'Conspiraloons' in the ascendancy?

[claphamboy]

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?

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

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I dunno, I'm really starting to think he's got himself into a position not dissimilar to a fading rock star, one who has started to believe his own hype, having nothing original left in him but to try and come out with ever more outlandish routines in a desperate attempt to entertain and be loved by a public that got bored years ago.

I'd say this was less an addition to the discussion, and something more along the lines of a 'Cheesy/Attack!'...

I coined that last phrase myself, you know.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

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.

This is not a Cheesy/Attack!, even though it might look like it. It's a fair comment on the nature of the quoted post, imo.

 

[phildwyer]

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?

Well I wouldn't go so far as to say that I've changed my position.

But anyone reading these threads can't help but be struck by the contrast between the way the conspiracy theorists put their case--calm, rational, unfailingly polite--and the way the denialists put theirs--raging, hysterical, constantly abusive.

It does make one wonder how far the two sides are being motivated by deep-seated unconscious impulses.

So I'm looking at the evidence again. Which I wouldn't have done were it not for threads such as this one. I'll get back to you regarding any change in my opinion.

 

[phildwyer]

It is, actually.

Thank you!

I'm still waiting for Blagsta or his allies to acknowledge their mistake here.

And their continued reluctance to do so makes me view their other arguments with suspicion, quite frankly. It makes me think they might be the kind of people who care more about winning an argument than about the truth.

 

[Pickman's model]

It makes me think they might be the kind of people who care more about winning an argument than about the truth.

if you cared about the truth you'd have spent some time recently proving the existence of god.

 

[8den]

Well I wouldn't go so far as to say that I've changed my position.

But anyone reading these threads can't help but be struck by the contrast between the way the conspiracy theorists put their case--calm, rational,

Jazzz thinks someone(s) ran around the crash site at the pentagon littering the bodies of victims of AA 77, among fake wreckage, the midst of a major disaster. And you think thats rational?

 

[phildwyer]

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

My hunch is that certain individuals are attracted to certain positions because of personal rather than rational reasons.

In fairness, I think this works both ways. I think there are people who need to believe in conspiracy theories, and I also think there are people who need to debunk them.

The problem for the rest of us is deciding who these people are. And the manner in which they put their cases is a decent clue in this direction.

 

[phildwyer]

Jazzz thinks someone(s) ran around the crash site at the pentagon littering the bodies of victims of AA 77, among fake wreckage, the midst of a major disaster.

See, this is the problem.

I'd never believe that. But based on your attitude and behavior throughout this debate, I don't believe you when you say that Jazzz believes that either.

 

[Beanburger]

But anyone reading these threads can't help but be struck by the contrast between the way the conspiracy theorists put their case--calm, rational, unfailingly polite--and the way the denialists put theirs--raging, hysterical, constantly abusive.

It does make one wonder how far the two sides are being motivated by deep-seated unconscious impulses.

So you don't think that's got anything to do with so-called "denialists" being sick and tired of listening to the same old discredited lunatic shite spouted by the conspiraloon tendency then?

 

[8den]

See, this is the problem.

I'd never believe that. But based on your attitude and behavior throughout this debate, I don't believe you when you say that Jazzz believes that either.

He wrote that on this very thread you fucking numpity.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

So I'm looking at the evidence again. Which I wouldn't have done were it not for threads such as this one. I'll get back to you regarding any change in my opinion.

I have reviewed things based on this thread and others. The reason for me, is that I've looked at links that caused me to go to other sources, to determine the veracity of the original Jazz links.

The level of calm, or otherwise, of the individual posters, has had no bearing on my decision to check sources.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Thank you!

I'm still waiting for Blagsta or his allies to acknowledge their mistake here.

And their continued reluctance to do so makes me view their other arguments with suspicion, quite frankly. It makes me think they might be the kind of people who care more about winning an argument than about the truth.

As I went through the original posts about 'straw man', it appeared to me to be an argument based on semantics, as I've said in a post above. But the argument deepened, then hardened, based on personalities, and not much else, imo.

 

[phildwyer]

So you don't think that's got anything to do with so-called "denialists" being sick and tired of listening to the same old discredited lunatic shite spouted by the conspiraloon tendency then?

No I don't.

Why do you think Beesonthewhatnow refused to acknowledge that he was wrong about the definition of "straw target?"

I think it was because he has difficulty acknowledging that he's wrong about anything.

So even if he knew he was wrong about 9/11, I think he'd refuse to acknowledge the fact.

So I don't take his arguments as seriously as I take those of Jazzz, who does acknowledge when he's proved to be wrong.

That's fair enough, right?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

My hunch is that certain individuals are attracted to certain positions because of personal rather than rational reasons.

In fairness, I think this works both ways. I think there are people who need to believe in conspiracy theories, and I also think there are people who need to debunk them.

The problem for the rest of us is deciding who these people are. And the manner in which they put their cases is a decent clue in this direction.

There might be people like that, but to me, the psychological reasons that a person holds a position, are irrelevant to me. As stated above, I'll go to the source material, and make my own decision based upon whatever factual evidence is available.

 

[phildwyer]

He wrote that on this very thread you fucking numpity.

OK, here's a test case. Prove it.

 

[8den]

So I don't take his arguments as seriously as I take those of Jazzz, who does acknowledge when he's proved to be wrong.

That's fair enough, right?

Really? I've only ever seen Jazzz admit he was wrong once an 9/11 thread, including the time he was ripped to shreds by an architect on the engineering, structure, and design of the WTC.

 

[Beanburger]

No I don't.

Why do you think Beesonthewhatnow refused to acknowledge that he was wrong about the definition of "straw target?"

I think it was because he has difficulty acknowledging that he's wrong about anything.

So even if he knew he was wrong about 9/11, I think he'd refuse to acknowledge the fact.

So I don't take his arguments as seriously as I take those of Jazzz, who does acknowledge when he's proved to be wrong.

That's fair enough, right?

Not really, no. Coz Jazzz won't even contemplate the possibility that he's wrong. He's discovered "the truth", and nothing will persuade him to the contrary. Frankly, it's hardly surprising if people get irate in the face of such zealous, pseudo-religious behaviour.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

No I don't.

I do. Have you seen Rain Man? Eventually, Cruise just wants to slap Hoffman, and deep inside somewhere, so do you. Even though the poor man has a mental problem.

It's the same here. If someone endlessly repeats nonsense, no matter how much logic is thrown at them, eventually, you want to start screaming, with spittle flecked words, and you want to take them by the lapels and slap them.

Even if they have a mental deficiency. Terrible, I know: but true.

 

[claphamboy]

So I don't take his arguments as seriously as I take those of Jazzz, who does acknowledge when he's proved to be wrong.

Like fuck he does, most of the time he comes back with more unconnected delusional evidence-free nonsense, totally ignores that he has been proved wrong or disappears completely.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

That's fair enough, right?

No. That manner of living, and of determining truth, leads to people being persuaded by the Hitlers and the Ted Bundys, just because they're smooth and persuasive talkers.

It's about the message, not the messenger.

 

[Pickman's model]

He wrote that on this very thread you fucking numpity.

indeed: he writes it on many of his threads.

 

[8den]

OK, here's a test case. Prove it.

Happily;

In a response to my detailed linking to the Forensics and Search and Rescue efforts at the Pentagon Jazzz wrote

It would only take a few people to go around before planting body parts, and there you go (that is simply one method by which the results could have been corrupted).

Jazzz's post is 1211

My post was 1187

Thoughts? Comments? Or are you just going to ignore that Phil?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Where'd Phil go?

 

[phildwyer]

Happily;

In a response to my detailed linking to the Forensics and Search and Rescue efforts at the Pentagon Jazzz wrote



Jazzz's post is 1211

My post was 1187

Thoughts? Comments? Or are you just going to ignore that Phil?

See, this proves my point about your motives.

Jazzz emphatically does not claim what you said he claimed.

So now I have proof that you're willing to lie and misrepresent his position.

So I'm confirmed in my skepticism about everything else you claim.

See how this works?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

See, this proves my point about your motives.

Jazzz emphatically does not claim what you said he claimed.

So now I have proof that you're willing to lie and misrepresent his position.

So I'm confirmed in my skepticism about everything else you claim.

See how this works?

Why not address my points about the message/messenger dichotomy?

 

[Pickman's model]

Why not address my points about the message/messenger dichotomy?

because he can't

 

[phildwyer]

Another example would be Ted Olson.

Ted Olson has lied in court about Iran-Contra. He's lied in court about Bush's election.

But rather than admit this, our denialists have rushed to defend him, simply because they think it serves their case.

So that makes me suspicious of their case in general.

See how this works?

 

[8den]

See, this proves my point about your motives.

Jazzz emphatically does not claim what you said he claimed.

Okay Phil since you're so confident what does

It would only take a few people to go around before planting body parts, and there you go

Seeing as the topic of conversation was the forensics at the pentagon.

Please, tell, us, Phil, emphatically what Jazzz meant.

So now I have proof that you're willing to lie and misrepresent his position.

So I'm confirmed in my skepticism about everything else you claim.

See how this works?

Phil seriously, not working.

 

[phildwyer]

Why not address my points about the message/messenger dichotomy?

Sure.

If I see hysterical, abusive messengers, who can be proved willing to lie about stuff I know about, that makes me suspect their message regarding things I'm not sure about.