How to debunk just about anything

Kernel wrote:

I made a double post of a thread due to a browser error, and it wouldn't allow me to delete, iirc I apologised for that and said the mods could delete the second thread. But 3 threads? One thread, that was a double post.

You're right and I apologise. But the fact remains you made a post calling in the title, a user of this forum a paid liar, and the mods allowed it to run to two pages before locking it.

With all due respect, you are making assumptions about me, and why I'm 'annoyed'.

No I'm not, I'm inferring from your posts your opinion.

You don't want people who disagree with conspiracy theories to post on this forum, correct? Or more accurately you have posters with a higher degree of skepticism to not post here. You want a degree of credibility, but heaven forfend you if you see some science, rationality or critical thinking on this forum.

I know that some theories are bull****, but I believe there is way too much close mindedness coming from certain people here, who will always be on the opposing side of what this forum purports to discuss (it's your paradigm, but it opposes the paradigm of the conspiracy theorist).

Generally I find all hope of rational debate is lost when I see the word "paradigm". Where is the closemindedness? You've specifically said that certain theories have been dismissed by certain posters without discussion, yet have failed to give an example, again.

Hell I believe in conspiracies. Iran Contra? Yup. Watergate? Yup. The continunal cover up of intelligence failures in the run up to 911? Yes.

I think what you want Kernel is a forum where the margin of credibility and plausibility is set just a little lower than some of the forum members who post here are satisified with. You'd be more happy with a forum that supposed "If a witch weighs as much a duck?"

Again I say look at the paranormal/islam/paganism/etc. forums and you will understand that those forums cannot function properly if a flood of firmly entrenched skeptics question the very core of the forum. Why don't all the skeptics go onto Islam and debate the existence of Allah? Because it's not permitted, as it would merely kill the whole idea of the forum.

Actually if you look at the Christianity forum theres an exceptional long thread debating evolution. I still subscribe to it, and I know bonkey still posts on it, and frankly it makes arguing with tunaman look postively rewarding. Is the christianity forum dying? No.

So your assertion is false

Conspiracy theorists are interested in discussion of ideas, and exchange of facts not hostile debate and constantly attempting to persuade (inexorable) skeptics.

Facts I'll debate, and listen to. More often however Conspiracy theorists dislike having it pointed out, that what they call "facts" are more often supposition, conjecture, speculation, or just flat out wrong.

I could understand such a debate arising from one conspiracy theory, or aspect of a theory, yet time and time again it's the old reliables out to debunk even those which are highly plausible (even probable) to any 'reasonable' unbiased person.

Again I don't suppose you have an example of this lying around do you?

The proof of my words is in the forum itself, you lads have killed it off, despite quite an amount of interest in it.

Actually the interest in 911 conspiracy theories appears to be waning across the internet, theres a statisitic on webtraffic to most 911 conspiracy theory sites, I should dig it up.

Kernel wrote:

Bonkey et Diogenes, let me give a short, simple answer to your posts. I have absolutely no desire to discuss any of my conspiracy interests here or with you two. The reason is simply that it is too hostile here and that you both have an agenda to debunk and as such will always remain in your firmly entrenched viewpoint - to debate with you would therefore be a waste of my time.

I prefer to see it as your unwilliness to rise to debate aganist anyone who robustly challenges your viewpoint. Which says much about how firmly you believe what you do, if you are unwillingly to go forth and discuss your beliefs with those who disagree with you.

Take tunaman, like someone arguing for Intelligent Design in the Christianity forum, I sincerely doubt there is anything I can say or demostrate to tunaman, that would change his opinion of the events of 911. This is a man who started a poll asserting that it was his opinion that something other than flight 77 hit the pentagon, then after tens of pages of arguments announced that he did now in fact believe a plane it the pentagon, but the gubiment did it. I dont think theres any way to sway tunaman, but I will continue to debate with him. Why? Because I'm not interested in tunaman, I'm interested in the people who read tunaman's posts, and I feel for those people, the lies, distortions, and inaccuracies need to be pointed out.

Kernel you've posted several threads and commented on one more, calling bonkey a paid liar, and getting outraged about the moderation of the forum. If you don't like it. Leave.

Kernel wrote:

You see it anyway you choose to Diogenes, after all; your blinkered view on world events clearly demonstrates your tendency to do this anyway. There's a difference between robust debate and your aggressive tactics to defend your Fox News-fed worldview.

Y'know it's funny you're ranting about how I "shouldn't make assumptions" yet here you are talking to me presuming I'm led by "Fox News".

You don't know a thing about me, what I do, what my political philosophy is, you just presume because I have the temerity to question what you say, I am some right wing zombie.

If you position is so robust and strong, you shouldn't be reduced to insults and name calling.

You're a great man for making assumptions anyhow, as you have again demonstrated. The age old debating tactic of putting unspoken words in someone elses mouth.

And what are you doing in the above?

Your insinuation that I do not firmly believe my own conspiracy beliefs is laughable to say the least.

Well you've come here, and repeataly demanded that the people who vigirously challenge conspiracy theories, go away, so you can discuss this, with a, ahem, less rigorous, burden of proof. So I stand by my assertion. Oh and it's not an insinuation, I flat out said it. You use of language to try and make this seem all the more sinister is rather obvious.

You lack the sublety of Bonkey, although he gives me the intellectual credit of a gnat,

You're making another assertion here, and putting words into someone's mouth, my my my sauce for the goose though eh Kernel?

I've never seen Bonkey insult someones intelligence, or be anything but astonishingly polite as you fling insults and accusations at him.

or at least attempts to portray me unfairly in that light with his above quote. He did it in an almost imperceptable way, perhaps you can get such skills after some more thousand posts.

I find his quote to be an accurate description of your behaviour.

Err.. I have left. Left debating with those who portray themselves as being so close minded that it would simply be a waste of my time to attempt (barring this little exchange of course). Again, I note you have mentioned that I called bonkey a 'paid liar' (actually I raised the point that he acted like a 'disinformation agent', due to his obvious disdain and lengthy posts rebuking all things vaguely conspiracy), you're throwing that mud in an attempt to destroy my credibility and paint me as being one who is detrimental to this forum, when in fact it was quite the opposite.

I imagine if Bonkey was a disinfo agent he would be paid a salary to spread his lies, so I find you're "I have been wronged" dance a little dishonest. If anyone's destroying your credibility its you yourself, making asinine accusations that some posters are disinfo agensts, and demanding that "the mean kids go away and let us have fun with our ball".

I cannot see how someone who is prepared to politely and rationaly discuss issues raised in this forum is detreimental to the form. I can see how someone who posts threads accusing other users of being "paid liars" without a shred of supporting evidence, to be detremental to any forum.

Anyway, fair play, you've dragged me into another long and tedious debate with you, in which never the twain shall meet.

I'm going to leave it at this, I might take something to feedback, but I don't know if I would get any support as I'm one of the tin-foil hat wearing loonies after all... Either way, Bonkey and your chum Diogenes, feel free to take the last word... as you alllllwayyys... allllwayyys seem to do.

I somehow doubt this is the last we've heard out of you on this matter.

jessop1 wrote:

What this forum needs is an 'ignore' button, that way open minded folks could discuss possibilties without having to suffer the rantings and ridicule of "you know who".

There is an "ignore user" button, you can choose not to read another users posts. However they can still read yours.

Kernel wrote:

I'm not ranting. Why do you say that I am ranting when I have remained calm and level headed? Another example of your use of language to attempt to portray me in a certain (unfavourable) light to other readers.

Semantic quibbling. This seems to be what you are reduced to. I see your repeated attempts to ask posters to refrain from posting as this forum as a rant. You disagree, rather than discuss the issue as to why you feel posters should not be allowed post here, you run away from the substance of the debate, and argue my language.

I am not reduced to this, I'm not insulting anyone, or name-calling in a derogatory way. I'll always call a spade a spade however. If you're insulted by your own behaviour then I humbly suggest altering it?

Again more semantics. You called Bonkey a Disinfo Agent, and I likened that to the term "paid liar". Speaking of "calling a spade a spade" do you have any credible evidence to support your claim that he his a "disinfo agent". Or are you just assuming? It seems to me that you're looking in a tool shed and seeing a wooden handle and presuming its a spade.

No, I've demanded nothing (language thing again you see..).

Repeatadly made the same request time after time it becomes a demand.

I've suggested that you and Bonkey are in no way open-minded about any issues discussed here, and aggressively attack, mock and discredit those who are genuinely interested in conspiracy theories. I have no problem debating with another person who is open to being convinced - ye ain't. Again, the word inexorable comes to mind with you two, so there's no point in wasting my time and breath arguing.

Give me solid credible evidence and I will be convinced.

Well, your assertation is completely false so. There, I've said it. :rolleyes:

Well then prove me wrong. Theres threads here on 911, 7/7, UFOs, and JFK, jump back in with two feet and discuss the issues. If you have solid credible rational evidence and facts you'll be heard in an open minded way.

Incorrect. Bonkey put words in my mouth by presuming that I hold the belief that if I believe something is true, everybody else should too. This is total nonsense, and anyone who thinks like this (as he deduced I did) would imo have the intellectual capacity of a gnat. Hence, my assertation is true. Bonkey tried to insinuate that I believed this in an attempt to discredit me.

No it's not. You put words in his mouth, and presumed to tell us what he thinks of you. Reprenhensible behaviour when you claim I do it you. But utterly acceptable when you do it.

What insults?

You called several people Disinfo Agents, people spreading false or misleading information.

If he was yes, but if someone has a clear agenda to disprove and spread disinformation and misinformation, they may not be intelligence agents. Many people do this intentionally or subconsciously - and they aren't 'paid liers'.

Then why call them "agents' Kernel? If they are not operatives of some organisations? Why did you use the word "agent"?

I don't think I'm destroying my credibility - indeed several people have pmed and posted here supporting and agreeing with me. You might be surprised. Again, trying to paint me, in this forum, as a tantrum throwing child is another attempt at yours to discredit me.

No it's not. Sorry but it's as if, I walked into politics and announced that this forum would be infinitely better if everyone who supports a Unitied Ireland leave. Or Soccer and asked for all Liverpool fans to stop posting.

You've not posted anything substantial asides from whinges about other posters in this forum for months now.

Politely and rationally eh? Come on Diogenes, you're really making me laugh now. If you went through all the threads and posts ever in conspiracy I'm sure you'd see some irrational thought and plenty of mockery and disdain for other posters views. I'll compile a list when I have time perhaps.

Please do, it'd be nice to see you read some of the posts on this forum. And by the way Kernel, when you're building this list, please draw from Bonkey's posts only Because I was refering to Bonkey's behaviour explicitly.

Paid liars? In quotes to insinuate to others that I've actually said that eh?

No if you'd said "paid liars" I'd have actually used the quote function to show where you said it. I infer that you think Bonkey and et all, are paid liars, because you called us "disinfo agents", which to me suggests "one who is a worker for an organisation that spreads false information"

Apparently you've a flexible definition of the word agents.

tut. I've never called anyone a paid liar. Sure, I've suggested that there may be disinformation agendas going on.

No you've actually come out and said is this person a disinfo agent.

And my evidence is the very words, posts and views expressed in this forum.

Well then I'm sure it won't be too difficult to come up with some of the false, or inaccurate comments that have been posted here.

Perhaps not, I thought when you shouted down the regular posters that I would just stay away, but I cant help feeling sorry for those new posters who wander in and get lambasted by people with zero interest in the topic - save for a good argument and a feeling of smug superiority from condescending another. I don't think it's fair, and I don't think it's a good turn that this forum took.

Just again on the use of language that you perniciously accuse me of abusing. Could you give me an example of when a new poster who was "lambasted" or treated in a "condescending" manner, or indeed "shouted down"? Kernel you seem to exist in a world of a double standard, flinging around accusations that I abuse language to twist your position, while at the same time, merrily doing the same to me.

Needless, this is my last word on the matter for now.

Again. I wait with baited breath.

Diogenes wrote:

Take tunaman, like someone arguing for Intelligent Design in the Christianity forum, I sincerely doubt there is anything I can say or demostrate to tunaman, that would change his opinion of the events of 911.

I like the way you try to twist things round, as it is you who are a believer not me. You have no evidence to back up your beliefs, instead only what you are told by highly paid experts.

This is a man who started a poll asserting that it was his opinion that something other than flight 77 hit the pentagon

Wrong again, which is not unpredictable as you have a habit of jumping to conclusions. If you take a closer look you will find that the thread has been merged and somebody else created that poll, but don't let the facts get in the way of your appeal.

then after tens of pages of arguments announced that he did now in fact believe a plane it the pentagon, but the gubiment did it.

More evidence of facts being ignored...

I never said anything other than a plane hit the pentagon, but that doesn't seem to matter to you, so carry on with your appeal, based on lies?

I dont think theres any way to sway tunaman, but I will continue to debate with him. Why? Because I'm not interested in tunaman, I'm interested in the people who read tunaman's posts, and I feel for those people, the lies, distortions, and inaccuracies need to be pointed out.

Indeed they do, my advice is for you to stop trying to point the finger at me and take a look in the mirror...