forums. What is being proposed is a more civilized and humane alternative....

reply to post by MarkJS

The ATS motto is "deny ignorance".

It seems to me like the purpose of your suggestion is to promote ignorance. Give people the option to not read ideas that contradict their own; that's a pretty good formula for promoting ignorance.

Therefore you should suggest it on another site, preferably one with a motto of "promote ignorance".

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Change is in the air. There’s movement afoot everywhere. The status-quo has worked, but not as well as it could be for all people. That’s what Occupy Wall St (and demonstrations in other countries) is about- Change.

The ATS motto is "deny ignorance".

It seems to me like the purpose of your suggestion is to promote ignorance. Give people the option to not read ideas that contradict their own; that's a pretty good formula for promoting ignorance.

Therefore you should suggest it on another site, preferably one with a motto of "promote ignorance".

You’re right in saying that the main motto/slogan/mantra on this site is to “Deny Ignorance”. What seems to be missing is what this site is all about…. From what I read, this is an alternative topic board. Quoting from the site: about

Just the Facts

AboveTopSecret.com is the Internet's largest and most popular discussion board community dedicated to the intelligent exchange of ideas and debate on a wide range of "alternative topics" such as conspiracies, UFO's, paranormal, secret societies, political scandals, new world order, terrorism, and dozens of related topics with a diverse mix of users from all over the world.

…. It is Not a mainstream ideology, or mainstream world-view site.
Some people have never experienced anything ‘out of the ordinary’ their entire lives. If you do not believe in, have experience in, or know anybody who has had experience in things such as ghosts, UFOs, witches, astral travel, God, Satan, angels, demons, conspiracies, strange sounds in sky, birds flying all crazy, time slips, time travel… etc., then you, my friend may find yourself at odds with most of the people posting threads on this site, and consequently with the site itself. While you are attempting to ‘Deny Ignorance’, you may effectively be promoting it- by coming against the authors of OPs here. If this be the case, a more mainstream site may be a better fit for you to spend your time on. But come back here once in a while. As you said, this site’s purpose is to ‘Deny Ignorance’…. So you may be able to glean one or two new things as you read on.

You’ve probably hear the expression: “Freedom isn’t free”. I would like to extend this theme to mean: “Free Speech isn’t free” as well. Judging from your responses, you come across as a person who feels that one’s posts will never be read anymore again. Sorry you feel so threatened.

The proposed thread-construct will allow people to pass over posts that contain a different viewpoint than the OP may present. Your right to free speech is not denied… you would still be able to post and post all you want. The point of contention is more like: Do we really want to hear what your contradictory post may have to say? Just because a person submits a post, does that automatically imply that everybody who reads said thread should be exposed to it? While free speech is available: hearing/reading or not hearing/reading that free speech post should be the right of the reader as well. The two should go hand-in-hand.

Originally posted by MarkJS
.

The proposed thread-construct will allow people to pass over posts that contain a different viewpoint than the OP may present. Your right to free speech is not denied…

No, its not denied, but it is made impotent.Doing as you suggest will mean that the quality of threads on this website will plummet,due to people no longer having the ability to make thier points and have them seen when a false or mistaken thread is published. In essence this is about taking the teeth out of the peer review process, and I think that stinks.

you would still be able to post and post all you want. The point of contention is more like: Do we really want to hear what your contradictory post may have to say? Just because a person submits a post, does that automatically imply that everybody who reads said thread should be exposed to it?

If you do not want to hear what other posters have to say about your thread, then you need not bother posting it in the first place, since it is clear that you do not WISH to have a discussion. What you seem to be after is an organised back slapping party , at which you would like to be able to call the sky a battleship and the ground an abstract painting consisting of a rubber duck, a pine cone, and a VW Beetle, without being challenged to validate your claims. That would be a CRAP website to be part of.

While free speech is available: hearing/reading or not hearing/reading that free speech post should be the right of the reader as well. The two should go hand-in-hand.

But one already HAS the power to gloss over a counter argument. It happens all the time, from both camps, both debunker and thread writer. You see an argument you dont like, and you ignore it. The only problem there is that not replying to a good point makes ones argument appear weak in the face of that point. Theres a reason for that. And that reason is simply , that if ones argument, ones point of veiw cannot stand up to reasonable examination, then that veiw point is very possibly flawed.

It may be tiresome to have to explain things to those who seem hell bent on throwing spanners in the carefully laid works of your understanding of the universe, and of others understanding of the universe, but it is fundamental to the operation of this site, that both opposing sides of a debate or discussion have thier information presented equaly, on the same page, so that they may compliment eachother, and so that the membership can gain insight from both sides. It is also done this way to prevent people who are quite simply "doing it wrong" from getting away with it without being corrected. This is the only way things CAN work around here.

If it were any other way,then this place would have turned into a big binary pity party for all the abductees , time travelers, and indigo children that no one believes the stories of, and I would never have joined in the first place,along with most of the membership I would have thought.

Sorry double post.
.

reply to post by TrueBrit


Thank you for your input. I haven't posted in this thread in a few months. Please do not mistake my silence as acquiescence. I believe that the purpose has been explained... the why's and how's should be sufficiently laid out already.

For an excellent example of where a two-tiered thread could have helped, possibly even improved, or even saved a life, is here:ATS Thread- My mother... A plea for help was made to the ATS community. Mostly what were dished out was cold analysis and accusations. Wasn't necessary, my friends. It really wasn't necessary.

reply to post by MarkJS


I have read this thread, and it seems to me that your veiw of the content of the thread is somewhat biased. Its true that some of the posts within the thread are less than helpful to the OP. But it is also true that there are plenty of posts which try to address the concerns of the OP, by linking related information posted by OPs mother, suggesting particular entries which might be of interest to someone whos relative is perhaps nearing the crossing point between one world and another.

This suggests to me that far from being a problem, the debunkers and detractors on this thread, as with most threads, are just calling it how they see it. If the OP wanted a psychomedical assement of the situation, this is NOT the place to get it. This is a place for reasoned debate, not diagnosis. If the OP has access to her mothers account in this instance, then she should be using the friendlist to contact her mothers friends on the site to see if they will offer some insight and support, and use any information gained from the site , by providing such data as are recovered to seasoned pro psychologists, neurologists, and doctors in related fields, via online discussion boards on related sites, or by collecting the data and providing it to the specialist doctors looking after her mother.

Believe the only genuine example of what you are talking about, would be the actions of members toward Jared Lee Loughner during the months and weeks before his assasination attempt on Gabrielle Giffords, which also resulted in the deaths of various persons around his target. It was clear from his posts that he was suffering from several clear symptoms of severe mental dysfunction, and yet all he got was abuse. That lesson has been well learned. People may not ALL be prepared to believe what they believe to be hogwash, and many will out right discount anything that does not appear to have been written by a reasoning person, but many others here on the site, wether debunker or believer, or wether so firmly on the fence that they get splinters, will be perfectly capable and happy to help a person in that level of distress.

Again, your veiwpoint is skewed massively, if you think that this is just a place where people with weird stories are abused. There wouldnt be so much utter twaddle spoken about Niburu and so on, if this was a place where cold logic is God, and apparant unreason a target for extreme termination.

What you propose is dangerous.
Prevents the possibility for growth and acquisition of knowledge.
It also kills the two main functions of this site, those being discussion, and denial of ignorance.

You can't discuss something if you preach to the choir or if you bury your head in the sand when a dissenting speaker steps up for their turn.

Honestly if you want the board to descend into useless-ness your idea is the best way.

I suggest (if you want a lock step discussion with no dissenting views offered) you find another forum, as ATS is all about discussion and denying ignorance.
You can't have either without dissenting views.

What follows is a post I made on another thread re this topic before I removed it.
I removed it because honestly not only is your idea horrible but to thread jack someone else's thread just to gain views/reads of a thread that hasn't been replied to in over 2 months is just rude.
It's a bad idea, and thread jacking just to drum up support isn't right.

Here is was I was gonna say on the thread you tried to jack.

--------------------------------------

There are a few problems with that.

Who determines if the person posting is opposed.
I started out liking the OP and just tried to help.
It wasn't until much later that the OP tipped me against him.
So who determines?

Yes their posts can be read... but only as an option.

What like choosing to view a comment with many thumbs down on youtube you have to actively select it?
That doesn't allow for proper discussions.
If we only read posts we agree with we never grow as individuals.
If we don't see dissenting view points we aren't challenged, and we could miss out on information.
Even opposing views deserve to be seen.

I would say that as long as a post doesn't violate the ToS and contain undo insults, or violent rhetoric then yes everyone should be exposed to all posts.
Your asking for a sheltered world view and growth can not occur when one is sheltered.

Not to mention on certain threads there could be very important posts that point out significant flaws in an OP.
If you segregate these posts there are people who could miss them.

How can we collectively as a board "Deny Ignorance" if we ignore all the input?
We can't, the board as it exists to Deny Ignorance would cease to exist and we would spiral into the chaos of crack pot theories.

Your suggestion would remove the main purpose of the board which is discussion.
You can't discuss something if you ignore the opposing view points.
Might as well preach to the choir and stick your head in the sand if a guest speaker comes in.

I would suggest an anti flag and anti star as means of the board members weighing in on entire threads and entire posts.
If the post adds something give it a star, if not a red star.
Same with threads.
If it's interesting give it a flag, if a thread in your opinion is bunk give it a red flag.

Don't censor posts, change their level, or make people actively have to display them.
You can't discuss anything like that and you certainly can't Deny Ignorance if you ignore dissenting view points.