Dragon Family lawsuit against the United Nations

[sts60]

He's been mind-controlled to do that. They've implanted a standard response when questioned about why conspiracism is superior to mainstream science, but it only works for the small number of "trigger" claims it was designed to answer. So the mind-controllers cleverly conditioned him to rewrite any actual claims as if they were one of the predetermined claims. Then he can give the canned responses without the risk of cognitive dissonance eroding the mind-control framework.

Clever. But the boring truth is simply that AL is just a lazy, dishonest troll. He just says any old nonsense to get a reaction from the grown-ups.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Ok...then why are you "putting words" in all our "mouths"?

Because you need to be taught a lesson. Your 'infallible' tactics of defense is not as impenetrable as you might believe. Standing fixed in an ivory tower of peer-review just makes you more vulnerable. How can you objectively scrutinize the scientific community for possible conspiracies if you yourself demand evidence peer-reviewed by that very same community? Zero objectivity. It's not even worth trying to debate. It's just silly.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Tell me....tell me...Grasshopper, why is it deeply flawed?

See my previous post.

 

[JayUtah]

Because you need to be taught a lesson.

And how does eviscerating a straw man teach us a lesson?

Your 'infallible' tactics of defense is not as impenetrable as you might believe.

No one has made the claim that peer-review is infallible. The claim is that, contrary to your belief, it's still better than conspiracism. And despite repeated requests to do so, you haven't shown us what about conspiracism makes it allegedly better. Care to extoll the virtues of conspiracism?

It's not even worth trying to debate. It's just silly.

Yes it is silly. Therefore stop trying to pin that argument on us and address what we really say.

 

[JayUtah]

See my previous post.

You mean the post where you simply state your belief about science and provide no evidence that your beliefs are true?

Or maybe you mean the post where you say that anything that doesn't come from the mainstream is correct?

Or do you mean the part where you just follow conspiracy theorists around like puppy dogs because you implicitly believe that they're honest researchers with integrity and sound methods?

 

[Anders Lindman]

Yes it is silly. Therefore stop trying to pin that argument on us and address what we really say.

You sound defensive here. Hey! Maybe you all debunkers only have a tough facade but are really uncertain behind that front of confidence. Ok, I will stop attacking you. He he.

 

[SpitfireIX]

You sound defensive here. Hey! Maybe you all debunkers only have a tough facade but are really uncertain behind that front of confidence. Ok, I will stop attacking you. He he.

Is that what the people controlling your mind told you to do?

 

[Anders Lindman]

Is that what the people controlling your mind told you to do?

Do you have any peer-reviewed evidence for me being mind controlled? lol. Ok, I will stop it now and go back to the original topic.

 

[Mojo]

...and, of course, if evidence that can be debunked is "controlled opposition" planted by the cabal, then this is yet more evidence that you are under mind control.

See? They wouldn't allow him to reply to that one.

 

[Tomtomkent]

You sound defensive here. Hey! Maybe you all debunkers only have a tough facade but are really uncertain behind that front of confidence. Ok, I will stop attacking you. He he.

Why would you state that instead of answering the questions actually asked?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Do you have any peer-reviewed evidence for me being mind controlled? lol. Ok, I will stop it now and go back to the original topic.

Why did you not stop attacking people when you claimed you would?
Why should we believe you now?
Why do you feel a need to attack, or teach lessons, when you have yet to try convincing people like adults do? You know, in the real world?

 

[Craig4]

This is what I mean by self-fulfilling prophecy. You only accept scrutiny by peer-review as evidence, and the science community has monopoly on peer-review so no outside means of examining potential conspiracies are valid according to you.

You believe the peer-review process is the ultimate armor against all attacks against a scientific community that has in many places become like dogma that it's taboo to question, very much like the old religions.

You repeatedly ask for evidence, like a broken record, and then dismiss all evidence that has not been peer-reviewed by the very same scientific community that often is in question.

What are you talking about? You haven't bothered to provide evidence that isn't peer reviewed not withstanding the cited unsubstantiated claims.

 

[Craig4]

Do you have any peer-reviewed evidence for me being mind controlled? lol. Ok, I will stop it now and go back to the original topic.

Do you have any peer reviewed evidence that mind control exists or is possible?

 

[Anders Lindman]

Why did you not stop attacking people when you claimed you would?

Whoops. Sorry about that.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Do you have any peer reviewed evidence that mind control exists or is possible?

I haven't checked for possible unclassified evidence. If I remember correctly the intelligence agencies have their own peer-review processes for their secret research projects.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Whoops. Sorry about that.

Nope, thats an apology appreciated but not what I asked for. I asked for a reason. WHY did you not stop attacking people?

 

[Tomtomkent]

I haven't checked for possible unclassified evidence.

Yet you cited an unsubstantiated claim.

This is why CT is inferior in methodology to science and research.

 

[JayUtah]

You sound defensive here.

And faced with an utter inability to argue according to the facts, Anders switches to an ad hominem approach. You're like Patrick1000 -- in moments of extreme panic they try to shame their critics away from responding to them.

Ok, I will stop attacking you. He he.

Feel free to stop misrepresenting me.

 

[R.A.F.]

If I remember correctly the intelligence agencies have their own peer-review processes for their secret research projects.

Huh?...you "remembered" something that you made up??

 

[JayUtah]

I haven't checked for possible unclassified evidence.

A simple "no" would have worked.

If I remember correctly the intelligence agencies have their own peer-review processes for their secret research projects.

Every group concerned with getting things right has some sort of a review process. In my field we have design reviews. That's where people in the same company try to knock holes in each other's assumptions and plans. Reviews, proofreading, editing, testing -- all these activities arise from the desire to improve quality and avoid detectable error. They're not perfect, nor intended to be.

What I want to know from you is what process conspiracy theorists follow to demonstrate their supposed desire to get things right. After a page and a half of bickering, may I finally have your answer please?