adversity1
Scholar
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2007
- Messages
- 83
I've only been on these boards for a couple months and it's obvious that you're lying here. You have fled direct confrontation many times.
Mark Roberts Interview on Skeptic Zone
- Thread starter Hyperviolet
- Start date
I've only been on these boards for a couple months and it's obvious that you're lying here. You have fled direct confrontation many times.
RedIbis
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2007
- Messages
- 6,899
Don't hesitate to give it a shot.
Cl1mh4224rd
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2006
- Messages
- 9,778
Check it out, RedIbis... Your suspicions were wrong. Wow. How is that possible?
The argument of ignorance aserts the fallacy of drawing conclusions about the veracity of claims based upon lack of evidence to support them. Unless the person in question was simply stating the obvious (my having already mentioned the relationship between eividence and argument prior to this means he was not adding anything new) he was implying a relationship between the lack of evidence and the argument that was in fact an example of argument from ignorance.
The flaw in your argument is the assumption that everyone questioning the official version is part of a pressure or lobby group. Once again the innaccuracy of lumping all such people into a single movement. Change can be brought about through both academic and journalistic paths that by no means require a dedicated lobby group to have wide impact. While social activism are replete with examples of individuals making critical contributions, Watergate is but one case showing their ability to highlight political conspiracy specifically.
On the contrary, I would say that of the people posting here I have the least investment in the resolution of this discussion one way or the other.
..."if so"...
The flaw here should be obvious. As stated previously, and dutifully ignored, I haven't claimed these figures to be authorities on their subjects, as such there was no argument to authority.
If you re-read the post in question you can plainly see that I refered to those individuals as more diligent than Alex Jones and others. In my last post I specifically stated that this refered to their academic method. You appear to be equating recognition of diligence as endorsement of their views. I could easily say that David Irving is a more diligent Holocaust denier than the man on the street corner screaming about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, this would not by any means imply suppport for either view.
They were named. I was refering to the people I had mentioned previously who were from its outset, and continue to be, active in questioning the offical version and who seem entirely unrecognized here. Your lack of awareness of these people is astounding given your intense focus on the subject over an extended period of time.
Even if we take your bete noire, David Ray Griffin, we find (not knowing much about the man I'm forced to turn to that repository of bias Wikipedia) "After reading the work of Paul Thompson and Nafeez Ahmed, he became convinced that there was a prima facie case for the contention that there must have been complicity from individuals within the United States, and joined the 9/11 Truth Movement".
So Nafeez Ahmed, one of the figures I mentioned (and again, I'm only peripheraly aware of these people) was one of the primamry influences on Griffin...
It seems Griifin also co-edited a book called "9/11 and the American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out" with Peter Dale Scott. Shouldn't you be well aware of such things given the time you've invested in this topic. Surely your entire focus hasn't been upon Loose Change?
Why do you equate your lack of awareness of them to a global lack of awareness? As shown above they are clearly influential figures.
Let's look at my inability to respond rationally and civilly to you.
You then proceed to quote yourself saying "WTF? This irrational nonsense is entirely unrelated....If you want to continue making this petulant and baseless argument, do it elsewhere." Its statements like this and the wholly unneccesary putdowns directed at others that might make many people hesitant to engage in further discussion with you. It is by no means from offended sensibilities but a desire to avoid emotive baggage tieing down or derailing the arguments themselves.
The irrationality was a failure on your part to address arguments made (or dismiss them as irrational nonsense) and then proceed to request evidence to support views I had never endorsed (e.g "list, some of the 9/11 claims made by these diligent scholars that are demonstrably correct").
Demonstrably false simply by acknowledging the work of the people I mentioned. Your refusal to accept this is another aspect of the irrationality I mentioned. There was a truth movement, it developed primarily from anti-globalization and anti-war movements and it was based largely on the incredulity of the members over what they saw as oddities in the events of 9/11. You have failed to provide any evidence that anti-semites influenced these people in any fashion.
That anti-semites may have attached themselves to this early movement early on and had an influence on the latter work of the Loose Change crew is possible. If you claim to have evidence of this I would even take your claims at face value as I know Loose Chnage is riddled with inaccuracies. Nonetheless, your contention that there was no early truth movement and that the roots of the truth movement were influenced by anti-semitism are false.
(Note one caveat: I said I would accept your claims at face value. I still hold that to conflate anti-semitism with anti-zionism is to confuse racial and political views and that many Jewsih intellectuals have spoken out condemning the practice of Zionists using anti-semitism as a blanket defense against criticism of their political views. That said it is quote possible that actual racist misanthropes have influenced the 9/11 CT movement to some extent).
The initial 'truth movement' was sidetracked by something you might recall, the Invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, both of which eclipsed other issues for quite some time. The fact that the Invasion of Iraq was tied constantly by government and press to the events of 9/11 is hardly irrelevant.
Even if we accept that popularity peaked in 2006 as a result of Loose Change, it does not in any way suggest there was no early movement. In any event, your poll is hopelessly skewed, reflecting the membership of 911 blogger is hardly an accurate analysis of all those who criticize the official version. This is the first time I've ever heard of the site.
By this reasoning the US Civil Rights movement did not begin in the mid 1950's but rather in the mid 1960's when its popularity peaked.
The movement for independent enquiry into 9/11 began in 2001 and by early 2002 already included some of its most influential members. The movement was forced to change its focus to the more pressing and blatant inaccuracies used to justify the Invasion of Iraq and following the war and a shift back to 9/11 issues Loose Change certainly was one of the most influential factors on new activists but thats irrelevant to the point made in your podcast.
Lets look at the rationality of what actually occured.
You stated that anti-semites and their theories were prominent in the roots of the truth movement.
You reject the actual members of the truth movement as being valid members.
You repeatedly include everyone with doubts about the offical version as part of a single 'truth movement'.
You failed to address that by this last rational 'debunkers' must also include the government, media or anyone who opposes enquiries into the offical version.
I provided an example way back that by doing so you'll find yourself having to defend claims of 9/11 links to Iraq.
You failed to address this point in any fashion.
You accuse me of having failed to back-up these specific claims with examples.
Your major problem here is, clearly I would have thought, the desire to split everyone into two camps. The accurate, responsible 'debunkers' and the crazy, irrational 'truth movement'. As I've repeatedly stated this is a false dichotomy and cannot help but lead to logical pitfalls such as the above. Such failures are generally a dual application of No True Scotsman in which 'debunkers' fails to include inacciracies made by the government, media or any uneducated nut who could easily pop up on this forum declaring himself a 'debunker', while at the same time cherry-picking the membership of the 'truth movement' to conform to an understandable yet wholly inaccurate mistake in your knowledge of the early movement.
Not in the slightest. I've already stated Peter Dale Scott (particularly in 'The Road to 9/11') is probably most in common with my own views on the subject. You'll have to forgive me for not going into a lengthy explanation of the books thesis here. As I've stated I'm not here to promote or defend it but I'm surprised that people here are both unaware of it and haven't picked it apart yet. My statement that I would be very interested in any inaccuracies contained within it is entirely sincere and based on what I've seen of the reaserach conducted here I don't doubt you could find some.
In a different thread.
The only points I'm interested in discussing in this one are the anti-semite contention and the divisive nature of discourse on these forums.
Finally,
One would think that prior to engaging in grammatical or stylistic pedantry the person in question would first ensure their post does not include misplaced commas, missing "it"s or mangle the name of the style bible to which it drops a nod. I would never claim to live up to the exacting standards of "Strunk and White's" book and neither would I expect it of anyone else. Those who do, one has to think, should. The preceeding sentence may well be a stylistic minefield ....imagine my despair. The actual style of dudalb's posting I'll leave to other pedants to critique.
Totovader
Game Warden
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2007
- Messages
- 3,321
No, you're just plain wrong, here.
The argument from ignorance fallacy is not pointing out that a claim has no supporting evidence and is therefore dismissed- we call that logical observation. The argument from ignorance fallacy is claiming that a lack of evidence is evidence.
This is represented in the following forms:
There is no evidence against p.
Therefore, p.
There is no evidence for p.
Therefore, not-p.
Gravy is not stating that the opposite of your argument is valid because you lack evidence- he is stating that your argument is invalid because you lack evidence.
source - and further reading
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
A Summary of Brannagyn's Participation Here
– Cannot name a single significant claim the truthers get right.
– Cannot name a single significant thing debunkers get wrong.
– Cannot name a single significant conclusion the 9/11 Commission report gets wrong.
– Invokes the names of several authors as "diligent" researchers who "dominate the field," but cannot tell us a single thing they get right, despite being repeatedly asked to do so. When it's explained to him that this is engaging in the fallacy of argument to authority, he says, "I haven't claimed these figures to be authorities on their subjects."
– Claims debunkers have been influenced by "extremists" but cannot say how or what that's caused us to get wrong.
– Despite making the above claim, says he's not familiar with our work.
– Despite making that statement, believes we haven't debunked the claims of his favorite authors...claims he can't even articulate.
– Claims there was a 9/11 truth movement shortly after 9/11 but does not name a single group or event involved.
– When shown two polls of truther activists by truther activists, from two different sources and comprising about 1,100 respondents, and when those polls show that the majority of activists became involved years after 9/11 and by way of watching videos, he denies the validity of those polls.
– Presumes to lecture us about the truth movement but says he has never heard of the most popular truther website.
– When it comes to anti-Semites who've had significant influence on truthers, cannot understand the difference between "not a lot" and "all." Repeatedly.
– After being shown numerous examples of direct acknowledgement and evidence of the large influence of anti-Semites on the truth movement, including a defense of the worst of them by William Rodriguez just after this thread started, will only acknowledge that these people may have had "some" influence.
– Makes numerous straw man arguments, which, since he's been repeatedly corrected about, are simply lies. These include:
It is immature and rude of you to waste peoples' time like this Brannagyn. As I said in the podcast: pathetic.
This thread is about an interview I did. My main contention in that interview is that, top to bottom, truthers get no significant claims right, and the ones still clinging to the mast of the sinking ship have chosen ignorance over education or are not well enough to know better. Truther behavior here has only strengthened those claims. I will be pointing to this thread when anyone asks "are they really that bad?"
Every time I add a windbag truther to my ignore list, I'm reminded of this line from MacBeth:
"it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
...
– Cannot name a single significant claim the truthers get right.
– Cannot name a single significant thing debunkers get wrong.
– Cannot name a single significant conclusion the 9/11 Commission report gets wrong.
– Invokes the names of several authors as "diligent" researchers who "dominate the field," but cannot tell us a single thing they get right, despite being repeatedly asked to do so. When it's explained to him that this is engaging in the fallacy of argument to authority, he says, "I haven't claimed these figures to be authorities on their subjects."
– Claims debunkers have been influenced by "extremists" but cannot say how or what that's caused us to get wrong.
– Despite making the above claim, says he's not familiar with our work.
– Despite making that statement, believes we haven't debunked the claims of his favorite authors...claims he can't even articulate.
– Claims there was a 9/11 truth movement shortly after 9/11 but does not name a single group or event involved.
– When shown two polls of truther activists by truther activists, from two different sources and comprising about 1,100 respondents, and when those polls show that the majority of activists became involved years after 9/11 and by way of watching videos, he denies the validity of those polls.
– Presumes to lecture us about the truth movement but says he has never heard of the most popular truther website.
– When it comes to anti-Semites who've had significant influence on truthers, cannot understand the difference between "not a lot" and "all." Repeatedly.
– After being shown numerous examples of direct acknowledgement and evidence of the large influence of anti-Semites on the truth movement, including a defense of the worst of them by William Rodriguez just after this thread started, will only acknowledge that these people may have had "some" influence.
– Makes numerous straw man arguments, which, since he's been repeatedly corrected about, are simply lies. These include:
- Claims that we have denied the importance of non-anti-Semites in the formation of the truth movement.
- Implys that we have conflated Zionism with anti-Semitism.
- "You reject the actual members of the truth movement as being valid members." – A lie.
- "You repeatedly include everyone with doubts about the offical version as part of a single 'truth movement'." – A lie.
- Claims we are unaware of the authors he's mentioned. We're well aware of them, Brannagyn. We want to know what you say they get right. You have no answer. So why in the world should anyone care?
It is immature and rude of you to waste peoples' time like this Brannagyn. As I said in the podcast: pathetic.
***
Bottom line
Bottom line
This thread is about an interview I did. My main contention in that interview is that, top to bottom, truthers get no significant claims right, and the ones still clinging to the mast of the sinking ship have chosen ignorance over education or are not well enough to know better. Truther behavior here has only strengthened those claims. I will be pointing to this thread when anyone asks "are they really that bad?"
Every time I add a windbag truther to my ignore list, I'm reminded of this line from MacBeth:
"it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
...
Last edited:
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
Hadn't you noticed this is a discussion forum on 911 conspiracies? What should redibis do? Post golfing anecdotes and recipes?
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2007
- Messages
- 18,524
That wouldn't be nearly as entertaining.
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
Poor form.
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
Indeed. Why did you respond to my question to RedIbis with a question? The Socratic method only works when the original question can be reframed as an answer.
@Totovader: Thanks for pointing that out. I frequently get my fallacies mixed up.
At the same time (And honestly I'm not being disingenuous, I want to clear up any misunderstanding):
The question of argument from ignorance arose by my questioning Gravy's repeated requests for evidence. The claim being made here was implicitly his. To paraphrase, "Where's your evidence, put up or shut up."
So, there is no evidence against (the official version). Therefore (the official version is true).
So claiming that lack of evidence (of political conspiracy) is evidence (that there is no conspiracy) is, in your opinion not a fallacy?
I'm not sure how this fails to qualify (in one form or another) but I am, again in all honesty, curious as to the opinions of others on the logic or illogic of such claims.
As evidence of my sincerity I will freely admit to be confused by the alternate structure of the fallacy:
There is no evidence for p. Therefore, not-p.
If we take (There is no evidence against p. Therefore, p.) we can say:
There is no evidence against there being a mouse on the moon. Therefore there is a mouse on the moon. (Fallacy)
In the second form:
There is no evidence for a mouse on the moon. Therefore there is not no mouse on the moon.
which can be read: There is no evidence of a mouse on the moon. Therefore there is a mouse on the moon.
While this is clearly a fallacy the form "There is no evidence of a mouse on the moon. Therefore there is no mouse on the moon." seems much more in keeping with the format of the first version. (There is no evidence for p. Therefore not p.)
There are times when I can stare at something like this for ages and then someone will point out the obvious and I have to kick myself. Feel free to promote my self-flagellation.
At the same time (And honestly I'm not being disingenuous, I want to clear up any misunderstanding):
The question of argument from ignorance arose by my questioning Gravy's repeated requests for evidence. The claim being made here was implicitly his. To paraphrase, "Where's your evidence, put up or shut up."
So, there is no evidence against (the official version). Therefore (the official version is true).
So claiming that lack of evidence (of political conspiracy) is evidence (that there is no conspiracy) is, in your opinion not a fallacy?
I'm not sure how this fails to qualify (in one form or another) but I am, again in all honesty, curious as to the opinions of others on the logic or illogic of such claims.
As evidence of my sincerity I will freely admit to be confused by the alternate structure of the fallacy:
There is no evidence for p. Therefore, not-p.
If we take (There is no evidence against p. Therefore, p.) we can say:
There is no evidence against there being a mouse on the moon. Therefore there is a mouse on the moon. (Fallacy)
In the second form:
There is no evidence for a mouse on the moon. Therefore there is not no mouse on the moon.
which can be read: There is no evidence of a mouse on the moon. Therefore there is a mouse on the moon.
While this is clearly a fallacy the form "There is no evidence of a mouse on the moon. Therefore there is no mouse on the moon." seems much more in keeping with the format of the first version. (There is no evidence for p. Therefore not p.)
There are times when I can stare at something like this for ages and then someone will point out the obvious and I have to kick myself. Feel free to promote my self-flagellation.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
RedIbis, what do you think was the cause of collapse of WTC7? Who do you think was responsible for the 9/11 attacks? How, in detail, do you think they were carried out?
Dave
My apologies, this is long (and quite probably boring to most) but I can't let a post riddled with quite so many inaccuracies stand unchallenged.
Perhaps Totovader could point out the fallacy being employed here. My avoidance of Gravy's constant demands to derail the thread in these directions do not equate to any form of proof that I cannot. "Cannot" should clearly be replaced with "Does not" and the reasons for the latter have already been stated several times. The distinction is an important one and Gravy's misprepresentation of it (implying inability rather than the clearly stated reasons) is deliberately deceitful.
I've already shown why one does not need to agree with an author to be capable of recognizing their standing in their field.
This quote is refering to the fact that at no point did I claim these people were accurate in their claims. Doing so based merely upon their authority (i.e. prominence) in their field would have been a fallacy. I recognise their prominence in the field but not as final authorities upon the accuracy of the subject. The wording used might have been better chosen but I think my meaning was quite clear. I refered to their prominence not accuracy and specifically highlighted the distinction. Gravy again chooses to deliberately misrepresent this.
I clearly gave the example of government and media inaccuracies in spin regading 9/11 connections to Iraq. Gravy completely failed to address this point or contend the point that including these sources in an all-encompassing 'debunking movement' is as valid as including fringe anti-semites in an all-encompassing 'truth movement'. As previously stated I think both are illegitimate associations of disparate elements.
I said I'm not familiar with the forums here, my meaning being that I am unaware of what inaccuracies may exist in Gravy's work personally. As shown above if we use Gravy's all-encompassing groupings I had already given sufficent example of 'debunker' error and my unfamiliarity with the forum had no relation whatsoever to my ability to do so.
Gravy himself was the one who claimed ignorance of these authors (I never refered to them as favorites or, bar Dale Scott, even in ideological agreement to me) and a search on the forum had already failed to find any significant discussion of them. I never claimed you had not debunked their claims (which certainly may have been presented to you in a different form) I suggested that you might want to debunk them specifically and clearly stated that I believed you may well be able to do this with many of their claims. As I also stated, I remain curious as to how much of their claims are flawed.
In the second half of the sentence Gravy again fails to distinguish between "cannot" and "does not".
I did specifically name groups and prominent individuals, furthermore Gravy never attempted to seek further clarification or information on these groups (e.g. his sudden mention here of lack of events) instead he dismissed the claims as "nonsense" but now attempts to make his rejection more reasonable by citing a blatantly inaccurate lack of identification.
It had already been shown that a significant movement existed at the end of 2001/02 and it had then been pointed out to Gravy that he was failing to differentiate between the begining of the movement and its peak. I've already clearly stated that I accpet the movement was probably at its most popular following, and quite probably because of, Loose Change. This in no way changes the fact of the existence of the initial movement. His polls are entirely invalid to the point in question.
What do you call it when someones specific point or points are challenged by refering to their lack of authority within the field itself? The accuracy of my statements regarding the early truth movement are in no way compormised by my lack of knowledge of the movement as a whole. I freely admit to very little awareness of it.
The point under discussion was Gravy's specific claims that these elements were prominent at the start of the movement. He has displayed a massive lack of awareness of the actual start of the movement. This is understandable given his statement that he only became aware of it in 2006, well after Loose Change was established. Understandable but nonetheless entirely wrong.
Though I am unware of the contents of Loose Change I accept that such views may have had an influence on the makers. I consider this a reasonable stance but apparently anything except taking Gravy's word for something you have no direct evidence of is irrational.
Not exactly. My specific claim was that Gravy highlighted fringe anti-semite elements that were, by no means imaginable, prominent in the early movement (with Gravy himself stating that their influence was felt via a film made more than 3 years later) and that he failed to point out the actual, and far more significant, roots of the movement. This was clearly shown to be due to ignorance on Gravy's part of the early roots of the movement.
This is entirely accurate. The debate can be continued in the thread discussing it on the front page of the Conspiracy forum. I wouldnt advise jumping into it though until youve read th eother thread about the neo-Nazi and the dancing Israelis in which curiousity about the possible role of the Israeli intelligence services was taken as sufficent evidence of Nazi sympathies.
What should we say then when Gravy refuses to acknowledge the early movement, which included the primary influences of later people such as David Ray Griffin, yet at the same time includes every fringe element with a racist streak.
This is speaking of the nature of the forum here rather than Gravy specifically. Can anyone honestly tell me that people can come to these forums state that they are not part of any 'movement' and seek to engage in discussion without being labeled as either a 'debunker' or 'truther' by whoever they oppose? I have stated previously that I see myself a belonging to neither camp and yet Gravy nonetheless insistes on labelling me as a 'truther' later in his post.
I've pointed out in this thread that an unhealthy, and obviously false, dichotomy exists in this forum in which two opposing groups bark, spit and snipe at one another. As I said before, critical discussion should be a place were views range between extrmes but never take extreme stances themselves. The forum at present is not conducive to such an atmosphere.
You may disagree, I think the argument itself is at least a reasonable one to make and discuss. Gravy never did.
This is just ODD. Fair enough, I'll accept Gravy was aware of them. But then why is he unaware of the early influence they had on the movement?
At what point did I state that people should care? Here Gravy has demanded that I expound the arguments of I specifically stated I had no interest in promoting. I suggested anyone with an interest could easily start a thread on Peter Dale Scott and his book "The Road to 9/11" (as an example). Had Gravy actually been familiar with the opinions within it would have been as easy for him to debunk them there as in this thread. Important point being doing so in a dedicated thread would have avoided derailing this one. Gravys frequent attempts to demand unrelated opinions and "evidence" existed in this thread purely as a diversion from other topics under discussion.
For those who may be confused, this is from Gravy, directed at me.
The remainder of his post refers to me as "immature", "rude", "pathetic" and a "windbag", makes a blanket statement about "truthers" and refers to them as "ignorant". It may not be a "hail of invective" but more than enough to show the lie in his claims of civlity.
He also claims he will use this thread as a reference for an example of the 'truther' mentality. I can only hope he does but I doubt he will be directing many people to the methods of argument and 'logic' he displayed above.
At the end he declares he has added me to his ignore list, the internet equivalent of sticking fingers in your ear and saying "nah, nah, nah, I can't hear you".
How utterly sad if he's now reading these words.
Perhaps Totovader could point out the fallacy being employed here. My avoidance of Gravy's constant demands to derail the thread in these directions do not equate to any form of proof that I cannot. "Cannot" should clearly be replaced with "Does not" and the reasons for the latter have already been stated several times. The distinction is an important one and Gravy's misprepresentation of it (implying inability rather than the clearly stated reasons) is deliberately deceitful.
I've already shown why one does not need to agree with an author to be capable of recognizing their standing in their field.
This quote is refering to the fact that at no point did I claim these people were accurate in their claims. Doing so based merely upon their authority (i.e. prominence) in their field would have been a fallacy. I recognise their prominence in the field but not as final authorities upon the accuracy of the subject. The wording used might have been better chosen but I think my meaning was quite clear. I refered to their prominence not accuracy and specifically highlighted the distinction. Gravy again chooses to deliberately misrepresent this.
I clearly gave the example of government and media inaccuracies in spin regading 9/11 connections to Iraq. Gravy completely failed to address this point or contend the point that including these sources in an all-encompassing 'debunking movement' is as valid as including fringe anti-semites in an all-encompassing 'truth movement'. As previously stated I think both are illegitimate associations of disparate elements.
I said I'm not familiar with the forums here, my meaning being that I am unaware of what inaccuracies may exist in Gravy's work personally. As shown above if we use Gravy's all-encompassing groupings I had already given sufficent example of 'debunker' error and my unfamiliarity with the forum had no relation whatsoever to my ability to do so.
Gravy himself was the one who claimed ignorance of these authors (I never refered to them as favorites or, bar Dale Scott, even in ideological agreement to me) and a search on the forum had already failed to find any significant discussion of them. I never claimed you had not debunked their claims (which certainly may have been presented to you in a different form) I suggested that you might want to debunk them specifically and clearly stated that I believed you may well be able to do this with many of their claims. As I also stated, I remain curious as to how much of their claims are flawed.
In the second half of the sentence Gravy again fails to distinguish between "cannot" and "does not".
I did specifically name groups and prominent individuals, furthermore Gravy never attempted to seek further clarification or information on these groups (e.g. his sudden mention here of lack of events) instead he dismissed the claims as "nonsense" but now attempts to make his rejection more reasonable by citing a blatantly inaccurate lack of identification.
It had already been shown that a significant movement existed at the end of 2001/02 and it had then been pointed out to Gravy that he was failing to differentiate between the begining of the movement and its peak. I've already clearly stated that I accpet the movement was probably at its most popular following, and quite probably because of, Loose Change. This in no way changes the fact of the existence of the initial movement. His polls are entirely invalid to the point in question.
What do you call it when someones specific point or points are challenged by refering to their lack of authority within the field itself? The accuracy of my statements regarding the early truth movement are in no way compormised by my lack of knowledge of the movement as a whole. I freely admit to very little awareness of it.
The point under discussion was Gravy's specific claims that these elements were prominent at the start of the movement. He has displayed a massive lack of awareness of the actual start of the movement. This is understandable given his statement that he only became aware of it in 2006, well after Loose Change was established. Understandable but nonetheless entirely wrong.
Though I am unware of the contents of Loose Change I accept that such views may have had an influence on the makers. I consider this a reasonable stance but apparently anything except taking Gravy's word for something you have no direct evidence of is irrational.
Not exactly. My specific claim was that Gravy highlighted fringe anti-semite elements that were, by no means imaginable, prominent in the early movement (with Gravy himself stating that their influence was felt via a film made more than 3 years later) and that he failed to point out the actual, and far more significant, roots of the movement. This was clearly shown to be due to ignorance on Gravy's part of the early roots of the movement.
This is entirely accurate. The debate can be continued in the thread discussing it on the front page of the Conspiracy forum. I wouldnt advise jumping into it though until youve read th eother thread about the neo-Nazi and the dancing Israelis in which curiousity about the possible role of the Israeli intelligence services was taken as sufficent evidence of Nazi sympathies.
What should we say then when Gravy refuses to acknowledge the early movement, which included the primary influences of later people such as David Ray Griffin, yet at the same time includes every fringe element with a racist streak.
This is speaking of the nature of the forum here rather than Gravy specifically. Can anyone honestly tell me that people can come to these forums state that they are not part of any 'movement' and seek to engage in discussion without being labeled as either a 'debunker' or 'truther' by whoever they oppose? I have stated previously that I see myself a belonging to neither camp and yet Gravy nonetheless insistes on labelling me as a 'truther' later in his post.
I've pointed out in this thread that an unhealthy, and obviously false, dichotomy exists in this forum in which two opposing groups bark, spit and snipe at one another. As I said before, critical discussion should be a place were views range between extrmes but never take extreme stances themselves. The forum at present is not conducive to such an atmosphere.
You may disagree, I think the argument itself is at least a reasonable one to make and discuss. Gravy never did.
This is just ODD. Fair enough, I'll accept Gravy was aware of them. But then why is he unaware of the early influence they had on the movement?
At what point did I state that people should care? Here Gravy has demanded that I expound the arguments of I specifically stated I had no interest in promoting. I suggested anyone with an interest could easily start a thread on Peter Dale Scott and his book "The Road to 9/11" (as an example). Had Gravy actually been familiar with the opinions within it would have been as easy for him to debunk them there as in this thread. Important point being doing so in a dedicated thread would have avoided derailing this one. Gravys frequent attempts to demand unrelated opinions and "evidence" existed in this thread purely as a diversion from other topics under discussion.
For those who may be confused, this is from Gravy, directed at me.
The remainder of his post refers to me as "immature", "rude", "pathetic" and a "windbag", makes a blanket statement about "truthers" and refers to them as "ignorant". It may not be a "hail of invective" but more than enough to show the lie in his claims of civlity.
He also claims he will use this thread as a reference for an example of the 'truther' mentality. I can only hope he does but I doubt he will be directing many people to the methods of argument and 'logic' he displayed above.
At the end he declares he has added me to his ignore list, the internet equivalent of sticking fingers in your ear and saying "nah, nah, nah, I can't hear you".
How utterly sad if he's now reading these words.
applecorped
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2008
- Messages
- 20,145
Quit being so obtuse and answer the questions. That's the only way to show that you indeed can do so. Everything else is just rhetoric and back-pedalling.
Bold claim, considering how no-one else has been able to answer them during the last seven years...