The new Pentagon video

cjcampbell wrote:

As I said, most of these conspiracy buffs are a bunch of holocaust deniers and other enemies of the United States. In a just world they would be tried and hanged as the terrorists and traitors that they are.


I differ with you somewhat here. The scenario you describe is
dangerously similar not to a just but an intolerant world. We should do
everything we can to preserve freedom of everything, speech included,
so stifling a dissenting voice is no solution. The best way to beat
such people down is with objective, irrefutable evidence although I
agree it'd involve the precious time of many.

Ramapriya

wrote in news:1147928450.364812.197730
@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

cjcampbell wrote:

As I said, most of these conspiracy buffs are a bunch of holocaust
deniers and other enemies of the United States. In a just world they would
be tried and hanged as the terrorists and traitors that they are.


I differ with you somewhat here. The scenario you describe is
dangerously similar not to a just but an intolerant world. We should do
everything we can to preserve freedom of everything, speech included,
so stifling a dissenting voice is no solution. The best way to beat
such people down is with objective, irrefutable evidence although I
agree it'd involve the precious time of many.

Ramapriya

The only problem is that these folks are "true believers". There
is nothing you can give them as evidence that would dissuade them
from their "truth". They could be claiming the sky is fuscia and
even if you tape their eyelids open and force them to look at a
brilliant blue sky, they will find some way to say it's part of
the conspiracy and dismiss the evidence.

It's the whole science/pseudoscience problem. An interesting aspect
is that not only does the scientist know that the psuedoscientist
is wrong, but they even understand *WHY* the pseudoscientist thinks
the wrong things that they do!!!

Something I find amusing is these folks are always telling us to
"open our minds". Our minds are open. Their's are the closed ones.
They can't see that they are wrong, much less why. We can see both.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

"Skywise" wrote in message
...
wrote in news:1147928450.364812.197730
@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

cjcampbell wrote:

As I said, most of these conspiracy buffs are a bunch of holocaust
deniers and other enemies of the United States. In a just world they
would be tried and hanged as the terrorists and traitors that they are.

I differ with you somewhat here. The scenario you describe is
dangerously similar not to a just but an intolerant world. We should do
everything we can to preserve freedom of everything, speech included,
so stifling a dissenting voice is no solution. The best way to beat
such people down is with objective, irrefutable evidence although I
agree it'd involve the precious time of many.

The only problem is that these folks are "true believers". There
is nothing you can give them as evidence that would dissuade them
from their "truth".

CJ is a true believer too, albeit in a different bizarre mythology than that
of the conspiracy theorists. But unlike the conspiracy theorists, CJ
literally wants to kill people for espousing nonsense that's in competition
with his own.

CJ rationalizes his bloodlust by asserting that his would-be victims
themselves harbor such homicidal desires (they're "terrorists"). But he
makes that claim without a shred of evidence, because true believers don't
need any.

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
"Skywise" wrote in message
...
wrote in news:1147928450.364812.197730
@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

cjcampbell wrote:

As I said, most of these conspiracy buffs are a bunch of holocaust
deniers and other enemies of the United States. In a just world they
would be tried and hanged as the terrorists and traitors that they are.

I differ with you somewhat here. The scenario you describe is
dangerously similar not to a just but an intolerant world. We should do
everything we can to preserve freedom of everything, speech included,
so stifling a dissenting voice is no solution. The best way to beat
such people down is with objective, irrefutable evidence although I
agree it'd involve the precious time of many.

The only problem is that these folks are "true believers". There
is nothing you can give them as evidence that would dissuade them
from their "truth".

CJ is a true believer too, albeit in a different bizarre mythology than
that of the conspiracy theorists. But unlike the conspiracy theorists, CJ
literally wants to kill people for espousing nonsense that's in
competition with his own.

CJ rationalizes his bloodlust by asserting that his would-be victims
themselves harbor such homicidal desires (they're "terrorists"). But he
makes that claim without a shred of evidence, because true believers don't
need any.

--Gary

I appreciate your thoughts and your prose. I think you may appreciate this,
particularly the quotes of Shaw and Schopenhauer.

http://www.rense.com/general70/tjere.htm



In this issue there seems to be too many 'experts' refusing to answer valid
questions. These 'experts' attempt to use bluster and attacks on character
as a substitute for reason. IMHO many are afraid that at least some of the
answers may be uncomfortable to prior belief and force the reevaluation of
core values.



Socrates taught that the pursuit of truth can only begin once they start to
question and analyze every belief that they ever held dear. If a certain
belief passes the tests of evidence, deduction, and logic, it should be
kept. If it doesn't, the belief should not only be discarded, but the
thinker must also then question why he was led to believe the erroneous



The very use of the term 'conspiracy theorists' to denigrate those who dare
to question the 'approved' 'conspiracy theory of 19 Arabs with box cutters
is an attempt to discredit by attack on character to avoid talking about
truth which in this as in all wars is the first casualty.



"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we
don't believe in it at all." -Noam Chomsky

In article 1Z4bg.174799$WI1.109727@pd7tw2no, "Private"
wrote:

In this issue there seems to be too many 'experts' refusing to answer valid
questions. These 'experts' attempt to use bluster and attacks on character
as a substitute for reason. IMHO many are afraid that at least some of the
answers may be uncomfortable to prior belief and force the reevaluation of
core values.
[snipperoo]
The very use of the term 'conspiracy theorists' to denigrate those who dare
to question the 'approved' 'conspiracy theory of 19 Arabs with box cutters
is an attempt to discredit by attack on character to avoid talking about
truth which in this as in all wars is the first casualty.

like the use of term "experts"?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article 1Z4bg.174799$WI1.109727@pd7tw2no, "Private"

wrote:

In this issue there seems to be too many 'experts' refusing to answer
valid
questions. These 'experts' attempt to use bluster and attacks on
character
as a substitute for reason. IMHO many are afraid that at least some of
the
answers may be uncomfortable to prior belief and force the reevaluation
of
core values.
[snipperoo]
The very use of the term 'conspiracy theorists' to denigrate those who
dare
to question the 'approved' 'conspiracy theory of 19 Arabs with box
cutters
is an attempt to discredit by attack on character to avoid talking about
truth which in this as in all wars is the first casualty.

like the use of term "experts"?


touché - valid point

"Skywise" wrote in message
...

The only problem is that these folks are "true believers". There
is nothing you can give them as evidence that would dissuade them
from their "truth". They could be claiming the sky is fuscia and
even if you tape their eyelids open and force them to look at a
brilliant blue sky, they will find some way to say it's part of
the conspiracy and dismiss the evidence.

It's the whole science/pseudoscience problem.


What you just described is a good assessment of _faith_.

wrote in message
oups.com...
cjcampbell wrote:

As I said, most of these conspiracy buffs are a bunch of holocaust
deniers and other enemies of the United States. In a just world they
would be tried and hanged as the terrorists and traitors that they
are.


I differ with you somewhat here. The scenario you describe is
dangerously similar not to a just but an intolerant world. We should do
everything we can to preserve freedom of everything, speech included,
so stifling a dissenting voice is no solution.



The best way to beat
such people down is with objective, irrefutable evidence although I
agree it'd involve the precious time of many.

That would only convince a few on the margin. Conspiracy nuts are not
rational people. Some get a kick out of messing with peoples heads. Some are
just seeking attention like kids being obnoxious. Some are just basket
cases.

Rather than suppress them, the best way is to let them speak. The
overwhelming majority of the time they refute themselves. The trick is:
don't respond to them directly; instead address the audience in general.
Convince the rational, don't waste time with the irrational. Remember that
reason only works with reasonable people.