gio wrote:Holy fuck, what an appropriate day for this discussion.

Here ya go, Bob: go to town on this one.

Done so, hours and hours ago, in one of the 9/11 threads.

unarmedman wrote:I've gone over these things enough times in my own life that there is no way this audio recording board would ever merit my going over it again.

Sorry, I'm through taking excuses like these. Who are you? Unarmedman? I barely have an impression of you, even after reading this forum for three straight years. I have some vague memory of you getting your ass handed to you by steve in a political thread some time back, but beyond that, you're kind of a nobody in my book. Sorry if I don't just trust your boasts that you have it all figured out, but are simply too busy to show the class your work.

Either you debate a conspiracy theory on substance, or you stay a big mouth with nothing to back it up in my eyes.

gio wrote:I will reword my own damn statement:

And I will insert a simple fix at every point where it is needed, using the popular 'copy and paste' method. The fix will consist of placing the following sentence in red wherever it is required.

"I will analyze the psychologies and the debate tactics of the strawmen conspiracy theorists who I invent so I can avoid examining the substance of any conspiracy theory."- gio

gio wrote:
"Every time I have engaged in discussion with conspiracy theorists, which is approximately three or four times in my life, via the internet, I have been provoked, annoyed, and generally bemused by garden-path arguments "I will analyze the psychologies and the debate tactics of the strawmen conspiracy theorists who I invent so I can avoid examining the substance of any conspiracy theory."- gio
that lack conclusions and retain a consistent level of ambiguity."I will analyze the psychologies and the debate tactics of the strawmen conspiracy theorists who I invent so I can avoid examining the substance of any conspiracy theory."- gio
I find this frustrating."I will analyze the psychologies and the debate tactics of the strawmen conspiracy theorists who I invent so I can avoid examining the substance of any conspiracy theory."- gio It gets worse when they internalize arguments against their positions and retort with unnecessary ad hominem arguments."I will analyze the psychologies and the debate tactics of the strawmen conspiracy theorists who I invent so I can avoid examining the substance of any conspiracy theory."- gio I have witnessed conspiracy theorists attack their detractors with ad-hominem arguments"I will analyze the psychologies and the debate tactics of the strawmen conspiracy theorists who I invent so I can avoid examining the substance of any conspiracy theory."- gio which, to paraphrase, often get into the territory of "those who do not wish to spend time digging into conspiracies are "spineless" or "lazy" or "satisfied with the status quo.""I will analyze the psychologies and the debate tactics of the strawmen conspiracy theorists who I invent so I can avoid examining the substance of any conspiracy theory."- gio" I think this is bullshit. "I will analyze the psychologies and the debate tactics of the strawmen conspiracy theorists who I invent so I can avoid examining the substance of any conspiracy theory."- gio There is a line between paranoia and skepticism. "I will analyze the psychologies and the debate tactics of the strawmen conspiracy theorists who I invent so I can avoid examining the substance of any conspiracy theory."- gio I find conspiracy to be uncomfortably on the side of paranoia."I will analyze the psychologies and the debate tactics of the strawmen conspiracy theorists who I invent so I can avoid examining the substance of any conspiracy theory."- gio These arguments could theoretically continue for decades and end up nowhere."I will analyze the psychologies and the debate tactics of the strawmen conspiracy theorists who I invent so I can avoid examining the substance of any conspiracy theory."- gio If their theories prove correct, good for them. I'll stay away, thanks.""I will analyze the psychologies and the debate tactics of the strawmen conspiracy theorists who I invent so I can avoid examining the substance of any conspiracy theory."- gio

Here, I'll help you with rewording your post a second time, gio. Try this:

I, gio, want the luxury of claiming that nearly all conspiracy theories are bullshit, without the obligation of debunking any particular theory. I, gio, want the luxury of claiming that all conspiracy theorists argue unfairly, because that is easier than winning an argument on substance with any of them. I, gio, want the luxury of saying that Loose Change is a hoax without having to prove it. I, gio, want the luxury of also saying that there are unanswered questions about 9/11 ( so I have some wiggle room ), but I do not want to stop bitching about the conspiracy theorists who are trying to answer the questions that I concede exist. I, gio, will refuse to endorse the 9/11 Commission, but I want the luxury of not having this refusal interpreted as an endorsement of conspiracy theorists.

I, gio, want to write whatever I want without a response from those I attack, because after all, the majority of people dislike conspiracy theories and that is all the evidence that anyone should ever need to condemn them. The majority can always be trusted to choose the right path.

America: Love It Or Leave It

How's that, gio?

Dude, you're not worth debating, and I could care less if I made an impression on you. This is an internet messageboard. Who cares?

Oh yeah, that's right, you do.

Enjoy the rest of your Thursday c.b.

unarmedman wrote:Dude, you're not worth debating, and I could care less if I made an impression on you. This is an internet messageboard. Who cares?

This is, without question, my favorite douchebag cop-out. First, you make a post ( which indicates that the forum and the thread within the forum are worth contributing to ), then you follow that with the statement that the debate and thread and forum that you were just posting to twenty minutes ago are all now a waste of time.

That is priceless.

unarmedman wrote:Dude, you're not worth debating, and I could care less if I made an impression on you. This is an internet messageboard. Who cares?

Oh yeah, that's right, you do.

Enjoy the rest of your Thursday c.b.

seconded.

[edited again]

bob, the writings quotes for me thing is really creeping me out. a lot. i didn't ask for a head-to-head on this; please leave me alone. i don't want this to get personal, and I'm trying really hard not to project this onto you and project my disagreement with your politics on your persona... but it's getting close.

ok. please stop.

gio wrote:dude, bob, i made no personal affronts on you to provoke anything like this.

Keep lying to yourself. When you post to a thread where I am the most active advocate for conspiracy theories, on a forum where I am the most active advocate for conspiracy theories, and you call conspiracy theories "a rambling vomit of facts skewed by bias and ingorance towards reasonable evidence", I'm sorry, I take that as a personal affront. Your problem is that you wouldn't go near my initially civil invitation to back your words up.

So don't cry because you got raked over the coals. If you had any personal integrity, you would state that, based on your personal dealings with Clocker Bob, you don't like conspiracy theorists ( emphasis on 'theorists' ). That would be much much closer to the truth. Instead, you slandered conspiracy theories, which is a statement that you can't back up, because disliking people doesn't require evidence, but disliking theories does.

If you want to live in a world where words don't matter, good for you. Then we can move on to a world where facts don't matter, and then we can move on to a world where history doesn't matter, and then we'll all be citizens of Oceania where we all just keep the faith that things are as we are told.

gio wrote:you have just demonstrated to me, repeatedly, a set of empirical evidence supporting the claim that I DO NOT LIKE YOU.

And you have demonstrated to me repeatedly that you form positions based on bias, received opinion, and peer pressure. I'd rather be me than you.

gio wrote:please leave me the fuck alone. you're creeping me out.

I'm done now, but you couldn't expect me to leave this last emotional outburst of yours answered. Hope I gave you a miserable afternoon.

clocker bob wrote:

gio wrote:dude, bob, i made no personal affronts on you to provoke anything like this.

Keep lying to yourself. When you post to a thread where I am the most active advocate for conspiracy theories, on a forum where I am the most active advocate for conspiracy theories, and you call conspiracy theories "a rambling vomit of facts skewed by bias and ingorance towards reasonable evidence", I'm sorry, I take that as a personal affront. Your problem is that you wouldn't go near my initially civil invitation to back your words up.

So don't cry because you got raked over the coals. If you had any personal integrity, you would state that, based on your personal dealings with Clocker Bob, you don't like conspiracy theorists ( emphasis on 'theorists' ). That would be much much closer to the truth. Instead, you slandered conspiracy theories, which is a statement that you can't back up, because disliking people doesn't require evidence, but disliking theories does.

If you want to live in a world where words don't matter, good for you. Then we can move on to a world where facts don't matter, and then we can move on to a world where history doesn't matter, and then we'll all be citizens of Oceania where we all just keep the faith that things are as we are told.

gio wrote:you have just demonstrated to me, repeatedly, a set of empirical evidence supporting the claim that I DO NOT LIKE YOU.

And you have demonstrated to me repeatedly that you form positions based on bias, received opinion, and peer pressure. I'd rather be me than you.

gio wrote:please leave me the fuck alone. you're creeping me out.

I'm done now, but you couldn't expect me to leave this last emotional outburst of yours answered. Hope I gave you a miserable afternoon.

dude. get over yourself.

I have a family member who does similar things. I feel the same way about his opinions. I have also witnessed the behavior I described in followers of Lyndon LaRouche. They tend to convert "arguments" into personal affronts (I was onced threatened to a near-physical altercation by a LaRouche supporter.)

if you look back, i never once mention or quote your name. seriously, dude, this was a fucked way to behave. I never singled you out, yet you managed to see a reason to do so with me. Fucked upon fucked.

what a shitty way to behave. you'll win a lot of followers for your overthrow-the-government movement this way, i'm sure.

i'm more than done.

Earwicker wrote:

big_dave wrote:The vast majority of "conspiracy" language is loaded with the fear that clever people are organising themselves against you.

And do you think that 'clever people' have never organised themselves against other large groups of people?

A conspiracy theory does not necessarily have to hold that all groups/organisations/secret societies are somehow all in cahoots with each other against us. This for me is too much to think plausible.
A conspiracy just has to hold that powerful groups/organisations/secret societies will sometimes organise against large numbers of other people to maintain/stabilise their power.

If you don't believe that groups/organisation/secret societies ever conspire against you then you are naive in the extreme and are as ahistorical as anyone you might accuse.

Most of you seem to think that no one conspires unless they are exposed as doing so.
This is patently ridiculous.
No one would be exposed of anything ever if there was not investigation.

What.

gio wrote:
if you look back, i never once mention or quote your name. seriously, dude, this was a fucked way to behave. I never singled you out, yet you managed to see a reason to do so with me. Fucked upon fucked.

If you keep fighting for the last word ( and taking new shots ), I'm going to respond until my account gets yanked. These statements above are bullshit. Did you read the first six pages of this thread before you weighed in on page seven? If you did, then it should have been painfully obvious that an attack on conspiracy theories is an attack on me. Did you see where I got called 'Nazi Bob' and 'Clocker Goebbels' in another conspiracy thread? Nice fair treatment, huh? Anyway, I'm a conspiracy theorist. You know this. You have contributed to other conspiracy threads and political threads. There could be no mystery to you about who might take offense to your original post.

Point one: Spare me the 'I wasn't singling you out'. In fact, it doesn't even matter if this was my first day here on the forum, and you hadn't read me before. Stand behind your words. If you have strong opinions about conspiracy theories that you don't want argued with, keep them in your head. When you put them on a public message board, they become fair game for challenge.

Point two: Let's review history. Your first post:

gio, in reference to conspiracy theories wrote:"poor man's cognitive mapping?"

Bullshit. At least cognitive mapping is systematically documented, has a grounding in logic and empirical study, and can be tied into future discoveries as another "converging line of evidence."

Conspiracy theories have none of these qualities. They are often a rambling vomit of facts skewed by bias and ingorance towards reasonable evidence.

And my first reply:

clocker bob wrote:You are invited to any of the threads on 9/11 or the Federal Reserve to measure your own awareness of reasonable evidence. Or you can remain comfortable inside your unchallenged conventional wisdom on those subjects. Pick any particular conspiracy theory that you consider a 'rambling vomit of facts', and I'll take you up on it, if it's a theory that I've looked at.

Whooo... so rancorous of me. I don't see a personal attack. I see a challenge to you to back up your opinion on conspiracy theories.

And then, your response:

gio wrote:Thanks, I'll get in touch with you when I have a whole bunch of time to waste worrying about shit I don't need to worry about... like fake documentaries made by some stupid kid from LA.

Look at those words: 'shit' 'waste of time' stupid kid'. See any personal attacks against conspiracy theorists there? And wow, you'd think from reading that, gio would be loaded for bear on conspiracy theories, gnashing at the bit to blow some conspiracy theories out of the water....umm, no.

Then it got more personal, but you took it there.

gio wrote: you'll win a lot of followers for your overthrow-the-government movement this way, i'm sure.

Funny, when I think that the opinions of others are so powerless that they'll never change anything, I don't usually find myself on public messageboards slandering them, like you did.

gio wrote:i'm more than done.

It's your call. I'm definitely done, but if you take more personal shots, then I'm not, for as long as my account stays active.