raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on May 12, 2008 13:50:59 GMT -4
In honour of the Other Side of the Coin, I am starting a thread to discuss claims and statements that only hurt the truth by PAN.
1) Insults. Calling Moon Hoax Conspiracy Theorists names may be temporarily satisfying, but it only adds ill will to the debate and makes your claim look bad. Besides, I myself get an evil kind of glee when I out nice someone who is metaphorically frothing at the mouth. Try it sometime. 2) Jingoism. "If you think the moon landing was fake, you HATE AMERICA!" I cannot count the number of times I have read this and other similar statements. Sadly it only adds credence to the claims of MHCT's that only "Stupid Americans believe we went to the moon" Please, just don't.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on May 12, 2008 14:07:34 GMT -4
I often use the term "ignorant" to describe many MHCTs as that's what they often display themselves to be. They make a bold claim having virtually no knowledge of the subject, nor any applicable knowledge of the sciences involved. It's like me going onto a medical forum and saying open heart surgery is impossible. One should study the opponents argument and evidence first. Ignorance is a reversable state of being, and is universal in humankind...nobody knows everything.
Also, with some frequency, there is an anti American slant in the arguments or posts. In "defending" the Apollo history, posters are called "government shills" and "puppets" (regardless of their nationality). Others sometimes use past transgressions, real or imagined, to cast doubt on Apollo... NASA=Government=CIA=NSA=DOD=war+evil=lies. It's difficult to keep a thread on topic when this starts flying.
Nonetheless, good points made.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on May 12, 2008 14:19:26 GMT -4
1) Insults.
It works both ways, and in my experience the HB's are far more rude than Apollo supporters. You even demonstrate that in the title of this thread. The term "PAN" (short for "Pro Apollo Nutter") is an insult.
2) Jingoism. "If you think the moon landing was fake, you HATE AMERICA!" I cannot count the number of times I have read this and other similar statements.
Go ahead and try. Show me some examples of that in this forum, because I don't recall anything even similar to that. A large percentage of the members of this forum (possibly even the majority) are not even from the United States (including me).
|
|
raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on May 12, 2008 14:30:04 GMT -4
Go ahead and try. Show me some examples of that in this forum, because I don't recall anything even similar to that. A large percentage of the members of this forum (possibly even the majority) are not even from the United States (including me).I apologize, I should have made it more clear. I admit I mostly see these statements on that paradigm of rational thinking and polite debate, YouTube. My apologies that I didn't clear I wasn't refering strictly to this site. I am sorry. As for insults, I know it is very difficult, but as I said, frothing back only makes matters worse.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 12, 2008 14:41:41 GMT -4
I have pointed out anti-american bias where I have seen it, but disbelief in the moon landings alone wouldn't be enough evidence for me to believe someone was anti-american in their sentiements. It does seem to sometimes be a contributing factor, however.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on May 12, 2008 15:25:24 GMT -4
I have pointed out anti-american bias where I have seen it, but disbelief in the moon landings alone wouldn't be enough evidence for me to believe someone was anti-american in their sentiements. It does seem to sometimes be a contributing factor, however. I agree that anti-Americanism appears to be a contributing factor in some cases, but I usually try to avoid bringing up the subject because that just supplies an opening for the discussion to deviate off topic. Give an HB a chance and the next thing you know we're talking about 9-11, the war in Iraq, and who knows what else. When it seems appropriate I prefer simply to say that the anti-American comments are not relevant to the discussion.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on May 12, 2008 15:58:47 GMT -4
It seems to me that HBs often start their arguments with anti-American statements. "The US government has lied about things, so they must have been lying about the moon landings." Only they usually use harsher language. In that situation, I don't blame people for assuming that the HBs have anti-American and/or anti-government feelings.
|
|
|
Post by dinsmore on May 12, 2008 16:19:14 GMT -4
May one ask which country the HBs live in? It must be wonderful to have a government that has never lied about anything.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on May 12, 2008 16:19:39 GMT -4
Name-calling. Labels are an unfortunate requirement of any discussion, and choosing them to be both accurate and value-neutral is difficult. I typically say "conspiracist" as a contraction for "conspiracy theorist," and distinct from "conspirator," which would imply some sort of culpability. I don't intend it to be an insult, but I do intend it to evoke a characteristic class of arguments and behaviors.
"Ignorant" is sometimes an unfortunate necesstiy. If claims are made from willful ignorance, then calling the spade a spade is simply the only way to proceed. If someone insists, for example, that space radiation is too intense to allow Apollo missions, yet refuses to obtain or exhibit specific knowledge to support that claim, then ignorance is simply what is going on.
Nationalism. It is acceptable to have pride in the achievements of one's nation. However, one should not put the cart before the horse. It is one thing to say one is proud of the United States for having landed men on the Moon. It is another thing to say one must believe in the Moon landings because one is a proud American. The conspiracist interpretation is often the latter.
Conversely when one is branded a pro-NASA or pro-American cheerleader, and when it is further implied that one's pride is all that motivates belief, too often that leads to a knee-jerk reaction to find some sacrificial lamb of unpopular agency or national politics upon which one can then wax suitably indignant, as a sort of litmus test showing one's willigness to exhibit shame.
That is, in my opinion, distractive. One should not have to bring up irrelevant topics or contrive some modicum of criticism in order to be taken seriously. It validates what is essentially an ad hominem rejection of the rebuttal to some conspiracy theory. "You're just saying that because you love and trust NASA!" "Not true; I criticized NASA for its handling of Columbia and Challenger." While reasonably addressing the ad hom, it simply creates another one of its own: it suggests that one's willingness to trash-talk NASA has anything to do with the factual case for or against Apollo.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on May 12, 2008 18:11:18 GMT -4
Also, with some frequency, there is an anti American slant in the arguments or posts. This seems almost universal. I usually respond by saying that yes, I agree, Bush is by far the worst president in US history, but that's irrelevant to whether Apollo happened or not. The conspiracists' actual reasoning is really very simple. (1) They're the smartest and cleverest humans who ever lived. (2) They don't know how to go to the moon. (3) Ergo, no one else can either, not even the entire US aerospace industry. I really think this is it. Conspiracy theorists are insecure people with great feelings of inadequacy. Apollo succeeded through the efforts of a lot of very clever, talented and motivated people. Like most members of the public, the CTs know this. But to applaud those achievements along with everyone else means admitting there are a lot of people a lot smarter than they are. So the CT insists it was all a fraud. This simultaneously stomps Apollo down and boosts himself into the position of being smart and clever enough to figure out something that no one else could. But at some level they know they're being dishonest. Rather than confront it, they project their dishonesty onto everyone even remotely associated with the Apollo program, no matter how ludicrous that may be. No wonder these guys get so testy when you challenge their claims.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on May 12, 2008 18:33:04 GMT -4
In honour of the Other Side of the Coin, I am starting a thread to discuss claims and statements that only hurt the truth by PAN. 1) Insults. Calling Moon Hoax Conspiracy Theorists names may be temporarily satisfying, but it only adds ill will to the debate and makes your claim look bad. Besides, I myself get an evil kind of glee when I out nice someone who is metaphorically frothing at the mouth. Try it sometime. 2) Jingoism. "If you think the moon landing was fake, you HATE AMERICA!" I cannot count the number of times I have read this and other similar statements. Sadly it only adds credence to the claims of MHCT's that only "Stupid Americans believe we went to the moon" Please, just don't. This isn't YouTube. I commented only once on YouTube and was insulted and called names in language that would never appear on this forum. As a result, I'll never comment on YouTube again! The "you hate America" comment I've never come across, even on YouTube, but of course I don't read the comments section very much because generally it's a slugfest of insults and rude behavior. I am Canadian, but that has never affected how I feel about Apollo. I did start a thread here once though praising the American Space Program apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=apollo&action=display&thread=1381"Those Amazing Americans in Space" as a tribute of sorts to the American space program, and questioning the oft repeated claim that Russia was so far ahead of the Americans in the "Space Race". I think the nastiest thing I've ever said here (just off the top of my head) is suggesting that HB visit a library. I can be very polite - even Jarrah White quoted me in one of his videos because when he miscalculated on speeding up or slowing down a video I said "it seemed like an honest mistake", I must admit that sometimes when confronted with an HB I can get very frustrated - mainly because instead of addressing the issue at hand, they ignore you and jump to something else. I am interested in their explanation of their 'alternate' routes of the space program, but they never seem to provide any details, and when the you explain how it really happened they just pretend you're not there anymore. For example, I'm still waiting for turbonium's response on this thread apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1154&page=1from April 17.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on May 12, 2008 20:35:57 GMT -4
I apologize, I should have made it more clear. I admit I mostly see these statements on that paradigm of rational thinking and polite debate, YouTube. My apologies that I didn't clear I wasn't refering strictly to this site. I am sorry. As for insults, I know it is very difficult, but as I said, frothing back only makes matters worse. I'd have to point out that it's not the best of ideas to post what you think some people do on YouTube in a thread here as if it is what people here do. The conspiracists' actual reasoning is really very simple. (1) They're the smartest and cleverest humans who ever lived. (2) They don't know how to go to the moon. (3) Ergo, no one else can either, not even the entire US aerospace industry. I think you have nailed it here. You'd be surprised (actually I bet you wouldn't) the number of CT's I see claiming to have IQ's in the 180+ range. Generally they get laughed at, but time and time again I see them do it. I'm pretty happy with my paltry 140, it puts me into the top 5% of the population, but it is also sobering to realise that it also means that there are 300 million others out there of equal or higher intelligence. That means that there are 300 million people out there that can figure things out that I can't, and even more that that when you add in those with lower IQ, but with the skills, knowledge, and experience to do things I can't do. As a result, I have to admit that just because I can't do it, doesn't mean someone else can't either. Many people seem to be unable to fathom this truth, they don't want other people to be smarter than they are. I think it comes from both an inflated ego and an inflated IQ. In the CT's case they often need to keep those inflated by lording it over the ill informed and those that they genuinely are smarter than. Unfortunately for them, once they run into those that are well informed or really are smarter then the average bear, their pseudo-intellectual facade starts to crumble pretty fast and they just look ignorant and silly. At that point they seem to be the one that quickly resorts to Ad Hominem and insults. Heck on one place I posted for a short while, I was keeping a running count on the number of times he called me a "Government Shill." In just the few days I posted it was up over 30.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on May 12, 2008 21:00:35 GMT -4
In honour of the Other Side of the Coin, I am starting a thread to discuss claims and statements that only hurt the truth by PAN. Good topic! 1) Insults. Calling Moon Hoax Conspiracy Theorists names may be temporarily satisfying, but it only adds ill will to the debate and makes your claim look bad. Besides, I myself get an evil kind of glee when I out nice someone who is metaphorically frothing at the mouth. Try it sometime. First off (this is to Lunar Orbit), I like the term PAN ("Pro-Apollo Nutter") and wear it with pride. I think it is an accurate (if cheeky) term for those of us who have accumulated so much detailed knowledge about a decades-dead project. We're geeks on the subject. Admit it. PAN is more accurate than AB ("Apollo Believer"). To have AB be the antithesis of HB implies one belief versus another. As many have pointed out, the truth of the Apollo landings is not about belief, it's about understanding the science and the evidence. One of the most common and insidious forms of insulting behavior from PANs comes from those who express impatience when a new HB shows up with the same old arguments. The "old-timers" (I use the term regardless of age) rattle off this dismissive, seen-it-all-before attitude that can be very off-putting to the new guy, especially when several others pile-on in the same way. BAUT has gotten really bad about this; especially with confrontational bullies like Neverfly and 01101001. I like to see a positive learning environment. I start by assuming that the HB is simply mislead: He/she has only seen one side of the argument. In revealing the facts, make it cool. The details of Apollo are just so darn neat. The folks who did it had bitchin' jobs and knew it. If we can convey that spirit of enthusiasm, that sense of dedication, that ethic that hard work accomplished miracles (and still can), then maybe Apollo isn't really dead after all. Of course, this doesn't work on the entrenched Straydogs of the world, but I don't talk to them anyway. 2) Jingoism. "If you think the moon landing was fake, you HATE AMERICA!" I cannot count the number of times I have read this and other similar statements. Sadly it only adds credence to the claims of MHCT's that only "Stupid Americans believe we went to the moon" Please, just don't. Well said. That one drives me nuts, too. It's about the facts, not the nation.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on May 13, 2008 1:02:42 GMT -4
I'm one of the smartest people I know. I say this a bit bluntly, but it is actually true. I've got about ten to twenty points on you, PW, though around here, I'd say you often know more than I, which is often more important. 180? I wouldn't believe that claim from much of anyone. And even if it could be vindicated, so what? The degree and experience are more important than the raw IQ; it's why they won't just let me teach at my alma mater without the two higher pieces of paper that they can't give me there.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on May 13, 2008 4:09:02 GMT -4
I once heard someone say that IQ was like the graduations on a measuring jug: it tells you the volume but says nothing about the content....
|
|