COMMENTS:
I look at the different theories, I don't just ignore.
I've done that with regard to 9/11, but the discourse has seemed to have gone absolutely nowhere -- it's been stagnant for at least a year now -- and I've just become disinterested with regard to the behavior of both camps.
"On the flip side, the people who argue that it was a flat-out terrorist attack seem to argue by belittling the conspiracy theorists and not bringing any new information to the table."
Ad hominem. Yes, I've seen some of those 9-11 ballots and that's why I refuse to comment on them. The opposition won't argue the details, instead they'll just attack the source. There's no debating it then.
"Are there some things which you don't pay attention to because doing so would just piss you off?"
That REALLY depends. If it's something that REALLY makes no sense whatsoever like Holocaust denial or other genocide denials then there isn't reason to pay attention to them is there? Some things have already been proven as fact. Some other things that can be argued like 9-11 or the Iraq war are different and it's a good idea to listen to both sides.
I'm one of those people that would rather ridicule the conspiracy fools than debate and argue with them. I know there is nothing to debate anyway.
Aside from using my own common sense, rational thinking, logic, reasoning and reality to know they are wrong, there are also plenty of reliable, conclusive and credible reports and investigations that have easily debunked ALL the silly claims of the conspiracy fools. They can be found all over the internet and in books, if one chooses to look.
However, those that like to waste their time promoting silly conspiracy ideas cannot be swayed or convinced of anything, even when the irrefutable facts are in front of them. So debating them is a complete waste of time, while in my opinion ridicule is more fun and productive. Therefore I use ridicule as a far better tool to deal with the likes of these ignorant fools, and I don't get flustered or frusted.
LOL! Ever been "frusted"?
^That only makes you look bad. Someone who's neutral on the topic may see that as a way of backing out of the debate. If you knew nothing about global warming and saw two people debate global warming and one person debates the topic while the other person attacks the opposition then who would you side with? The person who's making fun of the opponent or the person who's trying to debate.
Anyone who does that is showing signs of weakness and the third neutral party will never take them seriously.
Insults, taunting and uncalled for attacks are a sign of weakness and fear.
Or a sign of confidence if used tactfully. This is done all the time in politics and debate.
One can make a valid point and ridicule at the same time, directly or subliminally. Merely responding to people by only name calling would certainly be a weakness. You wont see that from me.
I don't get into moaning about the price of gasoline. I can't do anything about it, and I don't want to make my self sick with rage. So, I pay, drive away, and enjoy my day.
I use the ugly term'Masses of Asses' a lot.
This is not by mistake.
You can't change a conspiracy nut's mind no matter what the evidence is. I try to present what I can and point out the flaws in their "logic", the factual errors, etc. Sometimes ridicule when they persist in continually flaming the topic with nonsense they cut and paste instead of debate.
and yeah, I have created a couple of ballots using the "argumentative" style of conspiracy theorists, ballot #93428 Titanic sinking and ballot #93279 does the Moon really exist?
Yes.
by mojo on Mon May 01, 06 5:30am
[+]
"Or a sign of confidence if used tactfully. This is done all the time in politics and debate.
One can make a valid point and ridicule at the same time, directly or subliminally. Merely responding to people by only name calling would certainly be a weakness. You wont see that from me."
That's a big no no in debates. If a person goes off the topic at any time during a debate then that's a penalty. When people do this they often use logical fallacies (unintentionally) and that's another penalty. For example:
"So and so says that aliens exist. By believing that, so and so discredits any scientific research that has been done in the past"
OR
"So and so believes in evolution. So, so and so is basically saying that humans are uncivilised apes"
OR
"So and so says that the Iraq war can't be won. By saying that it can't be won, so and so is denying US victory in WW2"
I know what you're trying to say but it makes you look a lot better if you stick to the topic and argue the facts. You can do both, but if you stick with just the facts then there's a clean debate and it won't go from one topic to another.
Sure, but in this particular case its the promotion of non facts that i'm challenging.
Yes democrats piss me off
|
