Why High Standards are Important re Sandy Hook

There has been much discussion and controversy around the Sandy Hooks threads. Skeptic Overload rightfully was appalled at how horrible these threads had become, using terms like "wildly foolish" to describe them.

Let me share with you why it's important to have high standards. It's probably not what you're thinking.

Over the years there have been many controversial cases. 9/11 comes to mind as the most contentious. But did you see what happened? The "no planes" and other outlandish theories made the entire "conspiracy" side look completely nutty.

Once this happens it's impossible to raise valid evidence because it's too late. You get lumped into the "nutty conspiracy theorist" category and not only won't people listen to you, people will crush you with ridicule.

That brings us to Sandy Hook.

If there is any sort of a conspiracy, it's almost too late for the "conspiracy theorists" to be taken seriously. So much idiotic conjecture has already been hurriedly uploaded in a race to get YouTube views, stars, and flags.

The "no victims" and "fake parents" theories are counterproductive. These theories are extreme, outlandish, and incredibly insensitive. As a rule of thumb, before spouting of wild conjecture one might want to have substantial evidence. The more crazy the theory, the more evidence one must have to avoid being seen as a kook.

Here's why this is important.

Every time somebody carelessly posts some wild, narcissistic conjecture it lessens the chance of any legitimate evidence from being taken seriously.

Here's an opposite example.

Asktheanimals created a well-researched thread where he draws a conclusion that 2 guns were found in Lanza's car, and supports his conclusion with video evidence. Whether you agree with his conclusion or not, it's a great example of the difference between wild conjecture based on nothing more than a person's own personal beliefs, and an educated, thoughtful conclusion based on evidence that is shown to us to evaluate for ourselves.

If Asktheanimals is correct in his conclusion, it would be tragic if it gets lost, buried beneath piles of mean-spirited, irrelevant, batsh!t crazy nonsense.

reply to post by sconner755

You know my position on this well enough from another thread as well as U2U. You have my full support on this.

I also agree 100% about the thread asktheanimals put up. I almost posted a note there about how I appreciated the 'Just the facts' layout and approach but figured I took such a hard stand the other night on that other one that I pretty well sealed that for awhile on my notes either way. lol..

Thanks for saying these things tho and the contrast you raise here makes your thread worth the read, to be sure.

reply to post by sconner755


I agree, and you bring up a valid point.

But it can be very difficult sometimes to get some people to use reason and logic on this site.
I have been staying out of the Sandy Hook threads, but I think I will take a look at the one you mentioned.

I wish we had an emoticon that represented a puppet master putting his puppets through a fabulously complex dance.

S&F op.

I think it's a good thing to question everything, but I think we need a little more critical thinking when it comes to SH

I'm going back to not commenting on these threads, it's bound to get ugly from here on out.

reply to post by sconner755


People muddy the waters both on purpose and not on purpose. We live in the age of digital information and with this comes digital dis-information.

Like I have said before regarding 9/11, I believe its not important now how it was done, what is important is that the government was involved.

reply to post by sconner755


So a conspiracy must have rules ??

And in these rules we cannot question the bizarre realities associated with the case, because we just "cannot go there" because somehow you believe parts of the case are slam dunk ??

That is NOT how these things work, not how thinking should be done, in all reality.

The reason noone gets to the bottom of these cases is people are afraid of being called "nutty" and yet "nutty" is where the reality of almost every case resides..

You just cannot tell people what to believe, on television, and expect everyone to buy it, but this is what you are advocating, that we just believe WITHOUT EVIDENCE PRESENTED! that all these people died and these things happened, However, WE THE PEOPLE have no evidence AT ALL...therefore you should not get incensed when theories abound, quite funny watching the thought process you have though. Gotta draw the line huh !

Originally posted by ParasuvO
reply to post by sconner755

 

So a conspiracy must have rules ??

And in these rules we cannot question the bizarre realities associated with the case, because we just "cannot go there" because somehow you believe parts of the case are slam dunk ??

That is NOT how these things work, not how thinking should be done, in all reality.

The reason noone gets to the bottom of these cases is people are afraid of being called "nutty" and yet "nutty" is where the reality of almost every case resides..

You just cannot tell people what to believe, on television, and expect everyone to buy it, but this is what you are advocating, that we just believe WITHOUT EVIDENCE PRESENTED! that all these people died and these things happened, However, WE THE PEOPLE have no evidence AT ALL...therefore you should not get incensed when theories abound, quite funny watching the thought process you have though. Gotta draw the line huh !

Predictable consequences are not the same as rules.

If somebody were part of a conspiracy re Sandy Hook they would love seeing people question whether children actually died.

Why?

Because the backlash would be so severe it would forever squelch all conspiracy talk for fear of being labeled a nut.

This is not a rule, it's an observable consequence. If somebody makes crazy claims the evidence to substantiate those claims better be 10x more substantial than the claims are crazy.

Have you ever "broken open" or "solved" a conspiracy here? Has any of the crazy conjecture made any tangible impact?

Maybe beyond [hoax] there should be [unfounded] , [under debate] , and if possible... [fact]

Its difficult to police what is open for discussion but if the admins stated their general possition in a stamp on the thread title it would show that in a google search i think.

Originally posted by FirstCasualty
Maybe beyond [hoax] there should be [unfounded] , [under debate] , and if possible... [fact]

Its difficult to police what is open for discussion but if the admins stated their general possition in a stamp on the thread title it would show that in a google search i think.

I agree with your intent, and at the same time even the [unfounded] stories, if crazy enough, are going to detract from anything legit. Plus, if they slander ordinary people, nothing was solved. It might even be worse to see your name dragged though the mud with an [unfounded] label on the thread.