Questions for Truthers

[Quad4_72]

One thing I also noticed is that many of the newer posters here are quick to engage the twoofers. The tolls of years of debating the exact same old nonsense has not taken its toll on them. One thing I suggest to anyone who has recently joined, is to take a step back and realize something. Those of us that joined in like 2006 or prior have been debating these twoofers about the same crap for many years. They are not going to change, and everything has been debunked. Nothing is left. All that is left is trolling, and by jumping into a debate with them you only further their agendas.

 

[1337m4n]

Answers questions put to you in the manner in which you wish to have your questions answered, and I guarantee you will see a change in how others here treat you.

This. Seconded, and a hundred times over.

Red, this is really a simple matter of etiquette. Etiquette, that which you hopefully started learning in kindergarten. Say "please" and "thank you", hold the door open for the guy behind you, apologize when you anger somebody. Treat other people as you would like to be treated.

Did you ever consider, for instance, stepping into our shoes for a moment? Did you ever think about how we might feel upon, after asking you for evidence for all the accusations and implications you make, being completely ignored? We want to know WHY you don't consider BigAl's list of Flight 93 evidence to be sufficient proof that is crashed in Shanksville. We want to know HOW you came to the conclusion that Silverstein was lying. We want to know HOW you intend for a reasonable discussion to ever continue without first answering those questions.

The polite thing to do is to answer questions that are asked of you. If you ask me a question, I will do my best to answer it. This is the etiquette I was raised with. If it helps, imagine this isn't an Internet forum. Imagine we're actually phyically together, in a real place, seeing each other face to face. Imagine completely ignoring the other guy's question. While looking him in the eye. See how that would work?

Or perhaps the visualization would be better were you on the recieving end. Imagine you're in an unfamiliar town and need directions to the theatre. Imagine asking somebody on the street for directions. Imagine that person looking you in the eye...and then ignoring your question completely. He walks away without saying a word...or worse, while muttering a thinly-veiled insult pertaining to theatre-goers being unskeptical people who can't figure things out for themselves.

How would that make you feel? That's how we feel when you ignore our questions and instead opt to insult our skepticism.

Just remember: etiquette. I swear on my honor as an Eagle Scout that if you were to start giving direct answers to our questions, start being direct rather than vague with your statements and assertions, and start explaining your reasoning whenever you made an accusation (e.g. "I don't think Flight 93 crashed in that ditch and here's why...", "I think Silverstein was lying through his dentures and here's what led me to that conclusion...", etc.) that you would see a TREMENDOUS imrpovement in how you get treated around here within the next three months.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Just remember: etiquette. I swear on my honor as an Eagle Scout that if you were to start giving direct answers to our questions, start being direct rather than vague with your statements and assertions, and start explaining your reasoning whenever you made an accusation (e.g. "I don't think Flight 93 crashed in that ditch and here's why...", "I think Silverstein was lying through his dentures and here's what led me to that conclusion...", etc.) that you would see a TREMENDOUS imrpovement in how you get treated around here within the next three months.

Here, here!

However, I think it is important to remember what I believe to be one of the most important reason that truthers, or any other true believers, come to the JREF forums. It's not to convince us of anything; it's to convince themselves. It's to continually reinforce their own shaky belief system.

I think part of the reason truthers are so evasive is that they are trying desperately to salvage their own treasured beliefs. If they come right out and say what they believe, if they hear themselves asking straightforward questions, if they do anything at all to bring their view of the world into the light of day, the illusion that they are spending their time and effort on a worthwhile cause is lost.

This is especially true of intelligent believers like Red Ibis (and no, Red, I am not baiting you, I'm just using you as an example). While the less intelligent truthers have no problem holding two contradictory ideas in their minds simultaneously, it's a little much to ask of someone who actually thinks about what he's saying.

When such people use rhetorical tricks and evasion tactics, I don't think of it as being dishonest so much as I think they are sincerely frightened that they might be wrong.

 

[chillzero]

As I said, whatever floats your boat. I feel this is a board of individuals and that I think those individuals can decide for themselves how they wish to react to the CTists.

Totally agree. As I said, this thread is more about adding some tools to the toolbelt, not about restricting or dismissing anyone.

And since your post was in direct response to mine, may I ask what leads you to think I don't think through my responses.

You don't need to be so defensive. I don't think that you don't think through your answers, and I have a lot of respect for you as a member. I was responding to your concern that people here are being dictated to as to how they must respond, when in reality they are being approached with a suggestion as to how they might respond on occasion. I would hope that members like Bobert and Tweeter would maybe give some thought to a new approach, and if they don't, I'd hope that others would respond differently to them instead - particularly Tweeter who only posts for a response and is rarely disappointed in that (same for Galileo).

This section, in my opinion, is being more sullied, more often, by the knee-jerk sarcastic and dismissive comments made by the 'debunkers'. In many cases there is no case being made and they pre-empt the entire thread by just mocking a member, and dragging the thread down into bickering and one-upmanship. It's really quite pathetic. I don't count you among those but I don't think you can deny it happens.

This thread was started to say 'look, here's another method you might like to try out sometimes'. But you took it to say 'Everyone, from now on you must comply with this version of posting', and that's very different.

And pretty soon you either have:
All Woos posting in a skeptical vacuum. Or a deadly dull and boring forum.

I doubt that very much unless every single member reacts as you do and takes a little friendly suggestion as being an order on how to behave. Good grief.
Carry on mocking and being sarcastic to those who believe differently, though, and you 'chase off' the very people you need to be engaging in discussion and then you have a forum that has people preaching to the choir, slapping each other on the back, and never being tested on thier own positions. I'm standing testimony that people can move from one belief set to another, and so are several members in this section. We didn't get here by succumbing to mockery, but through the persuasiveness of facts and arguments that didn't stand up to deep scrutiny.

And maybe Randi could take the same approach. Just put the crazies and liars on ignore. Why bother with the MDC or SWIFT. They're all wrong. We know they're wrong. So let's be content in our superiority.

We can continue this discussion, if you would stop misrepresenting what has been suggested.

 

[chillzero]

When such people use rhetorical tricks and evasion tactics, I don't think of it as being dishonest so much as I think they are sincerely frightened that they might be wrong.

I can see this as true in some members, and I have been there myself. I came to this forum as a psychic intending to take the MDC. Why the suggestion made in the OP is so good is that I know from experience that these people will only become more polarised, and less likely to address that fear, if they face mockery and condescension and nastiness that only acts to support the position they have taken that skeptics are nasty and offensive - always on the offensive.

Address the points instead of the individuals and you give them no room to fill in the blanks in the areas where they post these questions. You also give them room to admit that what has been said is factual. If they dispute it they need to be able to show why - especially if you maintain that same approach until the chain of discussion has been followed through. By removing the insults you make it easier for them to take that step across, if that's where they are headed. By adding just one insult, as can be seen above, you immediately introduce an 'out' which can be grabbed and utilised to ignore the actual facts under discussion. The further that derail goes, the less likely anyone is to get back on track and pick up the thread in the same place.

Far too many people here argue with the personalities on display and do not address the facts. That may be ok with lot of you who have done the same thing over and over. It does nothing to help your case though, and does nothing to persuade those who may be reading, and are either undecided or persuadable.

 

[T.A.M.]

Guys,

I do not follow any particular truther closely, so I will plead ignorance on most of the background between many of you and RedIbis. However...

From my encounters with Red, while evasive, I have never found him to lack in etiquette. I have found him to be one of the more articulate, and polite truthers ever to have registered for this forum.

I think the essence of what people have requested of Red, is fine, if it amounts to,

"when asked a question, either say I DON'T KNOW, or give a definitive answer. Don't be vague, or evasive."

TAM

 

[Foolmewunz]

Totally agree. As I said, this thread is more about adding some tools to the toolbelt, not about restricting or dismissing anyone.


You don't need to be so defensive. I don't think that you don't think through your answers, and I have a lot of respect for you as a member. I was responding to your concern that people here are being dictated to as to how they must respond, when in reality they are being approached with a suggestion as to how they might respond on occasion. I would hope that members like Bobert and Tweeter would maybe give some thought to a new approach, and if they don't, I'd hope that others would respond differently to them instead - particularly Tweeter who only posts for a response and is rarely disappointed in that (same for Galileo).

This section, in my opinion, is being more sullied, more often, by the knee-jerk sarcastic and dismissive comments made by the 'debunkers'. In many cases there is no case being made and they pre-empt the entire thread by just mocking a member, and dragging the thread down into bickering and one-upmanship. It's really quite pathetic. I don't count you among those but I don't think you can deny it happens.

This thread was started to say 'look, here's another method you might like to try out sometimes'. But you took it to say 'Everyone, from now on you must comply with this version of posting', and that's very different.



I doubt that very much unless every single member reacts as you do and takes a little friendly suggestion as being an order on how to behave. Good grief.
Carry on mocking and being sarcastic to those who believe differently, though, and you 'chase off' the very people you need to be engaging in discussion and then you have a forum that has people preaching to the choir, slapping each other on the back, and never being tested on thier own positions. I'm standing testimony that people can move from one belief set to another, and so are several members in this section. We didn't get here by succumbing to mockery, but through the persuasiveness of facts and arguments that didn't stand up to deep scrutiny.



We can continue this discussion, if you would stop misrepresenting what has been suggested.

Chillzero, I'm not misrepresenting so much as extrapolating. Continuing the discussion might mean that you have to not employ rhetorical tricks like that.

I think that personal opinions are so blatantly obvious that it's really tedious to have to repeatedly state, "IMHO". Exaggeration is sometimes useful to make a point. Calling it misrepresentation is sort of belaboring the obvious.

I specifically do NOT propose that Jeff and Phil and Randi start ignoring people who are wrong, and I specifically do NOT propose that FLS or Rolfe start tuning out homeopathic frauds. And I'm not specifically solely addressing your comments - sorry if it appeared that way. Obviously, above you're discussing precisely how to engage the persons in question - yet there are people in this thread who've expressed a devotion to ignoring them. (Did you witness that someone was egged on to put a poster on ignore?) That's the part I have a problem with.

Myriad's modest proposal may work for some. There's certainly no harm in giving yourself a mental checklist for responding on serious topics. But I don't think it works for all, and I wouldn't want anyone to feel that they were outside the fold if they elect to choose another way to handle CT questions, posts, etc...

To each his(her) own. Jim Ben likes to use mockery - and he does it very nicely. Beachnut, otoh, channels what to me seems to be a pent up rage and expresses his displeasure in no uncertain terms. TAM is judicious and steadfast. Etc... etc.... etc...



Yeah, I worry about creeping groupthink. Perhaps too much so, and maybe this discussion is going on too long for most tastes. If so, I'll just STFU. I think I've stated what was on my mind.

 

[chillzero]

I think we are pretty much in agreement, actually.