The Conspiracy Theory Forum

Nick_oliveri

Following on a post made by paddyirishman in the feedback and proposals thread, I did get a tad weepy and remembered the old gauntlet that was the boards CT forum when I used to post regularly, and this got me thinking of why I do not post that often anymore. Now, we could attribute this to subject matter, but I do believe that it goes further than that and it applies to every poster here.

Allegiances, this is where a posters input on this forum (usually) originates. Like taking a side and sticking to it. It may not happen overnight, it may occur even gradually. It may be because of pre-conceptions or even a posters previous allegiance to a person or persons in the opposing "faction".
After a while of posting in this forum, I thought I might come across better if I took a neutral stance. "Challenging" both "sides". I don't know if I succeeded. But thats neither here nor there. It was how I wanted to come across.
If our intentions or motives here are to be taken as transparent or steadfast from the very beginning, have we actually succeeded in anything since our first post here?

No. In a discussion or debate there has to be a certain amount of give or take before a mutual agreement can be made. Now I know we are talking about conspiracy theories here, where do mutual agreements come into play? Its a matter of pride. No poster wants to loose rep by admitting he may have been wrong, whether in an analogy, an argument or misinterpreting the facts of a subject.
NO PROGRESS can be made if we are to stick to this pattern. Its become a faction or side based devolution. Always falling deeper into the abyss with every large argument or small incident. Its a matter of consideration,
What theory would you consider? "Why should I consider the theory when all theories from these posters thus far have been so unbelievable/with no basis in reality?"

This is the divide, sometimes, without mentioning any posters names, on either side -
The poster already has made up his mind before the debate on the subject has even begun. This is a problem, a major one.
What you have then is a wall, made out of a variety of materials or even a composite of the strongest ones. Something worthwhile to note at this point, as I've seen a previous poster note in other forums and this one -
If you are seen to concede even the most minuscule subject of debate, the opposing poster will be more likely to respect and see your side of the argument.

Now thats not saying you should concede for the sake of conceding, I see this in all debate threads throughout the entire site. User A quotes User B, conveniently snipping or cutting out the bits which he (User A) might have a problem addressing. So I think we would be better off addressing or even conceding these bits/points.
Without naming names, do you respect any poster from the opposition?

Motive.
What motivates you, without mentioning previous arguments or specific posters, to post in this forum as you do?
Me, well I think a balance needs to be made in everyones truths, or half truths need to be filled. I like the challenge of considering a subject and I find the psychology interesting to observe, on either "side". And everyone has their own unique truth, suspicions and fringe considerations.
Every one of you.

I also find it interesting to note that when asked last year, to approach a conspiracy theory mutually, that we couldn't agree on a particular theory or maybe it was the working together that scared "us"?

If you could, while I quote and address Paddyirishmans post,
REPLY TO THIS MUTUALLY WITHOUT MENTIONING OTHER POSTERS OR PREVIOUS INCIDENTS?