Skeptics

I don't get where this idea of conspiracy theorists and skeptics being two totally different camps comes from. I love conspiracy theories; it makes sense to me that conspiracies exist, because that's how humans in societies work. I approach all of these theories without preformed ideas, letting the evidence inform me and making my own opinions. An agnostic viewpoint, as Kernel said. This makes me a skeptic.

I just think people shouldn't so readily accept the bull**** that they are told- from either the NWO lizards or the truthers. That's why I engage in these discussions, point out what I think the flaws are in the theories people have, learn something in return.

Also I enjoy a good discussion.

Nostradamus wrote: »

In otther words they are basically stupid and want to make sure everyone else in society is as stupid and narrow minded as they are, so they set themselves up as these intolerant little thought police calling themselves "spektics" when they are about as skeptical in the true meaning of the term as Joe Stalin or Chairman Moa.

You do realise that you destroyed what credibility your "insightful" post had by this one paragraph. Hell, the rest of your post doesn't come out much better.

You pretend to be simply looking at all the angles, yet call people who disagree with you stupid, compare them to the Inquisition, make references to "bull**** science behind their beloved Global Warming," and pop in an analogy about a drug addict in a thinly veiled attempt to portray those who disagree with you as having issues. It's sad really.

Wow, where to start.

Nostradamus wrote: »

They are really not skeptic, as much as debunkers.

I think a lot of self-proclaimed "skeptics" are today's self-appointed Inquisition.

Now there is nothing wrong with being truely Skeptical about everything, it is healthy. The thing is with today's "skeptics" they are really just gatekeepers of the staus quo and not on any quest for truth or discovery.

From my reading of this forum when you say discovery I'm thinking in practise that means fantasy. I like being a sceptic I really do, not the label but the idea that I try to question everything evenly, using logic and evidence. But I find myself being a 'debunker' (for want of a better word) because the theories but forward are often patently ludicrous and usually lacking any kind of credible evidence. Personally I don't give a **** about the status quo.

Nostradamus wrote: »

I have seen anyone who questions the bull**** science behind their beloved Global Warming, even in a polite manner end up being absolutely savaged by these self appointed thought police. Even when the criticism of Al Gore "science" is backed up with real hard data from top climatoligists will automatically result in a lifetime banning and vicious personal insults from these "skeptics" who claim they stand for truth and science.

The 'truth' movements attitude to global warming has always fascinated me. The Bush government and Bush in general allowed an awful lot of polluting to go on, in some cases changed existing environmental laws to do so and openly stated they didn't believe in global warming. The strange thing is the 'truth' people tell us not to trust the US government so you'd think that might make them suspicious that global warming was really happening but not so. In the end even the Bush government admitted that Global warming was indeed occurring. Imagine the horror of it all, believing in science. Science is by no means always right but given the amount of science now showing global warming is happening the question is why wouldn't you believe it?

Nostradamus wrote: »

From a psychological aspect it is all very interesting. One "skeptic" (debunker) I know from another group is this bizzare little drug addict who sees himself as some kind of liberal enlightened soul in the quest for knowledge and understanding, and yet if anyone brings up Al Gore's double-standards, or points out that Richard Dawkins is fairly useless at defending his arguments without a video editor making him look good, he literally explaodes with rage and calls these people "Nazi's" (??!?!) and "Headcases" and this is the same oddball who claims that Al Gore is great "environmentalist" and his science is 100% sound.

I'll tell you what we should ask everyone in here to answer the following questions before they can post.
1. Are you taking any drugs, legal or not that can cause paranoia?
2. Are you considered to be paranoid by those those who know you?
3. Do you assume 'the man' is out to get you?
4. Do you assume that governments always lie (except where it suits your preconceived notions obviously)?
5. Did you think 911 was suspicious from the beginning even though there was nothing that had happened before to compare it to?

As for Dawkins he may not be perfect but there's nothing wrong with his science that I can see. So what you're saying he's an asshole and therefore wrong? You don't believe in evolution?

Nostradamus wrote: »

A true skeptic keeps and open mind and studies all the facts, and then decides. Or like myself really just keeps looking. I am really not that smart to clam to know "all the facts" and so what!

Show us your facts and I'll be happy to accept them if they are logical and even somewhat provable. But I get the suspicion what you mean is keep looking until you find proof for what you assumed from the start.

Nostradamus wrote: »

The so called "skeptics" today should really be called "Debunkers". They are essentially control freaks who cannot deal with someone having an opinion of their own, mainly because these same debunkers know deep down inside that they have no original thinking and everthing they think they know is in relaity someone else's thoughts.

Shock horror a CT'er telling us there is only one possible reason for something without any proper evidence. And again by original thinking I think you mean fantasy perhaps?

Nostradamus wrote: »

In otther words they are basically stupid and want to make sure everyone else in society is as stupid and narrow minded as they are, so they set themselves up as these intolerant little thought police calling themselves "spektics" when they are about as skeptical in the true meaning of the term as Joe Stalin or Chairman Moa.

Again Wow, just wow. Imagine us Nazi's wanting someone to make some sense and perhaps back up what they are saying, oh the humanity. There are plenty of places on the internet where no matter what the topic is you can find people who will tell you exactly what you want to hear, no matter how ludicrous what you're saying is. Unfortunately for you this isn't one of them.

Nostradamus wrote: »

BOTTOM LINE: ALWAYS THINK FOR YOURSELF ABOUT EVERYTHING AND THE TRUTH WILL SET US ALL FREE.

An excellent sentiment but it seems you don't feel that way if people use this truth to disagree with you. Here's a suggestion, if you're looking for truth I wouldn't start with CT sites.

Actually here's another suggestion, go to this thread http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055532869 and carefully point out where we've all gone wrong. I would imagine that a man with so much truth should be easily able to do that.

So you're just trolling?

Nostradamus wrote: »

It is completely impossible for you 'skeptics' to accept that there are people in this world can form and develop their own views on varied issues and hold a number of different viewpoints.

Like say, opinions that differ from yours perhaps?

Nostradamus wrote: »

Woah, hold on a second horsey!

I have little or no interest in the whole 9/11 stuff. I have seen nothing to suggest it was anything more than a monumental screw-up of the Bush Admin and their inability to protect their own citizens on that horrible day when Islamic Fundies attacked the US. I have seen nothing to suggest to me that is was an "inside job" in any way shape or form. And frankly I find the whole subject boring and old news.

I'd agree with you there. Although it's not impossible the US were involved in some way just the evidence doesn't show it.

Nostradamus wrote: »

But there you go. You instantly deem me a '9-11 Truther' based on your own classic 'skeptic' inability to think outside the box. Not all people who question the bizarre and often inhuman political functionings of this planet is automatically an Alex Jones fan. Get that straight please.

Fair point, sorry for making that assumption, although in my own defence it is usually the case.

Nostradamus wrote: »

It is completely impossible for you 'skeptics' to accept that there are people in this world can form and develop their own views on varied issues and hold a number of different viewpoints. Hence, why I called you lot control freaks the modern day Inquisition. You want to put everybody into little boxes, with lables on them and make sure no one is not classified. Yet you claim to stand for freedom of expression and freewill.

I fully expect people to have different views to me. Where I get involved is when they tell me I must see the 'truth' in what they are saying. If they want me see this 'truth' then I'll expect they can back up what they claim. If they can't then I'll point that out, no one needs to like being shown they are wrong, not me, not anyone. But any of us who wants to talk out of our arses should be prepared for people to tell them that.

Perhaps you'll keep what you posted in mind when you're telling all us 'debunkers' how wrong we are for having a different opinion to you.

Nostradamus wrote: »

Like I said, I have no desire to be either a CT-ist, nor a debunker. But I have no problem pointing out the short comings in both camps. Some of us are perfectly happy to be independent and not join anyone's side.

I have no interest in sides however I find myself more often than not supporting other so called debunkers. The simple reason is they tend to use the best logic and evidence. It's that simple. Like your sig claims on Lisbon, you will be able to point out the clauses in the treaty that do the things you claim, right?

Nostradamus wrote: »

Well it depends on how they go about it. If a CT-ist approaches them with a viewpoint, the reaction in how they treat this person indicates to me if they are a tosspot or not.

If they respectfully listen to the person and then say something like "well, I dunno, I looked at it and it can also be taken like this..." in a respectful and polite manner, then they are not a tosspot.

If come back with "LOL! you are are idiot!!!" then they are tosspots.

Well thankfully that sort of bad behaviour isn't allowed in here, I've been infracted myself so I know and it wasn't even for acting that badly.

Nostradamus wrote: »

It all comes down to how most skeptics behave and yes the overwhelming majority I have encountered have been pretty obnoxious and arrogant control freaks who seem themselve as defenders of the status quo. This I find psychologically interesting. Why they explode with rage and hurl insults as soon as they encounter a person who does not automatically beleive everything they read in the papers or see on the evening news.

So your making complete assumptions as to the reason 'debunkers' post here and then criticising them for it? The funny thing is posting in a CT forum as a 'debunker' is doing the opposite to keeping the status quo.

Do you ask yourself why people might act this way towards you? Maybe, just maybe, it isn't them it's you?

Nostradamus wrote: »

Sorry I do not debate issues - I formulate opinions and then let others worry about it.

Which would be perfectly fine if you hadn't come in here with these opinions and basically called many of us names for not agreeing with you. You call people arrogant and yet that last statement is the most arrogant thing I've read in here all day. Go figure.

Nostradamus wrote: »

Because it is my personal opinion as a citizen and not a manifesto.

I am not the one getting paid to put up posters. Hence, I do not have to defend my views on the Lisbon Treaty if I do not what to. That's up to the sell-outs in FF, FG, Lab, Trade Unions, Civil Service and Farming organisation to do that.

and now, I am not a Shinner either.

And how do you know your opinion is sound and reasonable if you don't even talk about it?
What was that you were saying about status quo?

Nostradamus wrote: »

...he literally explaodes with rage and calls these people "Nazi's" (??!?!) and "Headcases" and this is the same oddball who claims ...

In otther words they are basically stupid and want to make sure everyone else in society is as stupid and narrow minded as they are, so they set themselves up as these intolerant little thought police calling themselves "spektics" when they are about as skeptical in the true meaning of the term as Joe Stalin or Chairman Moa.

So basically, what you're saying is these so-called skeptics are really just Nazi Headcases?

Nostradamus wrote: »

What makes you think this country will stop electing fools? The same Parish Pump politics will be in swing post Lisbon just as much as now. Most of the Pro Lisbon posters on lampposts around the country had slogans like "Give Sligo a Voice in Europe" or "Galway's Man in Europe".

I'm not even remotely convinced we won't keep electing fools (double negatives bad m'kay). It's the petty local politics just like we've always had in this country. But while I disagree with this kind of politics it has no effect on whether the Lisbon treaty is good or bad in of itself.

Nostradamus wrote: »

You seem to forget that most of our years as EU member have been spent in economic ruin. The Celtic Tiger years were an anomly and not the norm. The Celtic Tiger money years was a huge illusion based on cheap money in circulation. Had very little to do with EU when you really look at it. The whole show was run from The City and Wall Street - which is the real government of the world and not the puppets whom we elect.

Well we got the tiger years firstly because the EU pumped money into the country to help us develop. We then put that money to good use and then ultimately some pretty stupid uses.

I keep hearing in here that the bankers are to blame and the bankers run the world etc etc. Yet these same bankers are on bended knee, with the begging bowl out, asking us to save their asses. Several huge banks have gone bust and many more have been effectively nationalised. Strangely bad form for people who have so much control, no?

Nostradamus wrote: »

I like living in an independent country, even with its faults. Sorry.

And thankfully there's not a line in the Lisbon treaty that says otherwise.

bonkey wrote: »

Lets not turn this into a political discussion of the Lisbon Treaty and/or Irish politics.

Want to move these to one of the Lisbon threads?