Brainster Versus Dylan Avery Debate September 10, 2009

[fourtoe]

Who is the 12 year old asking about KSM? So what? Did all we need to do was pick any terrorist who bragged about possibly being part of 9/11 and that's enough? Truthers don't need to do anything to try and set free KSM. The Government needs to charge him with something and get a conviction. That's it. What are debunkers doing to get that conviction? Certainly not finding any hard evidence he was involved with 9/11. Next.

Gee whiz, do I really sound l-like I'm 12 years old?

The downside to making the KSM argument against Truthers is that they don't get it AT ALL.

 

[Baylor]

So 9/11 according to Pat wasn't an inside job but the investigation might have been. Perfect.

You find it compelling that the FBI investigation into 9/11 was, in fact, conducted by the FBI?

 

[Foolmewunz]

You find it compelling that the FBI investigation into 9/11 was, in fact, conducted by the FBI?

Well, sure. Why would we want professional investigators investigating. You some kind of NWO shill? Everyone knows we need Hollywood Celebrities doing our criminal investigations.

"Does the Prosecution wish to call another witness?"
"Yes. Rose Marie for the block.... No, wait.... Paul Lind for the win."

 

[dtugg]

I am surprised that HI hasn't been banned again yet.

 

[Whiplash]

I am not resposive to that particular question. As you say it was clear that Dylan had prevailed in the debate which is quite impressive considering that he was up against a whole coven of debunkers.

I just wanted to inject a note of reality into the grooming session that was going on on the thread. No sense in allowing people to continue manufacturing an illusion.

So your response to being accused of trolling was.. to troll some more.

Why exactly is anyone supposed to take you in any way seriously?

 

[Baylor]

I am surprised that HI hasn't been banned again yet.

The mods aren't stupid; they know it's him. They bent over backwards to give him special treatment when he was Homeland Incoherency. It appears they've picked up where they left off.

 

[Audible Click]

Why would they let HI have a sock?

 

[Whiplash]

Maybe he has masked his identity well through proxy, etc, and just has not yet done anything blatant enough to meet the criteria here for banning as a sock. We may all know it's him, but I suspect this board (unlike truther boards where you get banned for blinking) has more stringent rules and guidelines.

 

[Baylor]

Maybe he has masked his identity well through proxy, etc, and just has not yet done anything blatant enough to meet the criteria here for banning as a sock.

Oh Really?

 

[Whiplash]

I figured that is circumstantial .. That's what I meant by more stringent standards. Some tangible evidence that he is who he is. We can all know who he is, but he may not have crossed the line.

 

[bill smith]

So your response to being accused of trolling was.. to troll some more.

Why exactly is anyone supposed to take you in any way seriously?

Feel free to use the inbuilt ' ignore ' feature.

 

[zaphod2016]

Brainster: fantastic job. You came across as knowledgeable, reasonable and polite. I cannot stress enough how important a polite attitude is (which I know is hard to maintain when neck-deep in stupid).

I've been growing more and more fond of the methodology and approach that Michael Shermer takes when he has the opportunity to enter a debate, in that for topic like this that are bound and determined to turn into semantic battles of disparate claims, Shermer keeps directing the focus of the conversation onto the meta-issue of the tactics being used and the cognitive dissonance necessary to ignore what answers are available in order to present the "argument from the gaps" inherent in these types of presentations.

The problem with this approach is that it can be easily criticized for "avoiding the issues". At the risk of sounding arrogant, it is a high-brow tactic that does not translate well to a soundbite media sometimes. Wordview v. worldview debates offer far too much flexibility; they present a false equality.

However, I agree 100% that Shermer is among the best in the skeptical community. I'd argue his charm derives from a self-depreciating humor, coupled with a modest courtesy. When the topic is logical fallacy, he is excellent at explaining the various "tricks of the trade". In a debate about, say UFOs, he goes directly towards discrediting any specific claims, and refuting any specific evidence offered. At that point, a reminder of the "gaps" is a daunting blow.

Parry, then thrust.

Just one yokel's opinion.

 

[T.A.M.]

Maybe he has masked his identity well through proxy, etc, and just has not yet done anything blatant enough to meet the criteria here for banning as a sock. We may all know it's him, but I suspect this board (unlike truther boards where you get banned for blinking) has more stringent rules and guidelines.

Yah this is what I figure as well. He certainly does nothing to mask his identity in his posts (outside of not using his old name).

TAM

 

[uk_dave]

..... Then why would the plotters use something else to hit the Pentagon?"

Of course, remembering that in the heat of the moment can be tricky.

And dangerous.

My inner 'truther' would respond by saying ....

"Well, they wanted to demolish the towers so hitting them with aircraft wasn't a problem, but they only wanted to inflict very precise damage to a specific part of the Pentagon and so they used a missile for that attack"

 

[Whiplash]

Feel free to use the inbuilt ' ignore ' feature.

Yet another ringing endorsement.

 

[Horatius]

The downside to making the KSM argument against Truthers is that they don't get it AT ALL.

The upside is, everyone else gets it - and sees yet again how stupid the truthers really are, since they don't get it.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Gee whiz, do I really sound l-like I'm 12 years old?

Only when you say things like "Gee whiz".

 

[aggle-rithm]

The upside is, everyone else gets it - and sees yet again how stupid the truthers really are, since they don't get it.

Kind of like Mozart and Salieri, but in reverse.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Why would they let HI have a sock?

He's homeless and winter's approaching...

 

[KJC]

This was a poor debate. Too much time was spent on the chain of custody argument which really lets Avery off with having to explain how this stuff could have demolished the towers in the first place.