Weigh in on the 9/11 threads

116 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Fri, 2010-07-16 09:01

Yiwah

Caissa wrote:

Why do people constantly call them "scare quotes?" around here? I use quotation marks for two reaons 1) to provide quotations 2) to have a concept stand out for examination. I suppose one could use [sic] a biyt more frequently here.

This is the first time I've heard the term "scare quotes" and I'm not sure I understand what it means.

Quotation marks definitely alter the way you read a sentence. It's not always clear what the purpose of the quotation marks is. I abuse them quite often though. I think they've replaced my use of bolding or italics for emphasis if I'm not using them for a straight up quote.

Fri, 2010-07-16 09:11

#53

Caissa

There's the wikipedia link, YHWH.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes

Fri, 2010-07-16 09:23

#54

siamdave

Timebandit wrote:

Just because a delusion is shared by many does not make it credible.

- you might look in a mirror when you talk like that, podnuh ... as in , just because the indoctrinated masses believe the lies spread by the mainstream media in numbers greater than those of us who are a bit more skeptical of things we read in that media, does not make the story true ....

Fri, 2010-07-16 09:40

#55

Pants-of-dog

To get back to the idea of a concensus on WTC at babble, I think there is no debate on issues such as whether or not the Bush regime used it as an excuse to violently seize the petroleum asstes of a sovereign nation. We can all agree that they did.

However, I do not believe that there is any unified opinion in terms of what caused the buildings to collapse. Obviously some people prefer the controlled demolition hypothesis, while others support the gravitational collapse theory. According to comments made in the WTC thread and in personal messages I have received, it is obvious that the collapse itself is a subject of debate here at babble.

To touch on the credibility issue, I would suggest that thread titles be scanned a bit more attentively by moderators. As the titles appear on the rabble homepage, those words will affect our public image to those who see the home page. I do not think discussing WTC would hurt our credibility, but I do believe that a thread title that belittles one side or the other might. Obviously, this rule would apply to all thread titles, not just WTC threads.

Fri, 2010-07-16 09:58

#56

Yiwah

siamdave wrote:

Timebandit wrote:

Just because a delusion is shared by many does not make it credible.

- you might look in a mirror when you talk like that, podnuh ... as in , just because the indoctrinated masses believe the lies spread by the mainstream media in numbers greater than those of us who are a bit more skeptical of things we read in that media, does not make the story true ....

If someone called you a part of the indoctrinated masses who believes the lies spread by the mainstream media, would you react well?

Answering an offensive generalisation with an offensive generalisation makes the whole world...um...offended and generalised?

Fri, 2010-07-16 16:53

#57

Fidel

Michael Nenonen wrote:
Nope. Not for me, not by a long shot.

How do you know? Please share. Can you explain in a few sentences why you hold this extreme point of view? This was just another US government that went on to commit a number of war crimes after telling yet another big lie, and just another run of the mill lie among a series of ongoing lies to the public. Can you explain why you believe that they would suddenly stop lying? And the other war party in government today - are they not capable of covering for the other party of war pigs on the wing in the decade of the 2000s? You're a very trusting person. Some of us have a hard time placing so much faith in the hands of the warmongering plutocrats ready to go to war at the drop of a hat or false flag gladio as it probably was.

Fri, 2010-07-16 20:58

#58

Pants-of-dog

Fidel wrote:

Michael Nenonen wrote:
Nope. Not for me, not by a long shot.

How do you know? Please share. Can you explain in a few sentences why you hold this extreme point of view? This was just another US government that went on to commit a number of war crimes after telling yet another big lie, and just another run of the mill lie among a series of ongoing lies to the public. Can you explain why you believe that they would suddenly stop lying? And the other war party in government today - are they not capable of covering for the other party of war pigs on the wing in the decade of the 2000s? You're a very trusting person. Some of us have a hard time placing so much faith in the hands of the warmongering plutocrats ready to go to war at the drop of a hat or false flag gladio as it probably was.

Michael Nenonen is not holding an extreme point of view. MN simply does not agree with yoru stance on a particular position.

Nor has MN stated that his or her criticisms of your position are because of any faith in US plutocrats.

Do you feel there should be a concensus here at babble concerning the WTC collapses?

Fri, 2010-07-16 22:10

#59

Kaspar Hauser

"His or her"?

Fri, 2010-07-16 22:53

#60

Fidel

lol!

Fri, 2010-07-16 22:58

#61

Sineed

RevolutionPlease wrote:

Timebandit wrote:

Just because a delusion is shared by many does not make it credible.

Could you please stop using language like this. It's offensive. I don't have any opinion one way or the other on 9/11 but your language is offensive anyway. Along with many other slurs you've quietly made on this site.

I've noticed a disturbing trend amongst some posters around here, of which this is one example: the ongoing attack against people who present rational arguments. What is the objection to rational thought?

I already know that when the revolution comes, as an educated person, I'll be one of the first against the wall. But these little reminders are just a bit disturbing.

Fri, 2010-07-16 23:33

#62

Fidel

No we'll still need pharmacists and doctors, poets etc after the revolution, Sineed. Remember Yuri Zhivago.

Sat, 2010-07-17 10:59

#63

Pants-of-dog

Sineed wrote:

RevolutionPlease wrote:

Timebandit wrote:

Just because a delusion is shared by many does not make it credible.

Could you please stop using language like this. It's offensive. I don't have any opinion one way or the other on 9/11 but your language is offensive anyway. Along with many other slurs you've quietly made on this site.

I've noticed a disturbing trend amongst some posters around here, of which this is one example: the ongoing attack against people who present rational arguments. What is the objection to rational thought?

I already know that when the revolution comes, as an educated person, I'll be one of the first against the wall. But these little reminders are just a bit disturbing.

I believe that RevolutionPlease was upset by Timebandit's use of the word "delusion", rather than the entire statement. Thus the objection is to language dealing with mental illness rather than an objection to Timebandit's correct observation about the fallacy of argument ad populum.

But intellectuals are not very popular either with the despots or the revolutionaries, either. Too many nuances in our thinking, and not enough demagoguery, I guess.

Sat, 2010-07-17 11:19

#64

jrootham

I will reply to the hijacking threads if a new 9/11 thread gets opened, I am not going to open it myself.

Sat, 2010-07-17 12:14

#65

Sineed

Pants-of-dog wrote:

I believe that RevolutionPlease was upset by Timebandit's use of the word "delusion", rather than the entire statement. Thus the objection is to language dealing with mental illness rather than an objection to Timebandit's correct observation about the fallacy of argument ad populum.

Yeah, I get that. On babble, we've already eliminated the use of such words as "loony" or "nutcase" to characterize arguments, accurately recognizing that these words use an association with mental illness for the purpose of insult and belittlement. But cherry-picking "delusion" from someone's post in order to say, "This is offensive!" is dishonest, given that this word is not specific to mental illness, and is basically drumming up a fake controversy in order to attack the poster; a variation of ad hominem, if you will.

Sat, 2010-07-17 12:49

#66

Catchfire

I don't know how these thread relate to rabble.ca's so-called "credibility" (credible to whom? Jonathan Kay?), but my position is that these threads have nothing to do with science. They have to do with grandstanding, posturing and machismo. I don't see much "debate" going on, actually. But the 9/11 threads tend to ghettoize themselves nicely, so I--and the other mods--don't worry much about them.

I do have a problem when pseudoscience migrates into other issues, like H1N1, for example. Scepticism comes in many forms, one of them pseudoscience, which can be valuable--but when scepticism becomes obsession, it derails the thread and any attempt at intelligent discussion.

Sat, 2010-07-17 13:00

#67

remind

Sineed wrote:
I already know that when the revolution comes, as an educated person, I'll be one of the first against the wall. But these little reminders are just a bit disturbing.

Hoping this is a bit tongue in cheek, as if it isn't, the personal attack of stating you believe there is a desire to murder, against those who want a complete societal change here, is more than a bit disturbing. In fact, you would be, or are, calling us murderers who are waiting for the chance to do so.

The presumption that one will be victimized at sometime in the future, and that people here are against education and thus against you, is kind of a pre-victimization belief, one could say. And that is hardly rational thinking now is it?!

Moreover, if you do hold this belief, and it is not tongue in cheek, or a rhetorical device, it would suggest that you think your fortunes would be better off siding with the corporate and hereditary elite, who, in actual fact, want to destroy the rest of us.

...guess holding the assumption that the left is out to kill you, could be a conscious sop for siding with those who seek to oppress and actually get rid of the non-elite. Now if one was actually believing a socialist change in society meant socialist left people were out to kill the educated and and thus they/you feared for your/their life, well...then that would require some deep rethinking to clear ones self of such erroneous misconceptions.

And actually, even if it is tongue in cheek, I, for one, really do not appreciate being smeared by accusations of being a murderer with a desire to murder the educated. Some reading out there may actually believe your words are true.

Sat, 2010-07-17 13:07

#68

jas

Personally, the implied distinction Sineed made between herself, an "educated" person, and others, rubbed me the wrong way.

Sat, 2010-07-17 13:26

#69

jas

Catchfire, what H1N1 pseudoscience are you referring to? The manufactured "pandemic", or the fears about the vaccines?

Sat, 2010-07-17 13:59

#70

prisonernumberone prisonernumberone's picture

Hi again ..... Would it be worthwhile to have 9/11 truth as one of the "browse by issue" presets? (I don't think it currnently is(?))

Recently I have only read the front page where the active listing of the most recent postings are mentioned and thus was unaware of Jas's latest on-going 9/11 thread. I left/ was discouraged away after an earlier thread was (arbitrarily) stopped.

Anywhooo 9/11 truth remains the seminal event of post 2001 and its denial has turned our governing leadership into ignorant monsters. The acceptance of 9/11 lies is very sad. We think child soldiers should be tortured and accusations are all that is necessary to use deadly force.

In my own opinion the reality that 2 110 story buildings were turned to dust before our eyes in 10 seconds, the U.S. armed forces were subverted and that an unfathomable amount of money was stolen is indisputable. That those responsible for security in the Canadian Armed forces are unaware would be ludicrous.

It would be nice if examinations of 9/11 events could be aggregated such that honest inquiry is not continually stamped out and replaced by disingenuous obfuscation. Personally I feel the implications of 9/11 truth now deserve to be thought about ie. no justice no peace.

Rabble should create a little more space for 9/11 so honest, informed views can be shared alongside honest uninformed views and opinions formed. A 9/11 preset might slow down simple dishonesty from so effectively sucking oxygen from the discussions.

Well there, I feel a little better.

bob

Sat, 2010-07-17 14:24

#71

Fidel

Yes I agree. These kinds of discussions will tend to come to a stand still because more information is needed. NIST has not done its job, and it's not their fault really. The Republican Government itself quashed Cynthia McKinney's original call for an investigation into what was the worst building collapse disaster in history. It was only due to public requests for an investigation that the feds went ahead with the 9/11 Commission anyway and was "setup to fail" according to two of the eleven or so handpicked bipartisan 9/11 co-chairs. Witnesses were intimidated, evidence was destroyed and witheld by the CIA, and the US "What trillion dollars?" DoD refused to handover key evidence they say inciminates the shadow group known as "Al-Qa'eda" in the 9/11 attacks and are still holding out on public and Congressional calls for a transparent investigation.

This whole 9/11 mess is down to one thing. And US Republican conservatives themselves have said that this never ending "war on a noun" as some babblers have described it so comedically, the "war on terror" is an irrational response to the fact that successive American governments have avoided developing a long-term national energy strategy for too long. Never mind rumors of bombing Iran. There are rumors that Saudi Arabia itself is on big oil's list of countries to bomb and invade and commandeer their fossil fuel reserves. This is a military-industrial complex partnership with big oil that was an abomination of democracy many years in the making. It's not democracy when they have groups forming outside normal bureaucratic functioning, like [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Whistleblowers_Coalition]The National Security Whisteblowers Coalition[/url] and [url=http://www.ucsusa.org/]The Union of Concerned Scientists[/url] alarmed over Government sponsored climate science denialism in the decade of the 2000s. UCS says only a quarter of NIST, NOAA, and NASA scientists are aware of any kind of appeals process to turn to when politicians interfere with science and scientific reporting. Something is rotten in Denmark, and 9/11 is just another sign of the overall decay and rot in general.

Sat, 2010-07-17 14:53

#72

Pants-of-dog

Sineed wrote:

Yeah, I get that. On babble, we've already eliminated the use of such words as "loony" or "nutcase" to characterize arguments, accurately recognizing that these words use an association with mental illness for the purpose of insult and belittlement. But cherry-picking "delusion" from someone's post in order to say, "This is offensive!" is dishonest, given that this word is not specific to mental illness, and is basically drumming up a fake controversy in order to attack the poster; a variation of ad hominem, if you will.

I see. I am somewhat of a newcomer here, so I am unaware of what the local language paradigm is. And RevolutionPlease did focus on the word instead of Timebandit's point, as you mention.

Sat, 2010-07-17 14:58

#73

Pants-of-dog

prisonernumberone wrote:

....

Rabble should create a little more space for 9/11 so honest, informed views can be shared alongside honest uninformed views and opinions formed. A 9/11 preset might slow down simple dishonesty from so effectively sucking oxygen from the discussions.

...

bob

Do you feel that there was any dishonesty in the recent round of discussions concerning the WTC collapses?

It seemed to me that the people with whom I interacted the most (i.e. jas, Fidel and siamdave) were debating in good faith.

Sun, 2010-07-18 06:52

#74

Jacob Two-Two

Well, this installment was a big disappointment. I thought the discussion would keep going.

Let's see if I can summarise where I'm at here.

The official NIST theory depends on a solid top block of floors above the impact zone acting as a piledriver that plows through the floors below it one after the other, gaining mass and thus energy as most of the rubble from each collects and adds to the piledriver effect. The problem is that we can't actually see this piledriver in action, as videos of the incident show nothing but a huge cloud of dust after the first second of structural failure on the floor of the impact zone (which happens for whatever reason). Therefore doubt remains whether or not it exists.

The sceptic's view is that this piledriver is not physically possible because, while a building subjected to symmetrical structural failure in its middle floor can collapse in such a fashion (as videos from pants have shown us), one experiencing structural failure in the manner that the WTC did, could not, since the structural integrity of the many intact floors below it would be too strong to be affected in the same manner.

Pants provides math claiming to prove that such a piledriver is consistent with physics, jas and Fidel link to other mathy-types who claim that their math proves the exact opposite. Critiques on both sides. As I haven't checked all this math and there's no way I'm going to, I'm up in the air here. Note, however, that even if we could prove that such a collapse is possible, it wouldn't necessarily prove that this was the case in the WTC collapses themselves.

I have yet to see a position that the observed phenomenon from the WTC attacks is inconsistent with a controlled demolition (but perhaps I missed it), just that such an opnion is loony, as if this is somehow crazier than the world full of crazy things we see every day. Again, that doesn't prove anything except that CD is still a working hypothesis, as is the piledriver theory (assuming the math adds up, which I'm in no position to confirm or deny).

As well as the lingering dispute about whether or not the piledriver theory is physically possible, there also continues to be dispute over whether a structural collapse could have occured in the impact zone in order to trigger such an effect. The question of the fires' temperature, location, and ability to weaken the steel supports, even with fireproofing removed (which again, is an unproven and unprovable linchpin of the NIST theory) contains a lot of interesting details, and I would like to hear more about it. For instance, pictures of people standing in the impact holes, supposedly right next to fires that are lethal in their ferocity but aren't visible in the pictures themselves, seem to support the sceptic's view. Similarly, the question of how many columns were damaged in the impact and if that number is sufficient to cause structural failure seems unresolved.

Now, I thought this was just getting interesting, as jas provided us a video clip which seemed to show the upper block of floors (the "piledriver") collapsing in such a way to refute the notion that it maintained its integrity as a solid block all the way to the bottom. Visible behind the expanding dust cloud we can see the antenna falling over rather than staying erect. This indicates an upper block that does not stay solid, and hence could not act as a piledriver as the official NIST theory requires it to. Unfortunately, the discussion fell apart at this point. I would like to see it continue, if possible.

I am surprised at the eagerness of some babblers to declare that the sceptic's position has been thoroughly disproven time and again. I have to say, I don't see that at all.

Sun, 2010-07-18 10:55

#75

Pants-of-dog

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

...

...Note, however, that even if we could prove that such a collapse is possible, it wouldn't necessarily prove that this was the case in the WTC collapses themselves.

This is true. In fact, I would even say that it is impossible to prove that Bazant's model is definitely the correct one. This is because we are dealing with a historical event instead of a laboratory experiment. We cannot repeat the destruction of the WTC over and over again in a controlled environment.

The same applies to all hypotheses, including controlled demolition. So much for proving thungs. But what about disproving things? We can disprove certain hypotheses by showing how they obvioulsy contradict the observed phenomenon (e.g. we know it wasn't actually an earthquake because of seismic records).

If Bazant's model is correct, then it will simply not be disproven. Of course, no model is perfectly correct. All models are simplified versions of real phenomenon, so they can not be perfect. As imperfections in the model are brought to light, the model will change to be consistent with the observed data. I believe this has already happened.

Jacob Two-Tw wrote:
}...Again, that doesn't prove anything except that CD is still a working hypothesis, as is the piledriver theory (assuming the math adds up, which I'm in no position to confirm or deny).

In what manner are you using the words hypothesis and theory? In the scientific sense?

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
.....

I am surprised at the eagerness of some babblers to declare that the sceptic's position has been thoroughly disproven time and again. I have to say, I don't see that at all.

I do not believe that anyone disproved the general sceptic's postion during the recent round of WTC threads. This is for several reasons. The first and most obvious reason is because it was not the topic of discussion. We were discussing the inconsistencies of the gravitational collapse theory, not the hypotheses put forward by the sceptics. If I had declared that I had disproven anyone's claim, I was discussing the specific claim under discussion, rather than any global position held by sceptics.

The second reason is that the position of any sceptic is scepticism (such a hard word to type) and one cannot disprove scepticism.

The third reason s because the sceptic's position was not well defined, nor would it need to be. If the point is to attack the gravitational collapse model, there is no reason to define or clarify any other model. Since the sceptic's model was never clearly defined, it could not have been disproven.

If, however, a WTC thread was started where a controlled demolition hypothesis was examined rigourously, it may be possible to disprove one or more specific CD scenarios.

Sun, 2010-07-18 12:16

#76

Catchfire

[quote=jas]Catchfire, what H1N1 pseudoscience are you referring to? The manufactured "pandemic", or the fears about the vaccines[/quote]

jas, this post exemplifies a very good reason why you find it difficult for anyone to engage you in good faith.

Sun, 2010-07-18 12:37

#77

Jacob Two-Two

Oh, none of that was directed at you, pants. In fact, may I say what a pleasure it is to have someone who so

cogently and tirelessly defends the official theory on one of these threads. It's been very illuminating.

"In what manner are you using the words hypothesis and theory? In the scientific sense?"

No. In my own special way. Interchangably and with little regard for their actual meaning. I suppose "model" would

be a better term.

"I do not believe that anyone disproved the general sceptic's postion during the recent round of WTC threads.

This is for several reasons."

Yes, and I agree with all of them. My only point was to show the degree to which I have followed this discussion

and why I disagreed with the implication by some other posters that it was pointless to continue this conversation.

I don't feel that way and would like it to continue.

Sun, 2010-07-18 16:32

#78

Fidel

Pants-of-dog wrote:
I do not believe that anyone disproved the general sceptic's postion during the recent round of WTC threads. This is for several reasons.

The A&E's for truth are not providing an alternative explanation for the collapses, because it is not their objective. Their task as independent scutinizers on the matter is merely to provide enough doubt wrt the official theory as to make the case for a real and transparent investigation into collapse initiation.

What A&E's for 9/11 truth are saying is that it is a legal obligation of NIST to provide a credible explanation for collapse inititations. NIST and Bazant have not provided a credible explanation for collapse initiation of three WTC buildings based on NIST's evidence. According to the A&E's for truth, the law is on their side as they continue pushing for a new investigation of what were the worst building collapses in history occuring the same day and taking so many lives. And lawyers for 9/11 truth are saying that the 9/11 Commission was interfered with by various government agencies in violating basic evidenciary procedures as per US Constitutional law. The 9/11 Commission report was a whitewash according to certain bipartisan 9/11 Commission co-chairs as well as National Security Whistleblowers and former US Government officials with opinions on various 9/11 Commission's findings and too numerous to suggest that the investigatiion was anything but a whitewash. A real investigation would give a real 9/11 panel subpoena powers and rights to evidence that are still hidden from public scrutiny for reasons of US "national security." Iows, they might as well say that the public has no choice but to trust and obey big brother, or Uncle Sam in this case and amounting to so much modern day equivalent of an American inquisition.

Sun, 2010-07-18 17:01

#79

Pants-of-dog

It's easy to say you do not believe someone.

It is more difficult, but more productive, to explain why you do not believe someone.

So far, the explanations I have read from sceptics concerning the WTC collapses have not been convincing.

Sun, 2010-07-18 17:03

#80

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Catchfire wrote:

I don't know how these thread relate to rabble.ca's so-called "credibility" (credible to whom? Jonathan Kay?), but my position is that these threads have nothing to do with science. They have to do with grandstanding, posturing and machismo. I don't see much "debate" going on, actually. But the 9/11 threads tend to ghettoize themselves nicely, so I--and the other mods--don't worry much about them.

I do have a problem when pseudoscience migrates into other issues, like H1N1, for example. Scepticism comes in many forms, one of them pseudoscience, which can be valuable--but when scepticism becomes obsession, it derails the thread and any attempt at intelligent discussion.

If you tolerate one, you encourage the other. And it's your call and Maysie's, but that would be my primary objection to not shutting this nonsense down.

Sun, 2010-07-18 20:02

#81

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

RevolutionPlease wrote:

Timebandit wrote:

Just because a delusion is shared by many does not make it credible.

Could you please stop using language like this. It's offensive. I don't have any opinion one way or the other on 9/11 but your language is offensive anyway. Along with many other slurs you've quietly made on this site.

The word delusion can have a psychiatric connotation in the right context, but does not always have such connotation. Perhaps, instead of shadow moderating, you could take it up with a mod.

Sun, 2010-07-18 20:05

#82

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

RevolutionPlease wrote:

Timebandit wrote:

Good to have an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out...

Quick second example, please just stop it.

Example of what?

Translation: It's good to be open to evidence, but not good to be overly credulous.

If it's references to mental illness you're banging on about, you're reading more into my posts than is reasonable because on this thread I haven't made any.

Sun, 2010-07-18 20:13

#83

polly bee

Why shut them down? Some people believe in the official theory, some don't. There is no concensus on Babble, and there is no concensus outside of Babble. If there were concensus, we would not be having these discussions..

Same with H1N1. For every person I know in real life who believes that we were on the verge of a planet-altering pandemic, there is another who thinks, "meh, it was a money grab". There is no concensus.

The discussions are interesting and heated and lively -------- probably some of the most heated and active on the board. We need lively threads! And I don't think the idea that these "wacky" threads are going to somehow leak to the front page and chase away the non-babbling readership....? Really? It's an open forum on a lefty website, do you think rabble readers are going to be shocked and dismayed to find that someone here holds ideas OUTSIDE the accepted norm? That the comments here are not that different from every other website on the subject? (And back to the accepted norm, what the fuck is that really? And how can we be sure that those shocked and outraged rabble readers are going to be on the accepted norm side? I think some of the posters here championing the not-accepted-norms side are very intelligent thoughtful people. Maybe that is what rabble readership looks like, a cross section).

There seems to be an expectation that babble should be peopled with educated professionals, and that we shouldn't stoop to re-hashing "that which has already been decided by those who know". Meh.

For those who genuinely can't stand to be involved in these discussions, just skip them. If you think they are nonsensical and irritating, just skip them. It's that easy. I have really enjoyed reading the 911 threads - for all the reasons I stated above. But I don't know enough (about the actual collapse) to be able to say for certain which theory I would agree with, so I follow the threads, click a bit here and research a bit there. I am not going to poke my head in unless I have something to offer.

Which I just did, I know. But this thread is supposed to be for weighing in on the 911 "threads", not on the 911 "theories". Carry on, please!

Sun, 2010-07-18 21:03

#84

jas

Catchfire wrote:

jas wrote:
Catchfire, what H1N1 pseudoscience are you referring to? The manufactured "pandemic", or the fears about the vaccines

jas, this post exemplifies a very good reason why you find it difficult for anyone to engage you in good faith.

Actually, I believe this was just a straight-up question. It's not clear from your post what you mean by "pseudoscience" in the H1N1 discussion., since we know that the pandemic was, in fact, manufactured, and that there has been some fear about the vaccines. Not a loaded question.

Sun, 2010-07-18 21:27

#85

polly bee

Catchfire, I wondered the same thing. From a post-pandemic viewpoint, it would be fair to say that the anti-vaxxers may have at the very least had a valid point? That perhaps the resistance to being sheeple in that instance can't really be classified as pseudoscientific nonsense?

Sun, 2010-07-18 23:41

#86

siamdave

prisonernumberone wrote:

Hi again ..... Would it be worthwhile to have 9/11 truth as one of the "browse by issue" presets? (I don't think it currnently is(?))

Recently I have only read the front page where the active listing of the most recent postings are mentioned and thus was unaware of Jas's latest on-going 9/11 thread. I left/ was discouraged away after an earlier thread was (arbitrarily) stopped.

Anywhooo 9/11 truth remains the seminal event of post 2001 and its denial has turned our governing leadership into ignorant monsters. The acceptance of 9/11 lies is very sad. We think child soldiers should be tortured and accusations are all that is necessary to use deadly force.

In my own opinion the reality that 2 110 story buildings were turned to dust before our eyes in 10 seconds, the U.S. armed forces were subverted and that an unfathomable amount of money was stolen is indisputable. That those responsible for security in the Canadian Armed forces are unaware would be ludicrous.

It would be nice if examinations of 9/11 events could be aggregated such that honest inquiry is not continually stamped out and replaced by disingenuous obfuscation. Personally I feel the implications of 9/11 truth now deserve to be thought about ie. no justice no peace.

Rabble should create a little more space for 9/11 so honest, informed views can be shared alongside honest uninformed views and opinions formed. A 9/11 preset might slow down simple dishonesty from so effectively sucking oxygen from the discussions.

Well there, I feel a little better.

bob

- that was well put, bob - it would be nice to be able to talk about these things with those who are genuinely unhappy with the official theory and are looking for information, rather than continually being attacked by trolls of various sorts whose only apparent purpose is disrupting such discussions by any means possible.

Mon, 2010-07-19 00:16

#87

siamdave

polly bee wrote:

......

There seems to be an expectation that babble should be peopled with educated professionals, and that we shouldn't stoop to re-hashing "that which has already been decided by those who know". Meh.

For those who genuinely can't stand to be involved in these discussions, just skip them. If you think they are nonsensical and irritating, just skip them. It's that easy.

- I'll sure second that - it's hard to figure why people who actually believe the official conspiracy theory want to interrupt these things constantly with no other purpose than disruption - it brings a certain question of motivation into play, which has never been addressed - there are many things here and elsewhere that people talk about that I have no interest in - and the last thing I would think of doing is going and disrupting them ...

Mon, 2010-07-19 01:08

#88

siamdave

Catchfire post 66: "..I do have a problem when pseudoscience migrates into other issues, like H1N1, for example..."

Me, I'm getting a bit tired of this 'pseudoscience' label getting thrown around as if the throwers were some learned professors qualified to state conclusively what is and what is not 'science', and the rest of us some unwashed barbarians worshipping dream spirits or something. Your 'beliefs' of who gives credible information do not automatically equate to 'fact', and you might do well to think upon this before raining such scorn on others. A good current example you bring up yourself is your mention of the 'pseudoscience' of the H1N1 discussion last year - but do you remember the outcome of the situation, Catchfire? Not the debate - but what happened as time passed? The 'real science' crowd was high and mighty about believing science, the media, the government, etc about the terrible danger we were all in ane the great protection to be gained from following their recommendations about getting vaccinated - scientific reports proved it all, of course! - and some of us were saying this whole thing smelled fishy, for various reasons, not the least of which was the speed everything was being done at. And do you recall what happened after that, what became 'true' as time passed and we no longer had to talk about what might or might not happen? Sure you do - yet another great fizzle from 'science', as the massive deaths did not actually emerge, as they had not in several similar scares over the last decade. Certain drug companies did make out like bandits, of course, but my point is not to talk about motive here, just the reliability of 'science', and whether 'skeptics' are automatically to be scorned when they question 'science'.

I'm wondering about the sincerity of those who accuse others of 'pseudoscience' - for starters, any real scientist, or intelligent citizen, tends to examine past failures in logic and tries to learn from them - I don't recall any such discussion here on Babble - you know - "Geez my fellow Believers In The True Word - maybe, just maybe, we were a bit hasty in our embrace of Real Science As Presented By The Mainstream Media last year? Maybe, just maybe, the Skeptics were right in their assessment that things were being pushed along much too fast here, and a position of 'wait and see' made some sense? And etc?" - did I miss that thread? Maybe we could get one going here - Who Defines Science Anyway? At what point is skepticism perhaps useful when scientists working with the same government who gave us the Powell Report on WMD in Iraq, and many other notable completely-wrong reports over the years, tell us they have found a Serious New Emergency And All Citizens Must Immediately Do As We TELL YOU!

But where is the 'science' vs 'pseudoscience' breakdown here? Maybe, just maybe, the scientists and government were a bit hasty with their decision making - maybe the studies they were basing their decisions on were incomplete in some way - when you rush things too much this often happens, as any real scientist (or person of reasonable intelligence and experience) could tell you. You might even say that people rushing to make important decisions on limited, inconclusive evidence are engaging in a form of pseudoscience - whilst those questioning them are the real scientists, wanting a bit more hard evidence before leaping to serious conclusions.

Some guidelines for the common babble rabble might be useful - who should be allowed to hold themselves up as the Voice of Science, Fact and Truth!!, mocking anyone they find does not share their beliefs? Should such people have credentials, or be otherwise encouraged to acknowledge up front they have no credentials to define 'science' other than their touching trust in the veracity of the Mainstream Media?

It's not that different with the 911 discussion - it appears to me there was a whole lot of politics and a very tiny amount of 'science' in the official conspiracy theory (which, you may recall, was making the rounds within minutes of the collapse, LONG before any real scientists had a chance to do any investigations at all) - and I can tell you for a fact, that I don't care how many pseudo-scientists you have throwing as many equations as they can devise at me trying to 'prove' the impossible or at least get me to shut up in the face of their 'superior' knowledge and ability to devise mathematical equations about strange phenomena - there is simply no way that those WTC buildings collapsed due to plane crash and tiny fires (I have explained my reasons for saying this in some depth elsewhere). No way. The 'official conspiracy theory is not 'pseudoscience' in action, it is simply a desperate attempt to cover up a major crime, and I find it both very difficult to understand, and very distressing in terms of thinking about the future of my country and world, that so many people are so ill-educated about our modern world and basic physical reality that they cannot immediately understand that.

A guy called Copernicus and his colleagues would probably find discussions like this somewhat strange, several hundred years after they faced their own 'pseudoscience' accusors. We haven't learned much.

Mon, 2010-07-19 02:30

#89

Fidel

Pants-of-dog wrote:

It's easy to say you do not believe someone.

It is more difficult, but more productive, to explain why you do not believe someone.

So far, the explanations I have read from sceptics concerning the WTC collapses have not been convincing.

Okay, I do not believe all of Manuel Garcia's proof by intimidation Counterpunch essay which was critiqued by David Griscom. And [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/humanities-science/how-facts-backfire#comment-11... posted again here[/url] as to the why.

Mon, 2010-07-19 08:10

#90

Caissa

Jas wrote:

Personally, the implied distinction Sineed made between herself, an "educated" person, and others, rubbed me the wrong way.

Caissa personally finds the at times anti-educated tone on Babble to rub him the wrong way.

Mon, 2010-07-19 09:32

#91

Pants-of-dog

siamdave wrote:

- I'll sure second that - it's hard to figure why people who actually believe the official conspiracy theory want to interrupt these things constantly with no other purpose than disruption - it brings a certain question of motivation into play, which has never been addressed - there are many things here and elsewhere that people talk about that I have no interest in - and the last thing I would think of doing is going and disrupting them ...

I do not see how anyone in the recent rounds of discussion was attempting to disrupt the discussion.

Mon, 2010-07-19 09:56

#92

polly bee

Caissa wrote:

Caissa personally finds the at times anti-educated tone on Babble to rub him the wrong way.

Maybe you could hold some evening classes? Help us out?

Mon, 2010-07-19 09:59

#93

Caissa

You object to my observation?

Mon, 2010-07-19 10:07

#94

Yiwah

There is definitely a tone of snobbery when it comes to 'educated folk' around here at times....which surprises me actually, since I'm used to 'ivory tower' progressives, and came on this board with the assumption I was going to be dealing with such. Luckily, babble is more diverse than that.

In any case, perhaps it's a defensive position, because people without formal post-secondary education believe they are being looked down upon. Does that happen? I'm sure it does from time to time, but I haven't seen it here yet.

People are going to have different areas of expertise, and that expertise should be valued. Pretending to have expertise you don't, or believing you can simply acquire that expertise in the space of a few google searches, is offensive and foolish, regardless of whether you're tackling the law, or car repair. People who actually practice these professions, or who dedicate themselves to the study of these things in a comprehensive way, are going to know more than you about it, period. Does that mean you can't ask questions, or offer your opinions? No. But getting defensive about your training is more about your insecurities than any objective reality.

There should be no shame in admitting you have areas in which you are not expert. Approaching the discussion in that way is not admitting defeat, it simply changes the way the debate happens.

Mon, 2010-07-19 10:11

#95

siamdave

Pants-of-dog wrote:

siamdave wrote:

- I'll sure second that - it's hard to figure why people who actually believe the official conspiracy theory want to interrupt these things constantly with no other purpose than disruption - it brings a certain question of motivation into play, which has never been addressed - there are many things here and elsewhere that people talk about that I have no interest in - and the last thing I would think of doing is going and disrupting them ...

I do not see how anyone in the recent rounds of discussion was attempting to disrupt the discussion.

- that remark was not directed at you - there are, however, others who get into these discussions with nothing more than some variation of 'you truthers are anti-science fruitcakes etc who should shut up and listen to your betters' and etc, and try to direct the threads into name-calling arguments that go nowhere - I haven't got time to to around looking for references, but it's pretty common - I disagree with most of your arguments, but you do have arguments that we can try to talk about, which is more than these others do ...

Mon, 2010-07-19 10:22

#96

Yiwah

Siamdave, you throw accusations around quite willy nilly and then complain that it's done to you. In general your accusations involve people being brainwashed by the mainstream media, or believing uncritically in what is said in the mainstream media. You also constantly make vague accusations about participant's dishonesty, etc etc.

The terms that you, jas and fidel constantly use also colour the debate. IMO, quite unnecessarily so. Again, I point out that naming yourself 'truthers' and everyone else 'non-truthers' is akin to an accusation that those who don't totally agree with you are either liars, or complicit in some sort of cover up. This loaded language is akin to right-wing smear campaigns against pro-choicers (relabelling them pro-abortionists), or left-wingers calling pro-lifers 'anti-choicers'. Perhaps you feel your terminology is appropriate. Perhaps you can see why others who use loaded terms would also feel their choices of language are appropriate.

While I agree that it serves no purpose to have people simply say "you guys are full of it" and then disappear, I also think it serves no purpose when people claim that anyone who doesn't buy into their argument 100% is somehow 'dishonest, brainwashed' etc.

If you want less name calling, perhaps engaging in less of it yourself would help?

Mon, 2010-07-19 11:17

#97

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

polly bee wrote:

Same with H1N1. For every person I know in real life who believes that we were on the verge of a planet-altering pandemic, there is another who thinks, "meh, it was a money grab". There is no concensus.

That description is a little disingenuous, polly bee. I can't recall anyone actually saying it was a "planet-altering pandemic", but we were repeatedly accused of saying so. But, IIRC, no one actually made that claim. Mostly what was pointed out was that the virus was highly contagious and that we would not know whether it would increase in severity until it was too late to do much about it - this is basic epidemiological fact with any flu virus. We were lucky that it didn't mutate in that way, and I think that we learned a lot about where the holes were in our public health system.

Which goes to the pattern of exaggerating and twisting the position you disagree with rather than dealing with the substance of the post. Most of the reasons given for objection to vaccination were irrational, based on the evils of "Big Pharma". We had postulations that vaccination was genocide, Vitamin C causes cancer, links to really, really questionable sites, accustions of being in the employ of Big Pharma or being "cointelpro trolls"... It was more than "Meh, just a money grab".

Mon, 2010-07-19 12:02

#98

polly bee

Is this the point where I quote myself, and bold where I said for every person I know in real life? Wasn't talking about you TB, or the good people here. I was pointing out that outside of rabble, I have found as little concensus on the subject as is evident here.

Mon, 2010-07-19 12:10

#99

jas

Yiwah wrote:

Pretending to have expertise you don't, or believing you can simply acquire that expertise in the space of a few google searches,

Once again, I'll have to ask you to back up this generalized statement. [i]Who[/i] is pretending to have expertise that they don't, how, and in what threads? Providing specifics will help us to see who is doing this and whether there is any truth to your statement. Thanks.

Mon, 2010-07-19 12:16

#100

Yiwah

Do you disagree with what I've said, Jas?

Though I'm glad you noticed it was a generalised statement. Which should inform your request for finger pointing.

Mon, 2010-07-19 12:23

#101

jas

I'm merely pointing out to you, again, that you have a tendency to make broad, generalized statements smearing general groups of people without providing any specific evidence.

Pages

Topic locked