|
Post by laurel on May 1, 2010 19:10:44 GMT -4
Why do HBs assume that just because they haven't heard a particular argument, it's startling and earth-shaking and new? Wwu77 also posted a link to one of Sam Colby's pages on IMDB last year, calling it a "new FAQ." The FAQ had been discussed and debunked on BAUT in 2003.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on May 1, 2010 19:57:01 GMT -4
I had a few minutes and took a look at the David Icke forum.
Eww. Makes GLP look like a bastion of common sense and decency.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on May 1, 2010 22:34:35 GMT -4
Wwu77 also posted a link to one of Sam Colby's pages on IMDB last year, calling it a "new FAQ." The FAQ had been discussed and debunked on BAUT in 2003.Actually my response to that particular Colby page was the first one I wrote for Clavius, in 1999. Colby's claims have been refuted for 11 years and counting. I recall that post of his: About six people immediately refuted his claim, and he never came back to address any of it. Why do people get excited about long-debunked claims? Well, first they generally don't know they've been debunked. Remember, these aren't people looking to know the truth; they're people looking to know some deep dark secret. They don't survey the available information. They look for ammunition, hence their research is very one-sided. Second, the premise of most conspiracy theories is that the people who don't believe in them are "sheeple." That is, the notion of informed rebuttals to a conspiracy theory simply doesn't factor into their thinking. The conspiracy theorist argues from a preconceived position of informational superiority. Granted many whom he will encounter won't know the details, but the conspiracy "script" is written so that all opposition is uninformed and/or evil. With that premise in place, the conspiracy gnosis is handed down as if it were a carefully-guarded, painstakingly unveiled secret that "...They don't want you to know about!" (insert garish colors). The way it's framed, it doesn't occur to the believer that it might actually be a well-known proposition with a well-worn debate around it.
|
|
|
Post by hagbardceline on May 1, 2010 22:56:50 GMT -4
It could be fun if lots of us joined the thread on the David Icke forum if just to burst a few bubbles lol. Go ahead! ;D But you may get a few bubbles of your own burst. The moonhoax threads on the David Icke Forum have been visted by plenty of AB's before. (This is the only thread on this subject I've not posted on yet. )
|
|
|
Post by hagbardceline on May 1, 2010 22:58:24 GMT -4
Check out the UFO section for some howlers. I've signed up to the forum and am having a splendid time snooping around. When my account is activated I shall start asking questions I hope I can answer them. Any I don't the others will hopefully.
|
|
|
Post by hagbardceline on May 1, 2010 23:02:47 GMT -4
If you want to discuss the fake-or-real moon landings then this board tends to have most of the relevent threads on it : www.davidicke.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=6 Use "search" to find the older ones because it's a busy forum. And in case you're wondering, "hagbard_celine" on that forum is indeed my good self. ;D
|
|
|
Post by tedward on May 2, 2010 4:35:52 GMT -4
If I were ever to become a second hand car sales man specialising in one old lady owner cars and flog shonky insurance to boot, I know where to go.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on May 2, 2010 4:54:32 GMT -4
If you want to discuss the fake-or-real moon landings then this board tends to have most of the relevent threads on it : www.davidicke.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=6 Use "search" to find the older ones because it's a busy forum. And in case you're wondering, "hagbard_celine" on that forum is indeed my good self. ;D You going to debate any here? Few questions waiting for your list. Edit, my apologies. I see you have answered. Shall go and reply. My mistake.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on May 2, 2010 14:18:11 GMT -4
Is there anything to be gained by discussing the Apollo program on a site where people think atomic bombs were fake and the nuclear plants are just dump-tanks for excess energy?
I don't think so.
If people want to discuss the Apollo program in an intelligent fashion with knowledgeable people who bother to spell-check, this is the place. Past experience has shown that our efforts to be intelligent and informative fall of deaf ears.
My hope for humanity withers with every new "hoax believer" who wanders in flogging the same dead horses, but not bothering to understand the nuances of proper debating.
Thanks anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on May 2, 2010 16:30:58 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on May 3, 2010 18:54:43 GMT -4
I wish I hadn't clicked that, I just had a shower... Hagbardceline if that's your idea of a good place to hold a debate you're welcome to it, I'll stay here where facts, evidence and reason are in vogue.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on May 4, 2010 0:23:39 GMT -4
Not to mention a lack of horrible, horrible offensiveness. I clicked on it, too, and was so taken aback that people can still believe that kind of garbage that I had no response.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 4, 2010 11:22:30 GMT -4
Why do people get excited about long-debunked claims? Well, first they generally don't know they've been debunked. Remember, these aren't people looking to know the truth; they're people looking to know some deep dark secret. They don't survey the available information. They look for ammunition, hence their research is very one-sided. Second, the premise of most conspiracy theories is that the people who don't believe in them are "sheeple." That is, the notion of informed rebuttals to a conspiracy theory simply doesn't factor into their thinking. The conspiracy theorist argues from a preconceived position of informational superiority. Granted many whom he will encounter won't know the details, but the conspiracy "script" is written so that all opposition is uninformed and/or evil. With that premise in place, the conspiracy gnosis is handed down as if it were a carefully-guarded, painstakingly unveiled secret that "...They don't want you to know about!" (insert garish colors). The way it's framed, it doesn't occur to the believer that it might actually be a well-known proposition with a well-worn debate around it. Interestingly enough, anti-Mormon criticism on the internet works almost exactly the same way. Long-debunked claims are raked over again and again, believers are told to "stop drinking the kool-aid" or derided as "the Morg" with no concept that they may in fact be more informed on the subject than the critics, and then the criticism that will finally blow Mormonism out of the water is slowly revealed with the expectation of much fanfare and usually some resentment when the believers react with "oh, not that old thing again." I wonder if it's the result of similar mindests at work or because the same forum (internet discussion forums) is used?
|
|
|
Post by RAF on May 4, 2010 11:43:32 GMT -4
Jason...would it be possible for you to stay on topic? This thread has nothing to do with religion, yet you feel the need to make religious comparisons.
I'll make you a "deal"...I'll leave you alone on your religious threads, if you stop trying to inject your religion into places where it doesn't belong.
Thanks...
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on May 4, 2010 12:19:33 GMT -4
Jason...would it be possible for you to stay on topic? This thread has nothing to do with religion, yet you feel the need to make religious comparisons. I sympathize with the separation of church and whatever, but I feel compelled to agree with Jason here: I have seen the phenomenon he mentions (the cyclical nature of polemical argument) and I tend to believe it does indeed have a single psychological root cause. It doesn't seem to matter what one is arguing about -- religion, science, history, whatever. When strong feelings are at stake, a false novelty arises when one first encounters the argument. I don't read this as Jason promoting his religion, but rather as drawing upon his experience to note another example of a phenomenon we're discussing. In my opinion it's on topic.
|
|