Why truthers are dangerouse!

[Childlike Empress]

Yeah Tricky, it will be a lot of work for you to go through the forum and edit all "twoofy"'s out. Your choice. Good move though! Have fun!

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

"Why Truthers are Danerous!"

Truthers are a danger to themselves because:

1) They make claims reguarding 9/11
2) They don't or can't produce evidence
3) They paint themselves into a corner when confronted with evidence
4) They harass, insult and blame innocent people for no reasons
5) They attack peoples charactors

I think the thread should be renamed:

"Why are Truthers a danger to themselves."

 

[JihadJane]

That's it is it JJ? That’s the best you can do?

Pray enlighten me further, because to date you have called me a typical ignorant, arrogant, dangerous, weirdo. Of course you have done so under to guise of civil debate.

Tell me why I am suddenly so dangerous and why you, a beacon of civility, should not be reported for breach of membership agreement?

Sorry, I should have specified that the bit of the post you are responding to here was tongue-in-cheek.

I haven't called you a weirdo (seriously or in jest).

Was it you who also told me that I was from Manchester?

In response to your edit. The mindset is the danger JJ. The mindset that demonises innocent people and imagines there is an enemy there, when there is not.

In my, arrogant weirdo, mindset there is a danger in indulging in paranoid fantasies and then barking words such as "traitor" as those you suddenly perceive as an enemy. Of course you have read the rest of his posts and fully agree with him, right? You see nothing wrong in his posts, right? You feel totally at ease and not in the slightest bit uncomfortable demonising me because I may view this mindset as dangerous, right? All the while not uttering a single word of condemnation for such posts, why is that JJ?

And will stop editing your posts, after members have already

replied.

Where have I ever demonized you?

I added my response via the edit function because I had overlooked your earlier reply to my "weird idea of danger" post and decided it was tidier to add my response to it to my response to your later post. I wasn't aware that you'd already replied and, to be honest, I'm not sure why it is problematic to you as it is clearly indicated in red at the bottom of the post when it was last edited.

Identifying one's enemies (erroneously or otherwise) and labeling one's opponents perceptions of who is the real enemy as paranoid fantasies is stock-in-trade in politics. I agree that this can be dangerous when people with power do it (e.g US/UK vs Iraq) but, as far as I can see, jmh423 is just another passionate politico getting up a soap box. So what? It certainly doesn't justify claims that "Truthers" are dangerous, and certainly he/she is not any more dangerous than people getting up on soapboxes and denouncing Truthers as dangerous. When is the first "truther" going to get lynched because of incendiary, hyperbolic anti-twoofy rhetoric?

 

[Foolmewunz]

What is the purpose of telling lies like this,

Edited by Tricky: 

edited for civility.

JJ, surely you know the difference between a lie and an exaggeration for humorous purposes. The perfect response to my line would've been "I've told you a million times not to exaggerate."

You usually keep your cool better than this.

 

[stateofgrace]

Sorry, I should have specified that the bit of the post you are responding to here was tongue-in-cheek.

I haven't called you a weirdo (seriously or in jest).

Was it you who also told me that I was from Manchester?

Apology accepted and no to the best of my knowledge I have never accused you of being from Manchester, if I have done so in the past then clearly I was mistaken. And on that subject, it wasn't an accusation it was a question, one which the poker playing member as answered.

Where have I ever demonized you?

I added my response via the edit function because I had overlooked your earlier reply to my "weird idea of danger" post and decided it was tidier to add my response to it to my response to your later post. I wasn't aware that you'd already replied and, to be honest, I'm not sure why it is problematic to you as it is clearly indicated in red at the bottom of the post when it was last edited.

Identifying one's enemies (erroneously or otherwise) and labeling one's opponents perceptions of who is the real enemy as paranoid fantasies is stock-in-trade in politics. I agree that this can be dangerous when people with power do it (e.g US/UK vs Iraq) but, as far as I can see, jmh423 is just another passionate politico getting up a soap box. So what? It certainly doesn't justify claims that "Truthers" are dangerous, and certainly he/she is not any more dangerous than people getting up on soapboxes and denouncing Truthers as dangerous. When is the first "truther" going to get lynched because of incendiary, hyperbolic anti-twoofy rhetoric?

What you are trying to say basically is the guy who calls the loony on a soapbox a loony is just as dangerous as the loony on a soapbox, right? I completely disagree.

Irrespective of how much political power a person may not may not, this as no bearing on how dangerous a mindset can be. I can see that those in power are capable of reaching a wider audience and that this in itself could be dangerous. But on an individual level, the guy on the street level, when somebody becomes so wrapped up in his/her believes to the point whereby you view everybody and anybody as a potential enemy, there is a danger. You can argue that the danger is small, almost non existence if you wish, but it is there and it is real. All it takes, JJ, is for somebody, somewhere to get on that soapbox and become so full of hatred, to view others as non humans and dreadful events can and do occur. Nineteen guys, eight years ago, are testament to this.

And come on, do you really ,seriously believe for one second that anybody is ever going to lynch a "truther". What ? a mob of angry debunkers converging on a lone "truther" and lynching him, get real.You seem intent on trying to turn this all around and laying the blame at the feet of those who oppose these theories and all the while defending those who promote them. I am all for freedom of speech and yes I am all for people having differing opinions to myself and anybody else for that matter but here is a point whereby some bodies opinions, irrespective of his/her right to hold them starts to raise eye brows and set of alarm bells. When you get to the point of serious venom, serious rage and anger(Passionate as you quaintly called it) then there is a serious danger that this can spill over and impact on real world events.

 

[carlitos]

I'm not sure exactly which exact site I copied it from. What possible difference could that make? That quote has been posted in 100s of websites.

I was just curious, because you didn't link it. Just like you didn't link your next quote, which, when googled, shows bollyn.com and rense.com versions on page 1. That's some company. I know, I know, but YOU didn't read them there. You saw them in the comments at Craigslist and Creative Loafing. Right?

• You seem to approve of Christopher Bollyn, who is some kind of neo-nazi.
• You put the word "holocaust" in quotes and were defending its deniers.
• You blame the "Mossad" for 9/11 with no evidence shown.
• As John Lennon said - "if you go carrying pictures of Chairmain Mao."
• Or, if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, etc.

 

[johnny karate]

What you secretly "meant" in your own head is irrelevant. You asked:

"Please provide a citation or link describing this covert false flag terrorist event that only needed 20 people... I'd love to see it."

And you responded by linking to an ultimately implausible scenario offered by a debunker as merely an intellectual exercise with no basis in reality.

Nice work.

So let this be a lesson to all you other debunkers! When you ask JihadJane for evidence, make you sure you explictly state the evidence must be factual, or at the very least plausible. Otherwise, he will post whatever ridiculous nonsense he can find and proclaim victory.

And as aside, JihadJane, I believe you asked what a Truther is at some point in this thread? Take a look at the intellectually dishonest and willfully ignorant way you handled this particular issue, and you'll have your answer.

 

[johnny karate]

Yeah Tricky, it will be a lot of work for you to go through the forum and edit all "twoofy"'s out. Your choice. Good move though! Have fun!

Well, at least it will clear more room for all the substantiative, thoughtful arguments you've made in this thread.

 

[Childlike Empress]

As if you were able to spot such a thing, johnny...

 

[JihadJane]

Stateofgrace, where have I ever demonized you?

What you are trying to say basically is the guy who calls the loony on a soapbox a loony is just as dangerous as the loony on a soapbox, right? I completely disagree.

No, I haven't said anything about any loonies and, by your logic, such labeling is potentially very dangerous e.g Vladimir Bukovski.

Irrespective of how much political power a person may not may not, this as no bearing on how dangerous a mindset can be. I can see that those in power are capable of reaching a wider audience and that this in itself could be dangerous. But on an individual level, the guy on the street level, when somebody becomes so wrapped up in his/her believes to the point whereby you view everybody and anybody as a potential enemy, there is a danger. You can argue that the danger is small, almost non existence if you wish, but it is there and it is real. All it takes, JJ, is for somebody, somewhere to get on that soapbox and become so full of hatred, to view others as non humans and dreadful events can and do occur. Nineteen guys, eight years ago, are testament to this.

No, nineteen guys, eighteen years ago, is not "testament to this" (the US is a very real and dangerous enemy to many people) and, if you are, in any way, attempting to equate 9/11 skepticism with Islamic Fundamentalism, or pushing the "They attacked us coz they hate our freedoms" rubbish, then you are in danger of losing my attention completely.

I'd hazard a guess that jmh423 is actually correct in perceiving funk de fino as a potential enemy (I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary) and I doubt if jmh423 sees me as a potential enemy ("...you view everybody and anybody as a potential enemy").

And come on, do you really ,seriously believe for one second that anybody is ever going to lynch a "truther". What ? a mob of angry debunkers converging on a lone "truther" and lynching him, get real.You seem intent on trying to turn this all around and laying the blame at the feet of those who oppose these theories and all the while defending those who promote them. I am all for freedom of speech and yes I am all for people having differing opinions to myself and anybody else for that matter but here is a point whereby some bodies opinions, irrespective of his/her right to hold them starts to raise eye brows and set of alarm bells. When you get to the point of serious venom, serious rage and anger(Passionate as you quaintly called it) then there is a serious danger that this can spill over and impact on real world events.

Twoofies have been equated with terrorists. How are terrorists treated in your local bar?


Serious venom, serious rage and serious anger is largely what has fueled real-world political change down through the ages. Get used to it! Who is actually endangered by such rage?


Freedom of speech protects speech expressing serious venom, serious rage and serious anger. If it spills onto the streets who does it seriously endanger? Take Iran, as a recent example.


In places like the UK and the US, there is likely to be a lot more serious venom, rage and anger on the horizon as the consequences of the biggest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in world history impacts on ordinary people's lives. Would you be out there fighting such a tide of serious public rage by calling them all loonies?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

JJ, surely you know the difference between a lie and an exaggeration for humorous purposes. The perfect response to my line would've been "I've told you a million times not to exaggerate."

What would your humorous lie say without the exaggeration?

You usually keep your cool better than this.

What is the purpose of this humorous one-liner?

 

[johnny karate]

As if you were able to spot such a thing, johnny...

Trutherism #112: When you can't defend your position through cogent argumentation, just sit on the sidelines and offer the occasional snipe. Clever use of smilies is optional.

 

[Foolmewunz]

<snip>

What would your humorous lie say without the exaggeration?



What is the purpose of this humorous one-liner?

Well, well. We failed at the brief seminar in Logic 101, so now we're going to deconstruct one-liners? Explaining jokes is so declasse.

 

[JihadJane]

Well, well. We failed at the brief seminar in Logic 101, so now we're going to deconstruct one-liners? Explaining jokes is so declasse.

I wouldn't have called the latter ("You usually keep your cool better than this") a joke myself; I'd call it strangely bitter and twisted not to mention hideously manipulative, but never mind.


In the absence of par, perhaps you can explain to poor failed me the connection between the logic of the OP's premise and par's logic .

 

[johnny karate]

I wouldn't have called the latter ("You usually keep your cool better than this") a joke myself; I'd call it strangely bitter and twisted not to mention hideously manipulative, but never mind.


In the absence of par, perhaps you can explain to poor failed me the connection between the logic of the OP's premise and par's logic .

Does the explanation have to be plausible or based in reality? Or can we use the JihadJane Method of Citation and just reference any random thing we feel like?

Because in that case, I have a video clip of a piano-playing cat that I think nicely sums up this particular argument...

 

[Lupie]

I was hoping to come back to this thread and read an interesting series of posts about why truthers are dangerous, but I see that it turned into a juvenile schoolyard insult-fest and has been so totally derailed by our resident truthers, that it is a pointless bunch of crap that has absoultely NOTHING to do with the OP. Why do we take the bait and allow them to do this?

L.

 

[stateofgrace]

Stateofgrace, where have I ever demonized you?

No, I haven't said anything about any loonies and, by your logic, such labeling is potentially very dangerous e.g Vladimir Bukovski.

You do understand it was an analogy right? There is no loony on the soap box JJ, it was a simple analogy to try and help you understand what is clearly beyond your understanding. I will try again, if a drunk driver is driving down the road and you are driving down the same road and you decide to tell him his driving is dangerous, who is more dangerous you or him ? Now this may be difficult for you to understand but there is no drunk driver, no car, no road and you are not driving, it is a simple analogy. Now, please spare me the self righteous indignation and stop pretending that you are in any position to take the moral high ground and lecture me about logic. And no I did not label Vladimir Bukovski a loony, you in your silly attempt to once again demonize me, concluded, wrongly, that I did. Please try to keep up

No, nineteen guys, eighteen years ago, is not "testament to this" (the US is a very real and dangerous enemy to many people) and, if you are, in any way, attempting to equate 9/11 skepticism with Islamic Fundamentalism, or pushing the "They attacked us coz they hate our freedoms" rubbish, then you are in danger of losing my attention completely.

It was eight years ago, not eighteen and no I am not pushing “they attacked us because they hate our freedom". You, once again with you logic are attempting to imply I did and thus once again gain the moral high ground. Nor am I equating truthers to Islamic Fundamentalism, once again you are trying to conclude I did and thus once again attempting to demonise me as the horrible debunker that compares you nice truthers to terrorists. Again your demonizing is as transparent as it laughable. I also neither care whether I have your attention or not, rest assured I will not lose any sleep if you don’t post another word in my direction. In fact I would feel rather relieved if you did not, as your desperate attempts to defend your own and demonize those that oppose you are becoming somewhat tiresome.

I'd hazard a guess that jmh423 is actually correct in perceiving funk de fino as a potential enemy (I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary) and I doubt if jmh423 sees me as a potential enemy ("...you view everybody and anybody as a potential enemy").

Your guess is therefore completely wrong but once again your willingness to demonize anybody that holds a differing opinion to yourself is on display. I take it also you have deluded yourself in to believing I too am your potentional enemy, I personally could not care less, other than to laugh at you and yourself righteous indignation. The problem is that you have convinced yourself that JREF members are your enemy, the sad reality the posts from members here, simply mock and destroy your inside job theories. This is your real enemy, the truth, deal with it.

Twoofies have been equated with terrorists. How are terrorists treated in your local bar?

I will make sure I ask the barmaid to point put all the terrorists, next time I go into my local bar. That way I will be able to sit there with my pint and glare in the right, direct, ok? Oh I get it you believe I equate you to a terrorist, right? Nice attempt to demonize me. Oh and by the way how are terrorists treated down at your local pub? Do they introduce themselves, maybe wonder around with signs over their head, stating exactly what they are?

Serious venom, serious rage and serious anger is largely what has fueled real-world political change down through the ages. Get used to it! Who is actually endangered by such rage?

You are attempting to confuse the issue and once again failing miserably. I did not condemn serious venom, rage or anger nor political change brought about by such actions. I think it is actually healthy to vent off from time to time. What I condemned was misdirected venom, rage and anger at fictitious enemies. Fictitious enemies that you are all too happy to label in a further attempt to demonize and hence silence your opposition. As for you "get used to it" drivel, seriously, who the heck do you think you are lecturing? Some guy who simply tows the line and falls in like some good little sheep? Get real, pal.

Freedom of speech protects speech expressing serious venom, serious rage and serious anger. If it spills onto the streets who does it seriously endanger? Take Iran, as a recent example.

See above and stop trying to introduce topics into this that I neither stated nor agree with. In Iran, the rage and anger was real and directed at real issues, not make believe issues and make believe enemies.

In places like the UK and the US, there is likely to be a lot more serious venom, rage and anger on the horizon as the consequences of the biggest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in world history impacts on ordinary people's lives. Would you be out there fighting such a tide of serious public rage by calling them all loonies?

See above and stop implying I referred to people who engage in public protests as loonies, I did not. I ask you to not to repeat this lie again in further attempts to demonise me. You have taken this simple analogy and tried to twist and spin it into something that is not there in order to demonize me and take the moral high ground. Your early attempts to demonize me by the use of the words like ignorant, arrogant and weird, pale into insignificant against this glorious attempt to demonize me and your perceived enemies. Here you have implied I think Vladimir Bukovski is a loony, I think the Iranian protesters are loonies, that I think protesters in the UK and US are loonies ,you implied I would fight public unrest by calling them loonies and finally you implied I was barely worthy of your attention because I was pushing an opinion that I never even stated. None of this is true, none of this I agree with but of course in your haste to put down your opposition, these simple facts are not to be taken into account, right?

The only thing you have successfully done is answer the question at the very top of your post, but I guess you knew the answer to this question already didn’t you?

I will break this down for you in to it’s simplest, almost child like form so you will be able to follow. I believe those that carry around inside them venom, rage and anger directed at something that is not there are dangerous. I believe that irrational hatred and demonizing of those whom have differing opinions to you can and does lead to violence and dire consequences. Now, JJ, was that simple enough for you? Do you need me to expand on this almost painfully simple opinion? Or is there some other angle you wish to demonize me from?

But if you don’t mind, right now, I’m off down to the pub to check out the local terrorists. While I am there maybe you could stop making crap up and start addressing the OP.

 

[Brainache]

I was hoping to come back to this thread and read an interesting series of posts about why truthers are dangerous, but I see that it turned into a juvenile schoolyard insult-fest and has been so totally derailed by our resident truthers, that it is a pointless bunch of crap that has absoultely NOTHING to do with the OP. Why do we take the bait and allow them to do this?

L.

But at least it was an interesting juvenile schoolyard insult-fest.

Maybe the fact that we take the bait and get so easily distracted by Truthers from worthwhile debates about real issues is the reason why Truthers are dangerous.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I wouldn't have called the latter ("You usually keep your cool better than this") a joke myself; I'd call it strangely bitter and twisted not to mention hideously manipulative, but never mind.


In the absence of par, perhaps you can explain to poor failed me the connection between the logic of the OP's premise and par's logic .

Hideously manipulative? Wow!

 

[triforcharity]

Bush I=Clinton=Bush II=Obama....I know it's hard for you to grasp but these guys are all controlled by the same entity along with the US House, Senate & Supreme court....Also your Prime Ministers & Parliament are a sham....Loyalty Oaths to a friggin QUEEN? Come on, you gotta be bloody kidding mate!! What year is it? Good question....

Last time I checked, the US had neither a PM, or a Parliment. Or a queen for that matter.
But, nonetheless, I will point out the problems with your first sentence.

Bush I had a house and senate run by the Republicans. IIRC. So did Clinton. Bush II was a little more equal. Obama-Exact opposite. Both the House and Senate are controlled by the Dems.

BTW, I have hated just about every president since Regan. The jury is still out on Obama.

 

[triforcharity]

You're more likely to hear an American speak Cambodian than hear them say bloody.

I say bloody all the time.

but, not in that sense.

"He has on a bloody shirt"

"the floor around the patient was soaked with bloody rags"

Etc.