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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Charter Feedback

2»

Comments

  • #52
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,190 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    weisses wrote: »
    No its the nature of the forum which makes it a not workable approach

    What is the nature of the forum..

    To attack evidence of theories in order to replace them with theories for which there is no evidence?


  • #53
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    I gave you the definition of supporting evidence .... make of it what you want
    Yes, and your definition is incorrect.
    Supporting evidence is not proof. It's simply the evidence you use to show your belief is reasonable and backed with something other than imagination and fantasy.


  • #54
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,559 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    Yes, and your definition is incorrect.
    Supporting evidence is not proof. It's simply the evidence you use to show your belief is reasonable and backed with something other than imagination and fantasy.

    Supporting evidence needs to have proof of the validity of the point you want to make so yes For a belief to be correct you need supporting evidence with proof to make it viable supporting evidence

    At this stage i suggest you look it up ...


  • #55
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,559 ✭✭✭weisses


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    What is the nature of the forum..

    To attack evidence of theories in order to replace them with theories for which there is no evidence?

    Im shocked you dont have a clue about the nature of the forum, Yes replace them with theories, preferably with a bit of context and supporting documentation ...But in general that is sufficient for a Conspiracy THEORY forum


  • #56
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,190 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    weisses wrote: »
    Im shocked you dont have a clue about the nature of the forum, Yes replace them with theories, preferably with a bit of context and supporting documentation ...But in general that is sufficient for a Conspiracy THEORY forum

    You aren't shocked, you are just trying pigeon-hole debate here to suit your personal beliefs on the matter

    Evidence doesn't mix well with your beliefs on this subject, so you are trying to remove it from the equation

    That's really extraordinary. Pause a moment and actually think about your position there..


  • #57
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,559 ✭✭✭weisses


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    You aren't shocked, you are just trying pigeon-hole debate here to suit your personal beliefs on the matter

    I am ... You claiming the high ground without having a clue as to what kind of forum you are posting in and the certain rules that apply
    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Evidence doesn't mix well with your beliefs on this subject, so you are trying to remove it from the equation

    En contraire ..I believe in evidence ... The problem is this forum is not for " debate with evidence only" Im surprised you cannot differentiate between the two
    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    That's really extraordinary. Pause a moment and actually think about your position there..

    My position is that of someone who was happy with a forum charter that took a lot of effort from posters mods cmods and admins to construct

    And not so happy a Mod took it upon himself to remove certain parts because it compromises him as a poster and mod

    So yes I paused and thought about it


  • #58
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,190 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    weisses wrote: »
    My position is that

    Your position is that you want to this forum to argue 9/11 beliefs without having to provide supporting evidence

    Wait, one side has to use supporting evidence. The other doesn't. The one that you represent.

    That's your personal opinion, noted. We get it.


  • #59
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    Supporting evidence needs to have proof of the validity of the point you want to make so yes For a belief to be correct you need supporting evidence with proof to make it viable supporting evidence

    At this stage i suggest you look it up ...

    I'm sorry, your definitions are simply incorrect.

    Lets try it another way.
    What's the difference between a conspiracy theory you don't believe in and a conspiracy theory you do? How do you personally tell the difference between a valid conspiracy theory and an invalid one?


    Many people, including those at AE9/11 hold that no planes hit any of the buildings and that they were holograms.
    Experts with long lists of credentials claim the buildings were destoryed with space based energy weapons.

    Should we view these theories as the same as ones like nanothermite and explosives? If not, why not?


  • #60
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,559 ✭✭✭weisses


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Your position is that you want to this forum to argue 9/11 beliefs without having to provide supporting evidence

    Wait, one side has to use supporting evidence. The other doesn't. The one that you represent.

    That's your personal opinion, noted. We get it.

    No ... try again .. you still seem unable to differentiate between the two


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,559 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    I'm sorry, your definitions are simply incorrect.

    My definitions are correct .... they dont suit you perhaps but they are correct


  • #62
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    My definitions are correct .... they dont suit you perhaps but they are correct

    Ok, if you say so:

    Lets try it another way.
    What's the difference between a conspiracy theory you don't believe in and a conspiracy theory you do? How do you personally tell the difference between a valid conspiracy theory and an invalid one?


    Many people, including those at AE9/11 hold that no planes hit any of the buildings and that they were holograms.
    Experts with long lists of credentials claim the buildings were destoryed with space based energy weapons.

    Should we view these theories as the same as ones like nanothermite and explosives? If not, why not?

    How do you seperate good conspiracy theories from bad conspiracy theories when you can't use supporting evidence.


  • #63
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,559 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    Ok, if you say so:

    Lets try it another way.
    What's the difference between a conspiracy theory you don't believe in and a conspiracy theory you do? How do you personally tell the difference between a valid conspiracy theory and an invalid one?


    Many people, including those at AE9/11 hold that no planes hit any of the buildings and that they were holograms.
    Experts with long lists of credentials claim the buildings were destoryed with space based energy weapons.

    Should we view these theories as the same as ones like nanothermite and explosives? If not, why not?

    How do you seperate good conspiracy theories from bad conspiracy theories when you can't use supporting evidence.

    You still seem unable to grasp the term supporting evidence


  • #64
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    You still seem unable to grasp the term supporting evidence
    No, I understand it well.
    It is facts and reasoning that support conclusions and opinions.
    That is not proof.

    Again, you might have your own unique definition for something that is the same concept.

    For example, you must have some method of determining between a good conspiracy theory and a bad conspiracy theory. Please explain how you determine this without "proof"?

    Do you just pick what you believe out of a hat?


  • #65
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,559 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    No, I understand it well.
    It is facts and reasoning that support conclusions and opinions.
    That is not proof.

    Again, you might have your own unique definition for something that is the same concept.

    For example, you must have some method of determining between a good conspiracy theory and a bad conspiracy theory. Please explain how you determine this without "proof"?

    Do you just pick what you believe out of a hat?


    https://www.brightstorm.com/english/writing/parts-of-an-essay/supporting-evidence/#:~:text=Supporting%20evidence%20proves%20a%20claim,supporting%20evidence%20proving%20claims

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-supporting-evidence-in-writing

    https://aso-resources.une.edu.au/academic-writing-course/information-basics/supporting-evidence/


    Knock yourself out


  • #66
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    https://www.brightstorm.com/english/writing/parts-of-an-essay/supporting-evidence/#:~:text=Supporting%20evidence%20proves%20a%20claim,supporting%20evidence%20proving%20claims

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-supporting-evidence-in-writing

    https://aso-resources.une.edu.au/academic-writing-course/information-basics/supporting-evidence/


    Knock yourself out
    https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/203640/whats-the-difference-in-meaning-between-evidence-and-proof

    Again, you seem to reduce your argument to be "there is only one narrow definition to this term, all other terms are invalid regardless of context."

    So then if evidence is proof, and you have no evidence, how do you determine the difference between good conspiracy theories and false ones?


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,190 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    King Mob wrote: »
    https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/203640/whats-the-difference-in-meaning-between-evidence-and-proof

    Again, you seem to reduce your argument to be "there is only one narrow definition to this term, all other terms are invalid regardless of context."

    So then if evidence is proof, and you have no evidence, how do you determine the difference between good conspiracy theories and false ones?

    The whole reason supporting evidence has to be stressed is because some individuals believe their denial of something is proof of a conspiracy, or it's enough to prove something didn't happen


  • #68
    Hannibal_Smith
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 7,152 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hannibal_Smith


    I really don't get why the Mods keep these threads open, there's no benefit except to the Conspiracy Theorists who get an audience.

    @Igotadose it's probably better to address your point here rather than derail the 9/11 being an inside job. Plus there seems to be a lot of confusion over what this forum is for, so it might help to address it.

    This is the Conspiracy Theories Forum, its for discussing Conspiracy Theories, which is why these threads and discussions remain open. If posters don't like discussing conspiracy theories this is probably not the forum for them.



Advertisement