ATS FAILURE? (ATS Members, Your Opinions on Tough Debunking Please)

I'm aware of that, and I could accept it if they didn't have that nice "Deny Bias" caption underneath the ATS logo. It's like FOX calling itself "Fair and Balanced"

We all define truth in different ways. Belief, misplaced or not, plays a big part in how look at a subject we feel strongly about. It dosent matter if that belief is UFO's, 9/11, the Yeti or whatever. If you believe in something strongly enough you will fight to the Death to defend that belief. And you can bet your bottom dollar that someone somewhere believes just as strongly in the opposite you do.
I like disscusion, i like to look at things and have someone explain to me something i had not thought of before, to see a new angle. But even though i will listen, if i dont agree with that person i dont flame them and i dont try to debunk the evidence they present. I will take from the conversation what i think is important and then keep my own council about the rest.
I personaly think debunking is counter preductive, it stops people bieng as open with their opinions and ideas as perhaps they would be otherwise.

I have my own opinions about 9/11 and its causes and aftermath, but i keep them to my self because it is such an emotive subject that no matter what your point of view it will invariably turn in to a flame war and people will argue to the point where rational disscusion becomes impossible.
But people are like that and will defend an idea or belief against anyone who believes otherwise.

As for the Mods, well so far from what i have seen they are even handed and fair in regards to what is after all a huge site to police. But we have to remember that they are people too and have their own set of beliefs and truths and will defend them just as hard as we do.

Consider this fact:

Most conspiracy theorists are either religious, superstitious, or both. By this I mean that they are willing to believe as true those things for which direct evidence is lacking.

Conspiracy theorists take several little unrelated bits of information and link them together to formulate a seemingly logical conclusion; then they call it "evidence". Fortunately, most of these "links" have holes in them large enough to drive a truck through.

Consider this fact:

Most conspiracy theorists are either religious, superstitious, or both. By this I mean that they are willing to believe as true those things for which direct evidence is lacking.

Where is your direct evidence to support this supposed "fact" about "most" conspiracy theorists? Since you appear to be presenting yourself as the expert (as evidenced by your above assertions) show us some frequency distributions, in the very least.

Conspiracy theorists take several little unrelated bits of information and link them together to formulate a seemingly logical conclusion; then they call it "evidence".

Great, and again, I ask you to present your evidence of this phenomenon.

Looking forward to your presentation,
MK

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Consider this fact:

Most conspiracy theorists are either religious, superstitious, or both. By this I mean that they are willing to believe as true those things for which direct evidence is lacking.

Conspiracy theorists take several little unrelated bits of information and link them together to formulate a seemingly logical conclusion; then they call it "evidence". Fortunately, most of these "links" have holes in them large enough to drive a truck through.

I will tell you for a FACT that I am neither.
As above,do you have any facts to back that up?

By using this message board, you agree to the following:

1.) You will not post any material that is knowingly false, misleading, or inaccurate.

Maybe you should be warned or banned for making such a statement as it DOES go against the terms of the board.

See,all this thread is doing is getting people pissed off about this and that and so far,I see one person has been warned because of his argument.Im not saying this thread was created with any intentions to get these replies,but Im sure you could see it coming.

Originally posted by LadyV
there are not many boards that would even allow you to question a mod or an admin, you would be immediately banned

Good point. There is a Biblical Innerancy Webboard that won't even accept pre-apporved members who already agree with them, and I think the Intelligent Design webfourm is not accepting any new members because of similar problems.

I find it rather strange the some people think that because a mod disagrees with them, that that somehow means they can't argue their position anymore. I suppose in those cases its because these people don't have any actual arguement for or against anything, just an assertion that their own position is correct.

This is something that needs not be discussed at all.
Anything that is made as a thread, that holds any weight as possibly being fact, should be, and will be if at all possible debunked.

Originally posted by rustiswordz
im surprised that Skeptic in his opening post suggests that ideas arnt wanted on this forum.

Thats a pretty silly thing to say, anyone can just read his post and see that he said nothing like that. The closest he comes to saying something like that is where he suggests that people who have no evidence, arguement, or anything resembling proof to back up their 'ideas' not just sit there and constantly repeat them, when convincing evidence has been presented for the alternative. I mean, this isn't just some fourm where a person should come over to, make a wild statement, and then not back it up.

And the 'Deny ignorance' catchphrase is a double edged sword, because ive seen and been subjected to the moderators embracement of ignorance.

Making statements but not backing them up is the specific type of 'ignorance' he was talking about. As far as mods effing up, well, as some say, 'mods are gods', but they aren't perfect.

Funny that isnt it. the skeptics say 'Deny ignorance' for their own purposes and us believers cry 'deny ignorance' for our own.

How about dropping slogans are presenting evidence and arguements?

PS: I'll be sad to think that ATS is nothing but a debunking forum designed to keep peoples heads jammed in the sand.

How can it be anything other than what the people posting to it make it?

skipshipman
When both sides of an argument are absent, and when we have to follow the truth wherever it leads. An honest process uses the "Ben Franklin," method, namely to list both sides of any issue as completely as possible in order to make an informed choice for action.

That would be a good method, except that 'conspiracyish' ideas tend to have non-evidence in their support. People talk about 'geling' of ideas and how the whole thing together 'makes sense', even if it directly contradicts rather good evidence. So thats hardly the 'frankling' balance sheet method talked about.

janus
I personaly think debunking is counter preductive, it stops people bieng as open with their opinions and ideas as perhaps they would be otherwise.

Debunking does seem to imply trying to disprove and discredit a particular idea. Objectively examining evidences in parrallel would be prefered, though I guess its not as catchy as 'debunking'

mkultra
Where is your direct evidence to support this supposed "fact"

I had thought about asking a similar question, but if you look at it, it does appear that the majority of conspiracy people, at least here, seem to ultimately but things in terms of good and evil or have alien gods pulling puppet strings from another dimesion. There obviously are non religious-spiritual conspiracy theorists out there, but it does look like most are of the latter type.

What bothers me most is the concept of "main content" on the site of which the Pentagon thread recently became a part of. I don't want to go in detail on the Pentagon thread, but I think it's very misleading, and still leaves a lot of questions unexplained. It is most likely a plane, but it's not very convincing in the type of plane.

Anyway, the "main content" does not represent concrete facts and conclusions about the various subjects they pertain to. There are parts in the "main content" that can possibly be debunked.

Though, I haven't been a member for long, I don't like the fact that the main content represents me indirectly. It seems to uphold the views of ATS and by association the views of its members. That is misleading.

It just seems to me that bias plays a factor in the mod/admin's opinion for what is true and right in regards to "main content." I feel that such main content is misconstrued to be absolute truth and represent the views of all of those in ATS.

This just forms concrete boundaries and a polarity in which to split the members. It reduces intelligent discussion on a topic to name-calling.

I see the consequence of bumping the pentagon thread to the "main content" when I review the posts. The "popular conspiracy theorists" being accused of being main-stream, crazy, ignorant, stupid, or whatever else. I learned this the other day, it's called an ad hominem argument.

These are the same tactics being levelled against those who support such threads as well.

If you want to make this site more conducive to intelligent discussion, I say do away with this concept of "main site content." It only serves to tear the relationship of ATS members apart by ignoring the diversity of opinions.

[edit on 18-9-2004 by Jamuhn]

He's what the dictionary says about the word "debunk"

verb
To cause to be no longer believed or valued:
deflate, discredit, explode, puncture.
Informal shoot down.
Idioms: knock the bottom out of, shoot full of holes.


So yes i think that debunking is a negative thing to do, intelligent discussion yes
Debunking, no.

Originally posted by Janus

So yes i think that debunking is a negative thing to do, intelligent discussion yes
Debunking, no.

You can't have an intelligent discussion when the other side refuses to be intelligent, though.

Originally posted by Esoterica

Originally posted by Janus

So yes i think that debunking is a negative thing to do, intelligent discussion yes
Debunking, no.

You can't have an intelligent discussion when the other side refuses to be intelligent, though.

That is very true, but we can at least try.

I think that there are times intervention is called for. But as Moderators, you should introduce your opinions and information to enrich the discussion.

I think the real problem is that passion overcomes decorum, and people resort to insults instead of position. That is the one thing I have noticed in many threads.

Now I am thick skinned, and can fend for myself, but it IDSCOURAGES and open discussion without being productive. Example, the current thread on why vote for Bush. Insult city.

So keep doing what your doing, and saying what your saying. Free Speech is alive and well, let's just keep it civil.

The Spider

ATS has, as it's content, a motherlode of questions. That is, after all, what I think this is all about...questioning the events leading up some earth shaking occurance, shady groups or evidence of underground cities.

But I don't want just speculation, either...answers would be good too.

It seems impractical to not expect some conspiracies to become dead in the water as we progress through the search for the truth.

After all, the motto here is 'Deny Ignorance', so, when what once was a firebrand (for all of us who love a good conspiracy) falls flat in the face of undeniable fact, then I would think we should move on and take another theory on for size.

I hardly think it would be surprising to see answers and conclusions to some of these theories. Personally, I would be disappointed if we never got anything right and always danced around the issues without ever getting it nailed down.

If what seems to be a 'done deal' suddenly comes alive again with speculation, then that's good too...never quit 'til the last stone has been turned.

I'm here for the answers, not the questions... the undeniable proving of whatever ideas or conspiracies we pursue.

.
When people come in with a front end loaded thread like '9/11: A Boeing 757 struck the Pentagon' or others that come in with an Agenda it smacks of attempting to DICTATE opinions NOT encourage and foster discussion, speculation, new ideas.

To Deny Ignorance is to open up free interchanges of ideas, NOT SQUELCH them.

Thought is the Active Engagement of the Mind NOT the termination of a line of inquiry.

One of the most Beautiful aspects of the Universe is it's complexity. Some people seem bound and determined to live in as tiny a box as they can manage. If for no other reason than the creation of fantasy tales and stories for writers the maximum number of viewpoints is in itself an act of creation and should be cherished and loved for it.

If I wanted someone telling me what to think I would read Marx or 'Mao's little Red Book'.

Originally posted by slank


If I wanted someone telling me what to think I would read Marx or 'Mao's little Red Book'.

so who here is telling anyone what to think? If this is what you honestly feel is happening to you, or nayone else, here...why do you stay?

.
Because younger more fragile minds than mine may be affected. [that sure sounds pompous], but ernestly people do tend to find strength in numbers, especially when it comes to opinions and ideas. To ruthlessly belittle others who simply disagree with one's own view of things with the idea of making anyone who holds that opinion feel stupid or ignorant is to shrink the arena of acceptable ideas and thereby limit the mindspace inwhich we exist.

Personally I would like to EXPAND the arena of ideas not try to get into as small a cubbyhole of thought as possible.

What a sad and dreary world it would be without imagination. Think of all the technological advances that have occured not in spite of religious and even so-called scientific minds saying it wasn't possible, or wouldn't work.

Freedom is a sweet song, heard on each gentle breeze.
.

And again...I have to ask. If this is what you honestly feel....why are you here? Why does one stay where one feels people are so badly treated? I think you are reading what's not there...you view on this is in the minority here. I'm sorry if someone made you feel inferior....but all I have had to say, still stands

Originally posted by LadyV

And again...I have to ask. If this is what you honestly feel....why are you here? Why does one stay where one feels people are so badly treated? I think you are reading what's not there...you view on this is in the minority here. I'm sorry if someone made you feel inferior....but all I have had to say, still stands

I get the opposite reactiion form people. I've been told on more than one occassion that I "shouldn't be here if I don't believe in conspiracies." Apparently, if you believe in one, you have to believe in all of them

Originally posted by Esoterica


I get the opposite reactiion form people. I've been told on more than one occassion that I "shouldn't be here if I don't believe in conspiracies." Apparently, if you believe in one, you have to believe in all of them

I would imagine that it is a very few people who would think this way.....it ridiculous thinking!