Brand New CT Subgroup; No Brainers

[BenBurch]

Reading through all of the truther material posted here and elsewhere, I detect a hole in our taxonomy of trutherdom;

We ignore the "No Brainers".

The fundamental hallmark of this subgroup is their belief that the WTC was brought down in a manner that makes rational inquiry impossible. When you boil down the arguments they use you come up with the core argument;

9/11 was in inside job "just because."

Now we return you to your regular program "Teaching A Pig To Sing."

 

[Brainache]

Are they anything like the "No Claimers"?

You know the guys who are full of insinuations and smoking guns, but who never actually make a definite claim about what they think happened.

 

[WildCat]

Are they anything like the "No Claimers"?

You know the guys who are full of insinuations and smoking guns, but who never actually make a definite claim about what they think happened.

Are "no claimers" a subset of "no brainers", or is it the other way around?

 

[DavidJames]

Are "no claimers" a subset of "no brainers", or is it the other way around?

I was thinking "no brainers" would be a synonym for "truther"

 

[Brainache]

Are "no claimers" a subset of "no brainers", or is it the other way around?

Another puzzle for the taxonomists I assume. I think the no claimer is a later developmental stage of the same creature as the no brainer. The no claimer stage arises from the no brainer after many encounters with their natural enemy the Skeptical Questioner. After realising that "Just because" is not a valid survival strategy, they try to camoflage their intellectual bankruptcy by pretending to be open minded.

 

[BenBurch]

Just don't confuse them with the "No Clamers" who simply avoid chowder.

 

[Reality Believer]

Someone need to do a graphic: This is you brain, and this is your brain on thermite. Any questions?

 

[Lensman]

Just don't confuse them with the "No Clamers" who simply avoid chowder.

"That's CHOWDAH!".

 

[Max Photon]

Geometry of Titles, for 200 please

Ben, quick quiz...

What is the geometry of the thread's title?

 

[Drudgewire]

Ben, quick quiz...

What is the geometry of the thread's title?

You're a subgroup all to yourself Max, and we love you for it.

 

[BenBurch]

Ben, quick quiz...

What is the geometry of the thread's title?

It's a 5-dimensional Hyper-Hyper-Hyperbole, of course.

 

[Stellafane]

Another puzzle for the taxonomists I assume. I think the no claimer is a later developmental stage of the same creature as the no brainer. The no claimer stage arises from the no brainer after many encounters with their natural enemy the Skeptical Questioner. After realising that "Just because" is not a valid survival strategy, they try to camoflage their intellectual bankruptcy by pretending to be open minded.

As a taxonomist (I'm currently writing a book on this topic) this raises an interesting question. Personally, I don't think you can create a single taxonomy that includes no-brainers and no-planers, because you'd be creating a classification scheme based on completely different criteria -- in one case beliefs (no-planers), in the other mental systems (no-brainers). Thus you could have no-planers who are both no-brainers and whatever passes for the opposite of that in trutherland. Conversely, you could have no-brainers who believe in the entire spectrum of truther nonsense.

So what you'd need are at least two different taxonomies, for example:

Mental Systems
No brainers
Semi-brainers
Lunatics
Trolls
Juveniles
Blinded by anger, etc.

Beliefs
No planers
LIHOP
CD, etc.

Of course, the problem with the latter is that there is a great deal of liquidity within the 9/11 CT world, with the same people believing different things (often contradictory). But in an informal classification scheme, that would be allowed. (I adhere to the philosophy that taxos don't need to be strictly formal, "a place for everything and everything in its place" systems like we were taught in Biology 101. So long as it's reasonable, logical, and workable, it's allowable.)

 

[BenBurch]

Stallafane,

It beats just putting them all in Problematica.

-Ben

 

[Brainache]

As a taxonomist (I'm currently writing a book on this topic) this raises an interesting question. Personally, I don't think you can create a single taxonomy that includes no-brainers and no-planers, because you'd be creating a classification scheme based on completely different criteria -- in one case beliefs (no-planers), in the other mental systems (no-brainers). Thus you could have no-planers who are both no-brainers and whatever passes for the opposite of that in trutherland. Conversely, you could have no-brainers who believe in the entire spectrum of truther nonsense.

So what you'd need are at least two different taxonomies, for example:

Mental Systems
No brainers
Semi-brainers
Lunatics
Trolls
Juveniles
Blinded by anger, etc.

Beliefs
No planers
LIHOP
CD, etc.

Of course, the problem with the latter is that there is a great deal of liquidity within the 9/11 CT world, with the same people believing different things (often contradictory). But in an informal classification scheme, that would be allowed. (I adhere to the philosophy that taxos don't need to be strictly formal, "a place for everything and everything in its place" systems like we were taught in Biology 101. So long as it's reasonable, logical, and workable, it's allowable.)

Or we could solve the whole taxonomic conundrum by just classifying them all as "Jerks". Not too elegant, but simple.