'Conspiraloons' in the ascendancy?

[editor]

See, this is the kind of argument that is convincing me that Jazzz's claims have some truth to them.

Catastrophic logic fail plus epic pwnage, sprinkled with troll fail.

Dwyer keeps on giving!

 

[ViolentPanda]

...I prove Blagsta wrong, with perfect and irrefutable citation...

Hmmm.

The response of our denialists is eerily similar to their response to Jazzz. They refuse to check the evidence and oafishly boast that they have been victorious.

It becomes clear that such people are not interested in the truth at all.

More self-pwnage from the master of self-pwnage.

 

[phildwyer]

Marvellous.



Agreeing to a deal, then then trying to agree terms?

You're a poor businessman phil

You can't do it, can you?

Even though the issue is entirely unambiguous, even though it is a matter of fact and not of opinion, even though everyone can verify the answer themselves--as I'm sure you have--you just can't admit the truth.

Now, if we can't trust you to be fair and objective on such a trivial point, why should anyone trust you to be fair and objective about an issue like 9/11?

Obviously they cannot. And that, my friends, is why I grow more and more convinced that Jazzz's claims must have some merit.

QED.

 

[Knotted]

To be fair, this is quite masterful trolling.

 

[trevhagl]

To be fair, this is quite masterful trolling.

i haven't even been following it for a few days, but from WHO?

 

[Knotted]

i haven't even been following it for a few days, but from WHO?

Phil. I wouldn't worry about it. He's managing to troll about the meaning of "straw man argument" using a straw man argument and it's almost working. You've got to hand it to him.

 

[8den]

Marvellous.



Agreeing to a deal, then then trying to agree terms?

You're a poor businessman phil

But this is Phil, offering the ladies of urban a chance to punch him in the face for free, and then amending the deal to insist said punch had to be preceded by a blowjob, furthermore Phil now started to maintain that this clause had always been a part of the arrangement.

What I'm trying to say is the terms of any deal with phil are not bound by us mere mortals understanding of the space time continuum.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

You can't do it, can you?

Even though the issue is entirely unambiguous, even though it is a matter of fact and not of opinion, even though everyone can verify the answer themselves--as I'm sure you have--you just can't admit the truth.

Now, if we can't trust you to be fair and objective on such a trivial point, why should anyone trust you to be fair and objective about an issue like 9/11?

Obviously they cannot. And that, my friends, is why I grow more and more convinced that Jazzz's claims must have some merit.

QED.

That is a quite spectacular logical failure

Anyhoos, are you going to explain what you meant by "a comment on his character"?

Wriggle wriggle wriggle...

 

[8den]

It becomes clear that such people are not interested in the truth at all. And so, despite the apparent implausibility of the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11, reasonable people will start to look at such theories more closely.

Phil, dude it's been eight years since the attack why have the reasonable people been letting only unreasonable people look at the theories? Seriously dwyer fuck off.

For shits n giggles phil, ask Jazzz what he thinks happened at the twin towers, or what hit the pentagon? Or what happened to United 93? Ask him to give a full coherent narrative of his alternative theories.

We've had 8 years of this bullshit, and Jazzz and his ilk can't even do that. Well thank fuck you rational people are now on the case.

A couple of years ago, I ask Jazzz politely (Oh all right semi politely) to explain what evidence could be presented to him to believe the (and I don't like this term) official conspiracy theory was true. Seriously what piece of physical evidence/testimony/whatever could be presented to change his mind. He obfuscated and procrastinated, and eventually ignored the question. What does that tell you?

 

[editor]

To be fair, this is quite masterful trolling.

Well it might be if he wasn't making such an arse of himself in the process.

Quality trolling isn't about endlessly posting pages of lamentable guff - it should be all about other people making fools of themselves, not the wannabe troller.

He's getting boring now tbh.

 

[claphamboy]

And that, my friends, is why I grow more and more convinced that Jazzz's claims must have some merit.

bullshit.

 

[Pickman's model]

bullshit.

quote a dwyer post which isn't

 

[Pickman's model]

See, this is the kind of argument that is convincing me that Jazzz's claims have some truth to them.

I prove Blagsta wrong, with perfect and irrefutable citation. Just to remind everyone: Blagsta claims that to make a "straw man" is to misrepresent your opponent: to claim that he has said something he has not.

Now (and this is easily verified) I point out that Blagsta is wrong. To construct a "straw man" is to choose a weak or irrelevant argument to counter. It does not necessarily involve putting words in one's opponent's mouth.

The response of our denialists is eerily similar to their response to Jazzz. They refuse to check the evidence and oafishly boast that they have been victorious.

It becomes clear that such people are not interested in the truth at all. And so, despite the apparent implausibility of the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11, reasonable people will start to look at such theories more closely.

now, about the existence of god...

 

[claphamboy]

now, about the existence of god...

Careful now, the way things are going he'll end-up declaring himself as being God, with Jazzz as his son.

 

[phildwyer]

now, about the existence of god...

Take it up with the Mods.

 

[Blagsta]

See, this is the kind of argument that is convincing me that Jazzz's claims have some truth to them.

I prove Blagsta wrong, with perfect and irrefutable citation. Just to remind everyone: Blagsta claims that to make a "straw man" is to misrepresent your opponent: to claim that he has said something he has not.

Now (and this is easily verified) I point out that Blagsta is wrong. To construct a "straw man" is to choose a weak or irrelevant argument to counter. It does not necessarily involve putting words in one's opponent's mouth.

The response of our denialists is eerily similar to their response to Jazzz. They refuse to check the evidence and oafishly boast that they have been victorious.

It becomes clear that such people are not interested in the truth at all. And so, despite the apparent implausibility of the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11, reasonable people will start to look at such theories more closely.

Give it up, losser.

 

[phildwyer]

Give it up, losser.

If you're going to call someone a "loser" you should really make sure you can spell the word first.

 

[Blagsta]

 

[Pickman's model]

If you're going to call someone a "loser" you should really make sure you can spell the word first.

loser

 

[phildwyer]

Does this make me the winer?

 

[Pickman's model]

Does this make me the whiner?

*corrected*

 

[Beanburger]

Quality trolling isn't about endlessly posting pages of lamentable guff and it should be all about other people making fools of themselves, not the wannbe troller.

And quality trolling also involves people not realising that you're trolling. Trolling fail.

 

[editor]

If you're going to call someone a "loser" you should really make sure you can spell the word first.

Doh!

Doh!

Doh!

Doh!

Doh!

 

[Corax]

He's getting boring now tbh.

Yep. I'm a bit disappointed tbh.

Phil, you're looossing your sparkle mate.

 

[Pickman's model]

Yep. I'm a bit disappointed tbh.

Phil, you're looossing your sparkle mate.

he never had it

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

That's not what "straw man" means.

It is, actually.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

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.

Ah, I see the problem. It's semantics, as usual. One person says 'select weak arguments to knock down'. The other says, 'introducing something they didn't sayl, and knocking that down'.

Shades of grey.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

No, I'm sorry but the meaning of words and phrases is not static. It changes with time and usage. .

I don't think the meaning of 'straw man' has changed, at least not in our lifetimes.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

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.

Have you changed your position based upon the comments of an individual on a bb, and the alleged ineffectiveness of his opposition; as opposed to your own analysis of the facts etc?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

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.

.

But that's a reflection on the individuals involved in the debate, not on the merits of the opposing positions.