Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

'Conspiracy Theory' = Censorship

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    espinolman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,205 ✭✭✭espinolman


    I listened to the Gerry Ryan show on tuesday again , on the internet, now there were two callers from wicklow who had seen something in the sky on sunday , the first caller described what he had seen and then another caller came on about it , now it is Gerry Ryan who keeps labelling these observations as 'conspiracy theories' later on after a break he says " the martians are coming after us , the chemtrails " ,


  • Options
    #33
    Kernel
    Registered Users Posts: 4,388 ✭✭✭Kernel


    espinolman wrote: »
    now it is Gerry Ryan who keeps labelling these observations as 'conspiracy theories' later on after a break he says " the martians are coming after us , the chemtrails " ,

    Thanks, and QED the intellectual snobbery.


  • Options
    #34
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Kernel wrote: »
    You present a possibility arguing against the pro-ct, and back it up with unlikely assumptions.

    I presented possibilities. I didn't back anything up with "unlikely assumptions". You are assuming that the possibilities I presented are unlikely, as is your perogative...but please...stop trying to have a go at me, saying I made assumptions when I'm telling you for a fact that I presented possibilities without making assumptions as to whether or not they were true, and without passing comment on relative likelihood.
    Sorry, I should have said you never support any aspect in favour of a conspiracy theory.
    If that's what you meant to say, thats fine. You're still showing that you understand just fine what constitutes a conspiracy theory, which is the point I was making....you pretend confusion at me suggestng that others may be able to do this, but can clearly do so yourself.
    It's clear what your intent is, and you are not neutral. A neutral person would not only attack the conspiracy theories and disregard the myriad of incorrect, debunker side arguments.

    Your only interest then is to debunk conspiracy theories? Or is there nothing, not one part of any of the many conspiracy theories that you believe is true? Why do you seek to project the impression that you are similar to a conspiracy theorist? What do you think a CTer even is? I'll tell you what part of it is; an ability to come to an educated conclusion based on belief, in the absence of irrefutable evidence.
    I think you've misread the intent of my comments again, Kernel.

    I'm not interested in justifying myself to you, nor in engaging in your personally-focussed diatribe against me.

    I offered a topic-relevant explanation for a comment that I made...to illustrate that interest in conspiracy theories does not have to equate with belief in them.

    If you want to (once again) have a go at me for what I believe in or for my reasons for posting here, you're in the wrong place.
    You can argue semantics, but the post is there for others to see.
    I'm not arguing semantics. I'm trying to correct your misinterpretation of what I said...mostly to try and ensure that others get a chance to hear my version of what I meant, in case they too found my point unclear.

    But you're right...the post is there for others to see...which begs the question as to why you feel the need to tell them how to interpret it.


  • Options
    #35
    Kernel
    Registered Users Posts: 4,388 ✭✭✭Kernel


    bonkey wrote: »
    But you're right...the post is there for others to see...which begs the question as to why you feel the need to tell them how to interpret it.

    Fair enough Bonkey, the truth is revealed. I'm not suggesting how anyone should interpret it, merely revealing it's finer points and offering you the chance to reply with your side.

    You still never answered my questions on your own belief on conspiracy theories, or any aspect of a conspiracy theory? Why is that? Do you think it's all b0llocks bonkey? If you do that's fine, but let's put our cards on the table.


  • Options
    #36
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Kernel wrote: »
    Fair enough Bonkey, the truth is revealed. I'm not suggesting how anyone should interpret it, merely revealing it's finer points and offering you the chance to reply with your side.

    You're flat-out saying that my clarification of what I meant is wrong. I've clarified what I meant, for fear it was any way unclear. You can accept that or not...but I see nothing to discuss if your stance is that I meant something other than what I've clarified I meant....because you're in effect saying that I'm lying.
    You still never answered my questions on your own belief on conspiracy theories, or any aspect of a conspiracy theory? Why is that? Do you think it's all b0llocks bonkey? If you do that's fine, but let's put our cards on the table.

    Allow me to repeat myself...it may have been added in a "ninja edit":

    If you want to (once again) have a go at me for what I believe in or for my reasons for posting here, you're in the wrong place.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Kernel
    Registered Users Posts: 4,388 ✭✭✭Kernel


    bonkey wrote: »
    You're flat-out saying that my clarification of what I meant is wrong. I've clarified what I meant, for fear it was any way unclear. You can accept that or not...but I see nothing to discuss if your stance is that I meant something other than what I've clarified I meant....because you're in effect saying that I'm lying.

    If you want to (once again) have a go at me for what I believe in or for my reasons for posting here, you're in the wrong place.

    I'm not having a go at you, or calling you a lier bonkey. The tactic of taking the moral high ground to discredit me is not necessary. This is nothing personal, it is relevent to the topic being discussed in this thread. The topic that people will refuse to engage in any research or discussion into a thing labelled a 'conspiracy theory' due to societal memes put out as disinformation that all such things are bunk and below addressing. Specifically Gerry Ryan, who you have defended using unlikely assumptions/possibilities (call them what you wish).

    You as a moderator are a part of what this topic is discussing, and I've merely highlighted the fact that (perhaps unconsciously?) you do not engage in any discussion here in support of any conspiracy theory, instead you focus on the business of debunking what you can and ignoring the mainsteam side's logical fallacies. My questioning your attitude to conspiracy theories is entirely relevent in proving my whole point in entering this thread discussion you see. Attitudes can cause a type of censorship. Yet still you haven't answered?


  • Options
    #38
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Kernel wrote: »
    Specifically Gerry Ryan, who you have defended using unlikely assumptions/possibilities (call them what you wish).
    I haven't defended him. I've suggested that we do not have sufficient evidence to draw conclusions. I have no issue with someone disagreeing with that. I took issue with the claim that I was making assumptions which I wasn't making....and the direct insinuation that this was because of beliefs and biases that I hold.
    You as a moderator are a part of what this topic is discussing,
    If you have an issue with the moderation on this forum, then - just like a discussion on my beliefs - this is not the place. Take your complaints to Helpdesk, or give it a rest.

    My posts outside of moderation have nothing to do with me being a moderator.
    Yet still you haven't answered?
    A central tenet of the charter is to attack the post, not the poster. The poster's beliefs are therefore, implicitly, out of bounds.

    I will defend - and have defended - other posters from having their beliefs challenged in this manner.

    My beliefs are, to be blunt, none of your business, and have no place in discussion on this forum.


  • Options
    #39
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Here's a youtube of the first two callers.

    At about 2:00, the first caller refers to these trails as "chemtrails"...so its clearly the original caller who introduces the term into the discussion.

    Note also that during the discussion between the two callers, they argue at one point that regular flights don't fly criss-cross patterns, and at another point that it could be effects from something mixed into the fuel of regular flights.


  • Options
    #40
    espinolman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,205 ✭✭✭espinolman


    bonkey wrote: »
    Here's a youtube of the first two callers.

    At about 2:00, the first caller refers to these trails as "chemtrails"...so its clearly the original caller who introduces the term into the discussion.

    It is Gerry Ryan who introduces the term 'conspiracy theory' into the discussion.
    bonkey wrote: »
    Note also that during the discussion between the two callers, they argue at one point that regular flights don't fly criss-cross patterns
    Criss-cross patters would indicate it is intentional , so this i think is very serious , if our skies are being intentionally sprayed with chemicals that may be toxic .


  • Options
    #41
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    espinolman wrote: »
    It is Gerry Ryan who introduces the term 'conspiracy theory' into the discussion.
    And if you look at Wikipedia it's:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory

    It's also the first result with Google.
    I'd imagine it's the first thing the producers checked.
    espinolman wrote: »
    Criss-cross patters would indicate it is intentional , so this i think is very serious , if our skies are being intentionally sprayed with chemicals that may be toxic .
    Intentional flight paths for commerical flights, yes.
    And there isn't a scrap of evidence to support chemtrail's existence let alone the toxicity of any chemical they might contain.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    meglome
    Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    espinolman wrote: »
    Criss-cross patters would indicate it is intentional , so this i think is very serious , if our skies are being intentionally sprayed with chemicals that may be toxic .

    espinolman I personally would join any campaign to stop this if it could be shown to be real. So step 1 is to show these planes exist. If it just happens to be the 6pm flight from London to Dublin then you'll forgive me but I won't be a believer. If I could even think of a good reason for spraying from the air instead of putting something in our water but I can't.


  • Options
    #43
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    espinolman wrote: »
    It is Gerry Ryan who introduces the term 'conspiracy theory' into the discussion.
    I agree. It was.

    On the other hand, I don't think its unreasonable to categorise 'chemtrails' as a Conspiracy Theory. Do you? Do you think discussion of them has no place on this forum?
    Criss-cross patters would indicate it is intentional

    That's not the point I was making.

    Either you have a situation where regular flight paths cannot generate a criss-cross pattern, or you can have a situation where this spraying is made by mixing stuff with the fuel in regular flights.

    You cannot have both.

    You cannot have a situation where regular flights do not fly these flight paths, and are flying these flight paths with something mixed in their fuel.

    One or other of the claims must be incorrect.


  • Options
    #44
    Kernel
    Registered Users Posts: 4,388 ✭✭✭Kernel


    bonkey wrote: »
    I haven't defended him. I've suggested that we do not have sufficient evidence to draw conclusions. I have no issue with someone disagreeing with that. I took issue with the claim that I was making assumptions which I wasn't making....and the direct insinuation that this was because of beliefs and biases that I hold.

    Indirectly you are still defending his actions by posting alternatives which are more implausible than my hypothesis on the situation.
    bonkey wrote: »
    If you have an issue with the moderation on this forum, then - just like a discussion on my beliefs - this is not the place. Take your complaints to Helpdesk, or give it a rest.

    You're getting nedlessly defensive bonkey. Re-read my point. I don't have an issue with your moderation of the forum. The point is that beliefs that conspiracy theories are bunk and unworthy of discussion permeates through the media, and is influenced by those who have some form of control over that media. Gerry Ryan clearly believes conspiracy theories are all rubbish and refuses to discuss them. You also seem to hold that opinion, and it can show in a bias in your posting - such as occurred in this thread, but can also be seen in other threads.
    bonkey wrote: »
    My posts outside of moderation have nothing to do with me being a moderator.

    Again, I'm not criticising your moderation. But the debunking crew will obviously see your posts and be (maybe even subconsciously) encouraged to believe that all conspiracy theories are rubbish. It therefore creates a hardcore crew of serial debunkers creating polarisation and hostility in the forum. A form of censorship the OP is talking about.
    bonkey wrote: »
    A central tenet of the charter is to attack the post, not the poster. The poster's beliefs are therefore, implicitly, out of bounds.

    I will defend - and have defended - other posters from having their beliefs challenged in this manner.

    My beliefs are, to be blunt, none of your business, and have no place in discussion on this forum.

    I have attacked you? How? By asking relevent and pertinent questions to this thread? By asking if you believe in any conspiracy theory? That's not an attack bonkey.


  • Options
    #45
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Kernel wrote: »
    You're getting nedlessly defensive bonkey. Re-read my point. I don't have an issue with your moderation of the forum.
    You'll have to forgive me. When someone says its clear what my intent is, tells me I'm not neutral, and says that I am "anti-CT", and goes on to say that being a moderator I am part of what the topic is discussing, then I understood that to mean that I, as a moderator, am not neutral, have a clear intent, and am anti-CT.

    I accept your clarification that this isn't what you mean, but hope you can see where my confusion arose from.
    Gerry Ryan clearly believes conspiracy theories are all rubbish and refuses to discuss them. You also seem to hold that opinion, and it can show in a bias in your posting - such as occurred in this thread, but can also be seen in other threads.

    I refuse to discuss conspiracy theories, and show a bias whilst discussing consspiracy theories? How does that work? You seem be be conflating "discussing" with "supporting" or "agreeing with".
    But the debunking crew will obviously see your posts and be (maybe even subconsciously) encouraged to believe that all conspiracy theories are rubbish.

    The purpose of this forum, Kernel, is to promote discussion....which is what I have always tried to do here.

    I'm not going to apologise to anyone for arguing my corner, no more than I would expect anyone else to apologise for arguing theirs. It is, fundamentally, the purpose of this forum...to give people of differing perspectives a level playing field to discuss their differing perspectives.

    People are free to take what they want from those discussions. If someone misunderstands my arguments, but doesn't engage in the discussion, I can't be responsible for that...no more than you can be responsible for someone misunderstanding yours, if they don't engage with you.
    It therefore creates a hardcore crew of serial debunkers creating polarisation and hostility in the forum. A form of censorship the OP is talking about.
    The alternative would be what? A forum where such voices are stifled...creating a different form of censorship?

    No-one is censoring anything here, unless it breaches the charter. People are denied a soapbox from which they can propagandise their beliefs unchallenged, but no-one is denied the right to engage in a discussion to put forward their point of view.

    You mightn't like the outcome of that, but its unfair to call it censorship.

    I have attacked you? How?
    You've stated flat-out that I'm biased, have a clear intent here, and then repeatedly asked me about the beliefs that underly the positions I take.

    This isn't addressing (attacking) my arguments, its addressing (attacking) the reasons I have for making those arguments. You're making this about me rather than about my arguments. That line in the charter is there to make it clear that this is out of bounds.

    It doesn't matter one whit whether you feel its relevant or not. Its out of bounds unless I freely choose to answer your question...and I've made it clear that I'm not going to do that. So please...accept my response.

    Two years ago, you started a thread asking if I was a misinformation agent, or if it was just "a psychological make up to be contrary and argue with others". Two years on, and you're still trying to make this about my reasons for posting...about the poster and not the post.

    Its old. Its tired. Please...give it a rest.


  • Options
    #46
    6th
    Registered Users Posts: 17,247 ✭✭✭✭6th


    Lads, I'm locking this for an hour to give both of you time to think. This thread could be very good but accusations and off-topic posts can ruin it. If this continues after the thread is reopened then infractions can and will be given to everyone involved.


  • Options
    #47
    6th
    Registered Users Posts: 17,247 ✭✭✭✭6th


    Re-opened. no excuses now.


  • Options
    #48
    Kernel
    Registered Users Posts: 4,388 ✭✭✭Kernel


    bonkey wrote: »
    I refuse to discuss conspiracy theories, and show a bias whilst discussing consspiracy theories? How does that work? You seem be be conflating "discussing" with "supporting" or "agreeing with".

    No, Gerry Ryan refuses to discuss them. I was talking about Gerry Ryan, although you demonstrate the same beliefs as Gerry, with the exception that you obviously discuss them - in the form of debunking anyways.
    bonkey wrote: »
    The purpose of this forum, Kernel, is to promote discussion....which is what I have always tried to do here.

    The purpose of the forum is to promote discussion of CTs. That balance is skewed in favour of hostility against the subject matter. That creates a problem wouldn't you agree? Judging by yet another feedback complaint from a regular contributor, I'd say it does. Gerry flat out refuses to discuss anything labelled a 'conspiracy theory', but here you can discuss something labelled a conspiracy theory and be mocked.

    Once again I wonder why I bother posting and spending time here instead of on a real conspiracy forum like ATS. I'm here a long time at this stage, many others have given up and gone elsewhere. And that's what happens and will happen when the forum goes the way it goes - with great hostility and sneering of those who contribute to the subject matter. Is that a form of censorship? It's arguable - but I know that it's not the way it should be.

    Feck it, I reckon I'll take a break from the forum as it's just annoying at this stage - a waste of time and breath. Enjoy the mocking chaps, I'll keep my views to ATS.


  • Options
    #49
    Diogenes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,701 ✭✭✭Diogenes


    Kernel wrote: »
    Feck it, I reckon I'll take a break from the forum as it's just annoying at this stage - a waste of time and breath. Enjoy the mocking chaps, I'll keep my views to ATS.

    Remind me, is this your 4th, 5th or 6th flounce from this forum?

    Enjoy the Conspiracy theory cheerleading forum.

    ATS the MUTC forum of conspiracy theories "Thread titles include "Just how awesome is Eric Cantona?"


  • Options
    #50
    6th
    Registered Users Posts: 17,247 ✭✭✭✭6th


    Ok thread locked. If anyone has a post they feel is on topic and worth posting Pm it to me - if its worth opening the thread for I will. Think before you PM>.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement