Logic - The ULTIMATE Troll!

I have always wanted to know the TRUTH about everything. This is the reason I cannot accept a wild claim without seeing evidence.

Many of you on ATS want to immediately label those who expect to see evidence of a claim (the bigger the claim the better the evidence) as trolls, naysayers, close-minded, etc.

The one that bothers me the most is "close-minded." Many skeptics on ATS are VERY open minded, so much so in fact, that if we were to see something we didn't believe in, or good evidence of a claim, we would be able to instantly change our opinion of that subject.

Calling someone a troll right off the bat is a way to dismiss them. It's an umbrella response to almost anything that offends most people here. It's a low effort way to label someone and disregard them. It's mindless and petty. It's not OPEN MINDED, that's fo shizzle.

Don't mistake healthy skepticism with "troll." Don't make skeptics a despised minority on ATS. Don't hate someone because they didn't have the same personal experience that caused you to believe in what they do not. Instead, deny ignorance and communicate with people. If someone doesn't believe your claim, try to prove to them that it's true - don't just call them a troll and ignore them for asking valid questions.

Click here for more information.

If you can't provide specific examples and links to said Trolling, I am inclined to believe you might be trolling your own thread.
Holy snip! I think you just made some weird space time loophole thing!

So mindless.

No specific example is required. I'm not trying to call anyone out or make any single person feel bad for somethign they've done. What you are requesting, sir, is very trollish.

Read five threads and you'll find multiple examples.

No response is required - you could just think about it instead.

reply to post by CaLyps0


I didn't know I couldn't bold a single word. =]

And it was edited before you typed your response, lol.

Click here for more information.

A bunch of examples:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I wasn't even talking to him, nor have I ever spoken directly to him, and he immediately labels me a troll and attempts to discredit me. If you read his profile you see that he believes in a lot of the mostly unbelievable.

He attacks with fervor simply because I implied indirectly that I might refute one of his claims, although again I must stress that we have never spoken. I have apparently hit a soft spot I was not aiming for. =(

This is the mindless sheepery I'm referring to.


CaLyps0, thank you for helping with the lesson. I hope this gold star makes you feel less offended.

reply to post by TinkerHaus


While I do not dispel any of your claim, I personally believe that many people who call themselves skeptics here at ATS are not, in fact, skeptical.

Someone who is skeptical of an idea, situation, or belief is undecided.
They do not form an opinion.

Skepticism is based on disbelief.

Most who call themselves skeptics or debunkers here at ATS are simply repeating the status quo.

Let's take the biggest baddest of all the ideas... 9/11.

Now... People who promote the conspiracy theory of a controlled demolition are not being skeptical.
They are stating a belief as though that is what happened.

Just as the opposing group who believes the conspiracy theory that 12 Muslim men hijacked 4 planes and flew 3 of them into WTC 1 and 2 and the Pentagon resulting in the collapse of 1, 2, and 7 and an unusually small hole in the side of the Pentagon... are not being skeptical.
They are also stating a belief as though that is what happened.

Not skepticism.

A skeptic would state that not enough evidence exists to validate any belief because every known police protocol used to process evidence in a crime scene was violated for some strange reason that day.
The metal from the buildings was immediately shipped to china and melted down and the planes had apparently been vaporized because the FAA is required by law to take the remains of the crashed planes and attempt to reassemble them in order to determine what exactly happened.

None of that happened.

Skeptic.

Don't know what happened.

But I don't see very many people apply such rigorous standards of validation.

Originally posted by CaLyps0
reply to post by TinkerHaus

 

Sweet let me put it over your moms hoo ha

What an intelligent response.

J

reply to post by TinkerHaus

You're fighting a losing battle, TinkerHaus. "Troll" is the new catch phrase here. It's close to impossible to hold an intelligent debate anymore. If you're lucky, you'll get one page of logical rebuttal before the ad-hominens and mudslinging begin.

J

reply to post by kyviecaldges


I absolutely agree with you - there are some that die hard BELIEVE something and ignore evidence against their beliefs while at the same time being very willing to accept any shred of speculative evidence in their favor as "proof."

I'm not talking about the die-hards, I'm talking about those of us who look for the simplest answer first, and are willing to change our ideas when they are truly challenged.

Good post, thanks for adding something valuable. =]

There are two types conspiracy theorists

The type that believes in theories that have evidence

and

They type that believes in anything conspiracy they read on the internet

The 2nd type is largely useless and thinks anyone who doesn't believe in chemtrails are dis-info agents

Did someone say "disinfo"? My thingie went off.....

On a serious note - it's all ego. Ego mixed with a culture that doesn't teach courtesy or proper communications skills to its young. Used to be that you had to know at least something to fake it... now any old shmoe can just Google all the livelong day and refer to themselves as an expert - and feel like they must be because they just read a paragraph of something they got off a keyword search.

And that is why logic never works. Trolling trolls is funny sometimes - but ultimately unproductive. Even if you try to do it in the right and respectable way. They aren't here to learn. They're here to act like they're smart.

My .02 cents.

( And before anybody pounces... I read WAY MORE than two paragraphs when I Google stuff.. So I'm more of an expert than many!

~Heff

The problem with logic is that most people don't even understand true and formal logic.

So when it is applied in a topic...people claim you are trolling because you aren't accepting their faulty logic.

Originally posted by CaLyps0
reply to post by TinkerHaus

 

Sweet let me put it over your moms hoo ha

Everything is fair on the net and even trolls abide by the rule:

Don't trash another person's mom...

Lowest of the low IMO.

Peace

reply to post by TinkerHaus


As long as the favor is returned

Many skeptics do not. That's one big problem with skeptics, they always think that what's true for them must always be true for everybody else and if not must be made to be true.

It shouldn't be that way.

I will not respect anybody who does not respect me.

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
reply to post by TinkerHaus

 

As long as the favor is returned

Many skeptics do not. That's one big problem with skeptics, they always think that what's true for them must always be true for everybody else and if not must be made to be true.

It shouldn't be that way.

I will not respect anybody who does not respect me.

There is a difference between disrespect and valid questioning. All I'm asking is that the believers learn the difference between the two. If someone disrespects you, I don't expect you to treat them like a pretty princess. That being said, there is also the high road..

And your statement can be held true for the believers, too:

"they always think that what's true for them must always be true for everybody else and if not must be made to be true."

The thing about Truth is, there is only one version. That's why it's Truth. Everything else is Untruth. Someone might know something that is not true. Just because your heart tells you something, doesn't mean it's true. When using your heart, or a hunch, as truth, you must accept that others might have a different version. When something can be repeated with the same result over and over and over, that is a Universal Truth (at least as far as we currently know the universe) that holds it's ground regardless of who challenges it.

To summarize, sure there COULD be aliens or deities or Nessie or Sasquatch, but there is no PROOF of these things. If you believe in one of these things, or many others, you must accept that your knowledge is not fact and has not been demonstrated in a manner consistent with the scientific method. Until it has, you will always be challenged on your beliefs by those of us who require evidence to support a claim.

reply to post by TinkerHaus

The thing about Truth is, there is only one version. That's why it's Truth. Everything else is Untruth. Someone might know something that is not true. Just because your heart tells you something, doesn't mean it's true. When using your heart, or a hunch, as truth, you must accept that others might have a different version. When something can be repeated with the same result over and over and over, that is a Universal Truth (at least as far as we currently know the universe) that holds it's ground regardless of who challenges it.

Thank you for addressing his post.

I have been in a heated debate with several of the posters in this thread, including EvilSadamClone, about a topic that makes people very emotional.

I didn't want to point out the fact that his post made no sense.

First and foremost, a skeptic is not promoting truth.
The skeptic does not force any truth on anyone.
What the skeptic does is show the flaws in an individual's reasoning process.
And this definitely angers some people, because they are forced to come to grips with these flaws.

Once the truth is known, the person who was once skeptical is no longer a skeptic.

And then you broke down the rest very eloquently.

Not to knock on EvilSadamClone, but his post exemplifies the problem that is the topic of this thread.

Logic and reason are no different than grammar and syntax.
This is not a game of opinion.
Philosophically, rules do exist that allow people to come as close as humanly possible to ascertaining validity and truth, but we have been denied this proper education.
And it shows.
I have met very few people on these boards who truly understand the rules of logic, the application of logical fallacies, the null hypothesis, and deductive and inductive reasoning.

Thanks for the thread.
I really don't think that many posters will understand it to be totally honest with you.

Originally posted by TinkerHaus
I have always wanted to know the TRUTH about everything. This is the reason I cannot accept a wild claim without seeing evidence.

Many of you on ATS want to immediately label those who expect to see evidence of a claim (the bigger the claim the better the evidence) as trolls, naysayers, close-minded, etc.

The one that bothers me the most is "close-minded." Many skeptics on ATS are VERY open minded, so much so in fact, that if we were to see something we didn't believe in, or good evidence of a claim, we would be able to instantly change our opinion of that subject.

Calling someone a troll right off the bat is a way to dismiss them. It's an umbrella response to almost anything that offends most people here. It's a low effort way to label someone and disregard them. It's mindless and petty. It's not OPEN MINDED, that's fo shizzle.

Don't mistake healthy skepticism with "troll." Don't make skeptics a despised minority on ATS. Don't hate someone because they didn't have the same personal experience that caused you to believe in what they do not. Instead, deny ignorance and communicate with people. If someone doesn't believe your claim, try to prove to them that it's true - don't just call them a troll and ignore them for asking valid questions.

edit on 20-8-2012 by TinkerHaus because: (no reason given)

I was just going to call you a troll, but then I thought that you probably have more than enough smart asses on here that have done just that... so instead - I decided to tell you that you are obviously too close minded to understand why they call them trolls, therefore, you're not denying ignorance!!!

sorry, in too much of a hurry to do better right now

S+F

Originally posted by gncnew

Originally posted by TinkerHaus
I have always wanted to know the TRUTH about everything. This is the reason I cannot accept a wild claim without seeing evidence.

Many of you on ATS want to immediately label those who expect to see evidence of a claim (the bigger the claim the better the evidence) as trolls, naysayers, close-minded, etc.

The one that bothers me the most is "close-minded." Many skeptics on ATS are VERY open minded, so much so in fact, that if we were to see something we didn't believe in, or good evidence of a claim, we would be able to instantly change our opinion of that subject.

Calling someone a troll right off the bat is a way to dismiss them. It's an umbrella response to almost anything that offends most people here. It's a low effort way to label someone and disregard them. It's mindless and petty. It's not OPEN MINDED, that's fo shizzle.

Don't mistake healthy skepticism with "troll." Don't make skeptics a despised minority on ATS. Don't hate someone because they didn't have the same personal experience that caused you to believe in what they do not. Instead, deny ignorance and communicate with people. If someone doesn't believe your claim, try to prove to them that it's true - don't just call them a troll and ignore them for asking valid questions.

edit on 20-8-2012 by TinkerHaus because: (no reason given)

I was just going to call you a troll, but then I thought that you probably have more than enough smart asses on here that have done just that... so instead - I decided to tell you that you are obviously too close minded to understand why they call them trolls, therefore, you're not denying ignorance!!!

sorry, in too much of a hurry to do better right now

S+F

I think you, like others, failed to understand the point.

Sorry I couldn't be more clear.