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 = Religion

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Mahatma coat
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,869 ✭✭✭Mahatma coat


    no thats not what I meant, its more a case of, the same few posters are on the attack consistently without giving credence to the other point of view, this is true of both sides, but it seems to be particularlyevident insme of the 'skeptics'.

    that said som of the proponents of a few of thse CT's can get nasty in defence of their positions and reduce a debate t chidishnes in seconds


  • Options
    #33
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Mahatma coat wrote: »
    no thats not what I meant, its more a case of, the same few posters are on the attack consistently without giving credence to the other point of view, this is true of both sides, but it seems to be particularlyevident insme of the 'skeptics'.

    May I ask why you put the word skeptic in inverted commas there at the end?


  • Options
    #34
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Mahatma coat wrote: »
    I think that maybe the conspiracies Forum should be afforded the same protections as other religious Forums, ie not so much open agresion against other peoples beliefs, some people believe in all sorts of strange things, and we are obliged to respect their beliefs, we dont have to believe them we dont even have to listen to them, but we do have to respect the other persons right to hold them.
    If conspiracy theorists as a group want to consider their beliefs religious in nature - that is, that they believe in something that's basically irrational and unscientific - then fair enough, I'll accord them the same respect I accord adherents to religions, and avoid discussing their beliefs.

    As long as they continue to argue that the conspiracy theories they believe in are supported by logic, reason and fact, I'll continue to debate them.


  • Options
    #35
    Mahatma coat
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,869 ✭✭✭Mahatma coat


    bonkey wrote:
    May I ask why you put the word skeptic in inverted commas there at the end?

    to draw you out and illustrate my point :)


    '
    OscarBravo wrote:
    As long as they continue to argue that the conspiracy theories they believe in are supported by logic, reason and fact, I'll continue to debate them.

    so no real difference from religion then


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


    Mahatma coat wrote: »
    to draw you out and illustrate my point :)

    I asked a simple question, based on a detail in your post that I am unclear on.
    I asked civilly, expressing no assumptions whatsoever about what it might mean.

    What point of yours was that illustrating???


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    jessop1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 414 ✭✭jessop1


    Mahatma coat wrote: »
    to draw you out and illustrate my point :)
    and well illustrated too :D


  • Options
    #38
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    I'm utterly bewildered as to what point is supposedly being made here.


  • Options
    #39
    jessop1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 414 ✭✭jessop1


    the key point I believe is that some 'skeptics' (or "anti-conspiracy religionists", in the context of this thread) are always on the attack.

    Other hallmarks of some 'Skeptics' is that they very rarely or never start threads to openly discuss conspiracies. Their main tact is to throw cold water on threads other people start. And when they do start a thread its usually to ridicule anyone who "believes in conspiracies" (like this one for example - which illustrates perfectly the "debunkery-by-association" tact).

    Other hallmarks of some skeptics include pretending to be confused and being highly condescending towards others.

    All of which goes towards cowing people into just not discussing conspiracies. For more on this, please fully read the above link. :D


  • Options
    #40
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    I remain completely and utterly bewildered.

    Exactly how is the question "May I ask why you put the word skeptic in inverted commas there at the end?" an attack?

    Was that question an attack?


  • Options
    #41
    Mahatma coat
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,869 ✭✭✭Mahatma coat


    The point being made is,

    I posted my thoughts on the situation along with others, I lobbed in a throwaway remark ( if you were paying proper attention you would have seen it spelled 'Septics' earlier in the thread so when I spelled it properly it put it in inverted commas) at the end of a post, the second I looked at it I just knew Bonkey would jump on it because.

    A) Offense could be taken where none was intended
    B) it has no relevance to the rest of the thread
    c) it provides a neat little vehicle to derail the thread
    D) it dosent really mean anything, which means it can be interpreted anyway you like.


    see and now the thread has been taken off Topic.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    jessop1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 414 ✭✭jessop1


    Actually, its very much on the topic of this thread to discuss the behaviour and modus operandi of skeptics.


  • Options
    #43
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Mahatma coat wrote: »
    ( if you were paying proper attention you would have seen it spelled 'Septics' earlier in the thread so when I spelled it properly it put it in inverted commas)
    So, the honest answer to the question you were asked would have been "to draw attention to a word that had been mis-spelled earlier". Instead, you gave a dishonest and coy answer, leading to further questions.

    Exactly who was it that derailed the thread?


  • Options
    #44
    Jocksereire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 279 ✭✭Jocksereire


    LOL OB you took the bait and it was a little embarrassing....id just leave if i were you :D and no i wont be explaining to you "what bait?" if you cant see it and no i wont be explaining why what bait is in quotes either :D


  • Options
    #45
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Leave? Leave what, this forum? I'm not sure what you think I should be embarassed about.


  • Options
    #46
    miju
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 8,486 ✭✭✭miju


    mahatma first and last warning. next time you try to bait a poster here you will be banned permanently


  • Options
    #47
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Mahatma coat wrote: »
    B) it has no relevance to the rest of the thread
    c) it provides a neat little vehicle to derail the thread

    Its interesting you should say that, because while I was catching up on this thread and all the kerfuffle that my simple question resulted in, it occurred to me that the whole "set Bonkey up" line of reasoning, as well as the subsequent "this is what Bonkey was doing" / "this is what so-called skeptics do" postings were a prime example of exactly what the OP was referring to.

    You have your belief regarding me and my motives. Evidence won't change that, because you will only evaluate the evidence within the framework of your belief being true. Meanwhile, you will try and convince others to buy into your belief model - to convert to your way of seeing things.


Advertisement