'Conspiraloons' in the ascendancy?

[Blagsta]

I think you'll find it is.

I think you'll find it isn't. A straw man is introducing something your opponent didn't say (usually a misrepresentation/distortion of something they did say) and attacking that. As you well know.

 

[phildwyer]

I think you'll find it isn't. A straw man is introducing something your opponent didn't say (usually a misrepresentation/distortion of something they did say) and attacking that. As you well know.

Yes and no. It's an example of an initially incorrect usage that becomes an accepted part of the language. Like "hopefully" or "sympathy."

A good one to keep an eye on is "momentarily." I'm willing to bet that in ten years' time it will mean "in a moment" as well as "for a moment."

 

[Blagsta]

Yes and no. It's an example of an initially incorrect usage that becomes an accepted part of the language. Like "hopefully" or "sympathy."

A good one to keep an eye on is "momentarily." I'm willing to bet that in ten years' time it will mean "in a moment" as well as "for a moment."

Stop trolling phil. Being a published academic, you know exactly what it means. All you're doing here is stirring things.

 

[William of Walworth]

Actually 8den was raving like a lunatic long before that.

He has single-handedly alienated many posters from the denialist case. A cause supported so vehemently by such a crazed thicko cannot possibly be without fault.

Dwyer's still persisting with his contrived 'campaign'** to smear conspiracy sceptics here I see.

**(inverted commas deliberate )

Yet again with the made up smear-term 'denialist' too, use it often enough and perhaps dwyer thinks it will stick.

Actually until now, 'denialist' has most often been applied online to climate change denialists and AIDs denialists ( ), ie people who are patent 'contrarians' and/or out and out conspiracists subscribing to very very dubious, and vested interest laden, versions of 'science'.

Dwyer's current repeated use of the term is a transparent (and indeed trolling) effort to label conspiracy-sceptics to be as off the wall and hatstand as them.

Of course one cannot evaluate arguments based solely on the intelligence of their advocates, but it's not a bad place to start.

Agreed, so lets include the prebuilt in confirmation biases, arrant lack of logic, thoroughly dodgy sourcing, wild disregard for evidence and probability, and sheer speculation of the vast majority of '9/11'-related conspiracy theories for starters.

Stuff that in so many cases is so provactively ludicrous (check some of Jazzz's bizarre claims earlier up) that it's hardly surprising that one or two CT sceptics lose it ... I'm not defending swearing and abuse in the anti-CT responses (counterproductive) but just because Jazzz is polite doesn't make his fantasy filled '9/11' claims any less ridiculous

And as such, pretty provocative themselves -- I've not noticed any dwyer criticisms of that. Unsurprisingly ...

 

[William of Walworth]

Oh, and someone not believing in invisible missiles, holographic planes and CIA insta-Mike Yarwoods is not a "denialist." They're just normal.

Nutshell time.

 

[phildwyer]

Stop trolling phil. Being a published academic, you know exactly what it means. All you're doing here is stirring things.

No, I'm sorry but the meaning of words and phrases is not static. It changes with time and usage. You may not like it, but it remains a fact for all that.

 

[Blagsta]

No, I'm sorry but the meaning of words and phrases is not static. It changes with time and usage. You may not like it, but it remains a fact for all that.

This one hasn't. As you well know.

 

[phildwyer]

Yet again with the made up smear-term 'denialist' too

The word "denialist" is used to designate those who deny conspiracies automatically and with no regard for the evidence. I believe that many people need to deny such theories, just as other need to believe in them. So I'm afraid that the term will continue to be used in that sense.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Worth quoting for posterity, just in case 8den sobers up long enough to attempt to edit this evidence of his disgraceful behavior and disturbed condition.

Seriously--and I speak as a denialist myself--one really does have to wonder why people like 8den get so enraged over this issue. It so clearly bespeaks some psychological imperative: 8den is not arguing anything resembling a rational case here. Am I right or wrong?

People have been very quick to say that Jazzz is fulfilling some kind of psychological need by giving credibility to conspiracy theories, but it really does seem to me that charge might far more convincingly be leveled against 8den and his ilk.

I'm not joking in the slightest, btw.

It really is hard to tell nowadays if you're still trolling as usual, or, as I suspect, you've crossed the line and now actually believe the pompous shite you post...

 

[phildwyer]

This one hasn't. As you well know.

I'm sorry, but you are wrong. Definitions of the phrase "straw man" include:

"a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted"

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=straw+man

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

I thought Olson's re-marriage was interesting

In what way?

Still waiting on an answer to this btw

Wriggle wriggle wriggle...

 

[Blagsta]

I'm sorry, but you are wrong. Definitions of the phrase "straw man" include:

"a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted"

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=straw+man

404 Page Not Found

 

[phildwyer]

It really is hard to tell nowadays if you're still trolling as usual, or, as I suspect, you've crossed the line and now actually believe the pompous shite you post...

I have certainly become more sympathetic to conspiracy theories about 9/11 as a result of reading the debates on these boards.

I was initially fully committed to the denialist position, but having considered Jazzz's well-reasoned arguments and the raging incoherence that generally characterizes his opponents, I am no longer as certain as I was.

I believe it is called "having an open mind."

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

You have to laugh when the only thing left for someone to score points off is an argument about the definition of "straw man"

 

[phildwyer]

404 Page Not Found

http://www.metaglossary.com/meanings/964287/

 

[phildwyer]

Still waiting on an answer to this btw

I think it is a comment on his character.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

I have certainly become more sympathetic to conspiracy theories about 9/11 as a result of reading the debates on these boards.

I was initially fully committed to the denialist position, but having considered Jazzz's well-reasoned arguments and the raging incoherence that generally characterizes his opponents, I am no longer as certain as I was.

I believe it is called "having an open mind."

Yes Phil. Of course it is.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

I think it is a comment on his character.

And you think that comment is.....

 

[Blagsta]

http://www.metaglossary.com/meanings/964287/

Yes, an argument "set up". Not one put by your debating opponent.

This is poor even for you phil.

 

[smokedout]

I was initially fully committed to the denialist position, but having considered Jazzz's well-reasoned arguments and the raging incoherence that generally characterizes his opponents, I am no longer as certain as I was.

I believe it is called "having an open mind."

so you're influenced more by the nature of the messenger than the evidence

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

so you're influenced more by the nature of the messenger than the evidence

Come now, he has an open mind, we should respect and worship him.

 

[phildwyer]

Yes, an argument "set up". Not one put by your debating opponent.

You are simply mistaken. A "straw man" argument can be one that has actually been made by your opponent. As Jazzz said, to attack a "straw man" is to attack one of your opponent's weakest arguments. It does not necessarily involve attributing to them something that they did not say. And so you are wrong:

"A straw man is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

And so you are wrong.

 

[claphamboy]

i have certainly become more sympathetic to conspiracy theories about 9/11 as a result of reading the debates on these boards.

I was initially fully committed to the denialist position, but having considered jazzz's well-reasoned arguments and the raging incoherence that generally characterizes his opponents, i am no longer as certain as i was.

I believe it is called "having an open mind."

lol

 

[smokedout]

i wonder if he wants to buy some magic beans

 

[editor]

Actually 8den was raving like a lunatic long before that.

He has single-handedly alienated many posters from the denialist case. A cause supported so vehemently by such a crazed thicko cannot possibly be without fault. Of course one cannot evaluate arguments based solely on the intelligence of their advocates, but it's not a bad place to start.

Worth quoting for posterity, just in case 8den sobers up long enough to attempt to edit this evidence of his disgraceful behavior and disturbed condition.

Your endless personal attacks are becoming pretty disgraceful too. And very disruptive.

Stop trolling phil. Being a published academic, you know exactly what it means. All you're doing here is stirring things.

Indeed. His arguments have been pwned so many times all he can do is endlessly wriggle and try and change the topic. It's transparently hopeless.

 

[phildwyer]

so you're influenced more by the nature of the messenger than the evidence

No.

But the messenger certainly influences my evaluation of the argument. When one reads page after page in which one side presents its case calmly and rationally, and the other simply rages and rants using copious obscenity and abuse, that naturally affects my response to the argument itself.

And that is what has happened here.

 

[Knotted]

You are simply mistaken. A "straw man" argument can be one that has actually been made by your opponent. As Jazzz said, to attack a "straw man" is to attack one of your opponent's weakest arguments. It does not necessarily involve attributing to them something that they did not say. And so you are wrong:

"A straw man is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

And so you are wrong.

Why do people assume Phil is trolling when he is clearly just a bit dim?

 

[editor]

But the messenger certainly influences my evaluation of the argument. When one reads page after page in which one side presents its case calmly and rationally, and the other simply rages and rants using copious obscenity and abuse, that naturally affects my response to the argument itself.

Jazzz's claims, sources and analysis are anything but rational.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Why do people assume Phil is trolling

Coz some of us remember a certain webpage he once made

 

[William of Walworth]

Worth quoting for posterity, just in case 8den sobers up long enough to attempt to edit this evidence of his disgraceful behavior and disturbed condition.

Seriously--and I speak as a denialist myself--one really does have to wonder why people like 8den get so enraged over this issue. It so clearly bespeaks some psychological imperative: 8den is not arguing anything resembling a rational case here. Am I right or wrong?

People have been very quick to say that Jazzz is fulfilling some kind of psychological need by giving credibility to conspiracy theories, but it really does seem to me that charge might far more convincingly be leveled against 8den and his ilk.

I'm not joking in the slightest, btw.

It really is hard to tell nowadays if you're still trolling as usual, or, as I suspect, you've crossed the line and now actually believe the pompous shite you post...

Nah it's easy enough to spot what dwyers doing. He's clearly still trolling, as (further) proven by this deliberate use of one of the conspiracy theorists' favourite phrases, bolded :

I have certainly become more sympathetic to conspiracy theories about 9/11 as a result of reading the debates on these boards.

I was initially fully committed to the denialist position, but having considered Jazzz's well-reasoned arguments and the raging incoherence that generally characterizes his opponents, I am no longer as certain as I was.

I believe it is called "having an open mind."

Conspiracy theorists' usual version of being 'open minded' is to be 'open minded'** towards any and every fantastic '9/11' theory speculated on on committedly conspiracist blogs and CTer websites.

**(as in never in any way questioning, being sceptical or being critical toward their own theories, while forever accusing conspiracy-sceptics of being gullible acceptors of the establishment line)

Anyone who's 'openminded' towards this illreasoned mishmash of 'any anti government theories whatsoever are automatically true' had better (in the classic phrase) watch out that their mind isn't so open that their brain falls out.

In any case, it's as plain as you like to any genuinely 'openminded' reader of these forums that dwyer isn't for a moment believing a single word of this stuff. His posing as somone gradually becoming 'converted' to '9/11' conspiracies is the same as all his other stuff in this thread. Trolling and deliberately adopted 'contrarianism' and no more ...