• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Mark Roberts Interview on Skeptic Zone

The only ones that are drawing this out into the claim being that jew haters are synonymous with 9/11 conspiracy theorists are the conspiracy theorists. Certainly not Mark. The point goes to show how such a movement evolved.

No one on this side is focusing on the Jew hating mchapman. Well, except for you. It makes for a nice strawman argument in light of there being no real evidence to support the conspiracy theories.
 
Not very clear. Try this one:

Person A makes false claims about 9/11. Person A's motivation in making these false claims is to demonise Jews.

Person B repeats person A's false claims about 9/11. Person B's motivation in repeating these false claims is to appear clever and independent-minded.

Are you entirely comfortable with person B's actions?

Dave
 
Jonnyclueless said:
The only ones that are drawing this out into the claim being that jew haters are synonymous with 9/11 conspiracy theorists are the conspiracy theorists. Certainly not Mark. The point goes to show how such a movement evolved.

No one on this side is focusing on the Jew hating mchapman. Well, except for you. It makes for a nice strawman argument in light of there being no real evidence to support the conspiracy theories.
Click to expand...

This isn't the first time Mark Roberts has done this sort of thing. In his wtc7 paper he makes sure he points out that steven jones is a mormon who wrote a paper about Jesus coming to america. Totally irrelevant to his 911 claims.

In that podcast he described hero Willie Rodriguez as a failed magician. All pathetic Ad Hom fallacies that make Mark Roberts research about as credible as any holocaust deniers'.
 
mchapman said:
Why even mention that they are anti semitic? If claims are wrong then they are wrong on their own merits regardless of other views.

I know plenty of people who accept the official story of 911 who are extremely racist towards black or muslim people. Does that have any bearing on their claims about 911?
Click to expand...

Can you name any prominent experts of the "official story" that base their conclusion on this supposed "racism"? If not, then this is simply a tu quoque- though I don't speak for Gravy, I personally believe that the anti-Semitism is a symptom of the irrationality of conspiracism and leads to conspiracist ideology.

Furthermore, are these "racists" in a higher majority among the scientific community- or is it simply the case that since the vast majority of experts, witnesses, and laymen believe the scientific version of the events- that there is likely to be a mix of people in there who also happen to be racist?

In other words- one is a symptom of the other, but your example is simply a statistical occurrence.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Not very clear. Try this one:

Person A makes false claims about 9/11. Person A's motivation in making these false claims is to demonise Jews.

Person B repeats person A's false claims about 9/11. Person B's motivation in repeating these false claims is to appear clever and independent-minded.

Are you entirely comfortable with person B's actions?

Dave
Click to expand...

Try this one.

Person A hates jews and makes false claims about 911.

Person B makes false claims.

Person C relies on facts and and evidence and evaluates the claims regardless of who made them.

Why arent the debunkers behaving like person C?
 
mchapman said:
This isn't the first time Mark Roberts has done this sort of thing. In his wtc7 paper he makes sure he points out that steven jones is a mormon who wrote a paper about Jesus coming to america. Totally irrelevant to his 911 claims.

In that podcast he described hero Willie Rodriguez as a failed magician. All pathetic Ad Hom fallacies that make Mark Roberts research about as credible as any holocaust deniers'.
Click to expand...

Gravy can probably clear your misunderstanding up for you on his own- but it should be pointed out that he was referring to a history of poor decisions- a stretch to call that ad hominem, but an outright lie to call it the basis for the rebuttal.

He wasn't saying that Jones is wrong because he wrote a paper about Jesus coming to America- he's wrong because he lacks scientific proof, and by the way he has a history of doing so.
 
mchapman said:
Try this one.

Person A hates jews and makes false claims about 911.

Person B makes false claims.

Person C relies on facts and and evidence and evaluates the claims regardless of who made them.

Why arent the debunkers behaving like person C?
Click to expand...

Um, a better question is why are all conspiracists acting like person A and person B?
 
Brannagyn said:
...I'm still relatively new here and will happily scour the forums for factual data and insightful opinion wherever I might find it.
Click to expand...

It's helpful when new members learn to distinguish factual data from debunked beliefs.That you can't understand Gravy and the written word is not a good start.
 
mchapman said:
This isn't the first time Mark Roberts has done this sort of thing. In his wtc7 paper he makes sure he points out that steven jones is a mormon who wrote a paper about Jesus coming to america. Totally irrelevant to his 911 claims.
Click to expand...

You'll be very hard pressed to find anyone using this as an argument against the Truth Movement's 9/11 claims.

What it is useful for, however, is the larger question of "how could a scientist get this so wrong?" To which the answer is, humans are fallible, and this particular human has a documented history of making erratic claims.

You're conflating. And you have yet to provide anything the Truth Movement gets right. Ultimately, we care about its accuracy more than why it is so wrong, but both are acceptible avenues for discussion...
 
mchapman said:
Let me put this as clearly as possible:

Person A makes false claims about 911.

Person B makes false claims about 911 and hates jews.

Is there any difference between A and B that requires us to focus on the jew hating?
Click to expand...

When “A” quotes anti-Semitic publications in their “research” and videos, has anti-Semites organize their truther conferences and then defends said anti-Semites (see my post #66 above on this thread), praise the 9/11 “research” of anti-Semites, and host anti-Semites on their radio programs and websites, the answer is yes.
 
Totovader said:
They are.

If you believe that conspiracists base their conclusions on the facts and evidence regardless of who made the claim, then provide an example.

Just one.

Let's see where that gets us.
Click to expand...

No, you made the claim that all conspiracy theorists make false claims. Back that up or retract it. Don't try and make it my claim.
 
mchapman said:
No, you made the claim that all conspiracy theorists make false claims. Back that up or retract it. Don't try and make it my claim.
Click to expand...

You are the one making the positive claim- you are saying that conspiracists use evidence. I have not seen this happen, yet- and it's been long enough- and there have been enough claims- that I can conclude with certainty that conspiracists do not utilize evidence to reach their conclusions.

If you have evidence to the contrary, you need to provide it. Shifting the burden of proof on a claim you made, and then trying to dodge the issue because of that is unacceptable. Not only did you incorrectly characterize Gravy's argument- but you're trying to now do the exact same thing you just accused him of.
 
Totovader said:
Can you name any prominent experts of the "official story" that base their conclusion on this supposed "racism"? If not, then this is simply a tu quoque- though I don't speak for Gravy, I personally believe that the anti-Semitism is a symptom of the irrationality of conspiracism and leads to conspiracist ideology.

Furthermore, are these "racists" in a higher majority among the scientific community- or is it simply the case that since the vast majority of experts, witnesses, and laymen believe the scientific version of the events- that there is likely to be a mix of people in there who also happen to be racist?

In other words- one is a symptom of the other, but your example is simply a statistical occurrence.
Click to expand...

*bump*
 
Totovader said:
You are the one making the positive claim- you are saying that conspiracists use evidence. I have not seen this happen, yet- and it's been long enough- and there have been enough claims- that I can conclude with certainty that conspiracists do not utilize evidence to reach their conclusions.

If you have evidence to the contrary, you need to provide it. Shifting the burden of proof on a claim you made, and then trying to dodge the issue because of that is unacceptable. Not only did you incorrectly characterize Gravy's argument- but you're trying to now do the exact same thing you just accused him of.
Click to expand...

Quote me where I said conspiracists use evidence.

You made the absolute claim that ALL conspiracists are behaving like A and B. Back that claim up.
 
mchapman said:
Quote me where I said conspiracists use evidence.

You made the absolute claim that ALL conspiracists are behaving like A and B. Back that claim up.
Click to expand...

My mistake, I guess I assumed that since you said that conspiracists are not not using evidence- that they must be using evidence.

If you don't believe that, then we are not in disagreement.

I did back that claim up- it's up to you to refute it with even one example. Since you seem to be familiar with the arguments and claims of conspiracists, this should be a very easy task for you to do if you are in fact an honest person.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom