It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


ATS....promoter of disinformation and ignorance

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 01:23 PM
I see your point on various links , however for us less able posters, I have recieved nothing but help and guidance on which sites may help my various posts.
Several more experieced ATS members have u2ued me with research hints.

posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 01:26 PM

Originally posted by mOjOm
Right & Wrong, etc. hasn't actually changed much in the last 2000 years. The best we've come up with so far is that it's 'Relative to the Point of View of the Observer."

My setiments exactly... Nice wording...


You don't get your "truth" sources from networks, you don't get them from the internet, you don't get them from links, books, ect, because they all share one thing in common; they all have their sources...

So i'd like to know where your getting your info from, apparantly they must be pretty damn good... Stop holding out!

posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 02:21 PM

Originally posted by TrueLies


You don't get your "truth" sources from networks, you don't get them from the internet, you don't get them from links, books, ect, because they all share one thing in common; they all have their sources...

So i'd like to know where your getting your info from, apparantly they must be pretty damn good... Stop holding out!

Good Question, where does one get the truth? Deny Ignorance? What is ignorance? Is it not lacking knowledge, being uneducated, not having the TRUE facts.

So much information passes daily, as evidenced on this board. One says his is the truth, the next claims hers is the truth, this or that person is either good or evil, this or that scenario is either truth or a lie, much ado about things of which there is little concrete proof.

What person, in fact, can specifically post and state a truth?

Say one side claims Tony Blair to be a saint, the other states emphatically he is satan, both post myriad websites to support their claims, ad nauseum, and do we yet know the truth?

At times belief masquerades as truth.

Even when one has witnessed an event, time can cloud the memory thereof, and truth can wane. But, knowing this, unless a person has witnessed an event, one cannot truly know the truth of what transpired, yes?

posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 02:37 PM
Since the Advent of Al Gores Internet, and Bush's Internet's, we are not stuck to rely on the Evening News, and Cable News. There is less risk to take with people creating Websites and spewing whatever it is that they spew than say Fox, or CBS running with a story. We have been fed by one source without having the availability to "Look into it". We know have had this ability for some time now, and even Major Outlets are turning to the Web for information and stories. This is a Discussion Board, Correct? Would you take whatever I post as Truth, or would you want me to back it up with Links and Information to back my Post? The Absolute "Truth" will probably never be known. Yet we are able to take Others Opinions and Information to form our own opinion as to what May or May Not be truth.

posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 03:15 PM
Princeton defines "truth" as being:

a fact that has been verified; "at last he knew the truth"; "the truth is the he didn't want to do it

accuracy: the quality of nearness to the truth or the true value; "he was beginning to doubt the accuracy of his compass"; "the lawyer questioned the truth of my account

Philosophy defines "truth" as:

propositions, statements, sentences, assertions and beliefs have been offered as appropriate bearers of truth or falsity. Understanding truth is filled with difficulty. Philosophers have explored the possibility that truth is: a correspondence between what we say and how things are; a matter of coherence between statements and a background of settled beliefs; an ideal limit which enquiry will approach; a feature of assertions which function well in enquiry or in life more generally; a matter of giving a truth definition for a language; a redundancy, because 'It is true that p' is equivalent to 'p'; or disclosedness of being. Some of these theories are compatible and might be integrated in a more comprehensive theory. On some accounts, each proposition is true or false on its own, while others adopt a holistic view. The relation between meaning and truth is of central philosophical concern.

The most adequate comprehension of reality that man's mind and reason make accessible to him. Man is fallible and can never become omniscient or absolutely certain that what he considers as certain truth is not error. The criterion of truth is that it works even if nobody is prepared to acknowledge it.


Wiki on sematic theory of "truth":
Semantic theory of truth

Good ole' "truth"......objective or subjective?
One thing I can say for certain about this topic and issue of "truth," is that what is "truth" to me, is not necessarily the same "truth" for others. Thus, opinion and evidences and sources to back assertions is of utmost importance. Assertions and allegations are near to nothing in the area of "truth" unless backed by evidences, sources, and facts. The more the better.

This is not even beginning to cover bias when looking for facts, evidences, and sources......

As to ATS being a "promoter of disinformation and ignorance"......not! The grounds for concluding such are weak to non-existent, at best.


[edit on 23-11-2004 by Seekerof]

posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 04:05 PM
Im actually getting quite irratated with all these threads about "ATS is blah blah blah"

This is the first one i have replied to but have one bit of good advice.

If you strongly disagree with the majority of information on ATS or how it appears then all i can say is "Dont visit the site" its obvious this isnt your type of forum.

If its certain members that you dont agree with then click the "Ignore" button.

posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 04:32 PM
Smokenmirrors, you can't expect an oasis of rational thought and rules of evidence from a site which attracts people who "want to believe". Yet, compared to most conspiracy sites, ATS is practically a juried journal of mainstream science.

I used to go to this one site which had an unspoken agreement that, no matter how silly my assertion (I will not dignify it with the term "hypothesis") is, if you promis not to laugh at it, then I will not laugh at yours.

The results were predictable: every winter for three years this one superannuated she-hippie would start raving about the sun's orbit decaying because it was setting earlier and earlier and further and further south.

A different hag propounded "Planet Ecks" was going to crash into the earth within six months and destroy us all (the fact that this particular bit of insanity survived despite seven or eight missed target dates says something about either the twisted genius of the protagonist or the stupidity of her devotees).

Yet another termagant saw pictures of serpents and dragons in rock formations in the Superstition Mountains, and used strange and wondrous Photoshop tricks to show that President Bush, the Pope, and anyone who disagreed with her was really a shape-shifting rattlesnake.

One rather hysterical group of theologians had, as their Articles of Faith, that airplane contrails are really some Huge Insidious Top Secret Plot To Spray Us All With Bad Juju And We're All Gonna Die.

Count your blessings, smokenmirrors. At least on this site you're not excoriated for trying (successfully or unsuccessfully) to inject a bit of logic and common sense into the mix....

..and that's better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.

[edit on 23-11-2004 by Off_The_Street]

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in