• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

What is a truther?

DC

Banned
DC
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
23,064
What exactly is a truther? From when on can one be called a truther?
 
Fundamentally, I consider people truthers if they don't believe that 19 Islamic fundamentalists hijacked 4 airliners and crashed them.

I also think most LIHOP scenarios make somebody a truther too.
 
DC said:
What exactly is a truther? From when on can one be called a truther?
Click to expand...
A truther is someone so delusional they make Disney movies look like real-life documentaries.
 
twinstead said:
Fundamentally, I consider people truthers if they don't believe that 19 Islamic fundamentalists hijacked 4 airliners and crashed them.

I also think most LIHOP scenarios make somebody a truther too.
Click to expand...

When someone merely has some doubts and does only think a new Investigation should be done, but other than that does not favor any of the theories avaible?
 
I imagine a truther as:

- One who doesn't know how to think for themselves.
- One that will only accept items as "evidence" only if it discredits official explanations.
- One who automatically discredits evidence if they don't understand how it works.
- One who doesn't want to admit being wrong, despite glaring evidence to the contrary.


I may add some more...
 
Truther is a prejorative to conflate all skepticism toward the official story under a tidy banner that holds the skeptic responsible for any and all assertions by anyone else skeptical of the official story.

Furthermore, labeling is a cheap rhetorical tactic that's rejected in any reputable debate or debate forum, except for jref, apparently.
 
Sabretooth said:
I imagine a truther as:

- One who doesn't know how to think for themselves.
- One that will only accept items as "evidence" only if it discredits official explanations.
- One who automatically discredits evidence if they don't understand how it works.
- One who doesn't want to admit being wrong, despite glaring evidence to the contrary.


I may add some more...
Click to expand...
-One that has no problem advancing lies if it advances his/her version of the "truth".
 
Last edited:
DC said:
When someone merely has some doubts and does only think a new Investigation should be done, but other than that does not favor any of the theories avaible?
Click to expand...

That puts them in some kind of limbo, because you and I both know there will be no new investigation. I guess one can be an agnostic on the issue, but I think since there is no competing theory at this time, it's rational to be 'not a truther' by default.

At that point, it's more logical to call oneself a skeptic.
 
Last edited:
twinstead said:
That puts them in some kind of limbo, because you and I both know there will be no new investigation.
Click to expand...

You're assuming the investigations are over. To the best of my knowledge this is not the case.

A "truther" is someone that wants a "new investigation" but has no interest in doing it.
 
A Truther is someone who believes in 9/11 MIHOP

Unless they believe in JFK CT, or Diana CT, or ApolloHoax, or chemtrails, when they are also Truthers
[/femr2 mode]
 
DC said:
What exactly is a truther? From when on can one be called a truther?
Click to expand...

A truther, in non-truther parlance is a friggin idiot.
Pretty much anybody who thinks
- No planes at any or all of the sites
- Fires can't weaken steel
- Radio Controlled aircraft
- WTC 7 was hugely important

...or any other lame-brain argument that removes blame from the terrorists who actually did it.
 
DGM said:
-One that has no problem advancing lies if it advances his/her version of the "truth".
Click to expand...
.
AKA priest, rabbi, reverend, president, senator, representative, mayor, lawyer....
 
GlennB said:
A Truther is someone who believes in 9/11 MIHOP

Unless they believe in JFK CT, or Diana CT, or ApolloHoax, or chemtrails, when they are also Truthers
[/femr2 mode]
Click to expand...
Wait, what does MIHOP mean at this very second. What is the exact "what" and "it"?


:confused:






;)
 
RedIbis said:
Truther is a prejorative to conflate all skepticism toward the official story under a tidy banner that holds the skeptic responsible for any and all assertions by anyone else skeptical of the official story.

Furthermore, labeling is a cheap rhetorical tactic that's rejected in any reputable debate or debate forum, except for jref, apparently.
Click to expand...

So to you, is there a difference between legitimate skepticism of the "official story" (e.g. people like you who just like to nitpick the NIST report on scientific grounds, yet have no real alternate theory to propose) and crazy people who think that space beams dustified the towers or that there were no planes, yet also have no real alternate theory to propose?
 
Last edited:
twinstead said:
So to you, is there a difference between legitimate skepticism of the "official story" (e.g. people like you who just like to nitpick the NIST report on scientific grounds, yet have no real theory to propose) and crazy people who think that space beams dustified the towers or that there were no planes?
Click to expand...

Of course not. There is no difference at all. People who believe that space beams brought down the towers are the same as those who are skeptical of NIST's WTC 7 report because it is not supported by any physical evidence. No difference at all. That should be obvious.
 
DC said:
When someone merely has some doubts and does only think a new Investigation should be done, but other than that does not favor any of the theories avaible?
Click to expand...

Yes. That's a truther. Truthers define themselves by what they don't or can't believe in, rather than by objective fact. Presented with objective fact, their position is that they can't believe that, therefore more investigation should be done.
 
RedIbis said:
Of course not. There is no difference at all. People who believe that space beams brought down the towers are the same as those who are skeptical of NIST's WTC 7 report because it is not supported by any physical evidence. No difference at all. That should be obvious.
Click to expand...

Ah. Sarcasm. What a concept. So do we call you a skeptic and the crazy people truthers?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom