|
Post by turbonium on Aug 30, 2005 21:37:23 GMT -4
I don't agree with Sibrel's method of confrontation, such as the Aldrin incident. I find it's done for cheap theatrics, and has no place in serious investigative journalism. It is actually detrimental to proving the moon landings were hoaxed. Even though I am not convinced the moon landings were genuine, I don't support tactics such as this in the least.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Aug 31, 2005 9:14:17 GMT -4
Hey, margamatix. Have you ever studied logic? The facts of an argument are irrelevant if the structure of the argument is flawed. If I say "my wife refuses to answer when she stopped spying for Venezuela, and punched me in the nose the last time I asked her about it," That doesn't prove she's a Venezuelan spy. That only proves she's sick of my asking her nonsensical questions. rocketdad, welcome to the board. Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
|
|
|
Post by rocketdad on Aug 31, 2005 12:31:35 GMT -4
Even though I am not convinced the moon landings were genuine, I don't support tactics such as this in the least. I'm a skeptic. I'll go out on a limb to believe in whales, even though I've never met one, but really, this hoax stuff defeats itself every step of the way. Even if a fact is stated, it gets stated without any logical stucture that stands up.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Sept 5, 2005 4:00:41 GMT -4
I love this thread, but it's a shame that Margamatix appears unable to see the parallel.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Sept 5, 2005 10:06:13 GMT -4
Thinking critically includes the ability to see one's own arguments in all their objective glory or shame. To those who haven't learned to think critically, one's own arguments are "defined" as correct and opposing ones are "defined" as incorrect. People unable to evaluate their own beliefs critically don't know why they believe what they believe.
|
|