How disrespectful can truthers be?

[dtugg]

You know this applies to debunkers just as well as anyone else, only debunkers would never admit it. (most would not)

I don't care if somebody on the Internet insults me. Especially if that person is a twoofer. Why would I care what pond sum thinks of me?

 

[SteveAustin]

Post #83, in which SteveAustin becomes personal, insulting and rude.



And then, in post #136, suddenly it turns out that becoming personal, insulting and rude is a sign of having lost the argument.

Except you left out the first 82 posts that were personal, insulting and rude.

Oh ya I forgot that one is;

"26 A brilliant move is to turn the tables and use your opponent’s arguments against himself.
Example: Your opponent declares: “so and so is a child, you must make an allowance for him.”
You retort, “Just because he is a child, I must correct him; otherwise he will persist in his bad habits.” "

But of course my pointing out debunker tactics has to be countered someway right Dave! So what better way than this right!

"28 When the audience consists of individuals (or a person) who is not an expert on a subject, you make an invalid objection to your opponent who seems to be defeated in the eyes of the audience.
This strategy is particularly effective if your objection makes your opponent look ridiculous or if the audience laughs.
If your opponent must make a long, winded and complicated explanation to correct you, the audience will not be disposed to listen to him."

As usual, I feel no further need to comment.

Dave

Of course you would not, you just came into this thread with an off-topic comment intending to ridicule...

"· Ridicule, ridicule, ridicule. It is far and away the single most chillingly effective weapon in the war against discovery and innovation. Ridicule has the unique power to make people of virtually any persuasion go completely unconscious in a twinkling. It fails to sway only those few who are of sufficiently independent mind not to buy into the kind of emotional consensus that ridicule provides." (from "how to debunk just about anything")

Dave do you have any proof that it was a "truther" that vandalised the memorial? No you have not claimed it was a "truther" or anyone else for that matter, but you simply came into this thread to try and ridicule little old me. Which is being off-topic.

So can you be on topic then Dave? Do you have proof of who committed the vandalism? Or do you have a comment on the incident?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Except you left out the first 82 posts that were personal, insulting and rude.

Which number on your list covers blanket condemnations without evidence?

So can you be on topic then Dave? Do you have proof of who committed the vandalism? Or do you have a comment on the incident?

As you say, the vandalism was disrespectful and indefensible. I have exactly as much proof as you as to who committed it, so since I haven't claimed it was a truther then you're one up on me as far as unfounded claims go.

Dave

 

[aggle-rithm]

So your standards of requiring proof that you all constantly demand from "truthers" does not apply to yourselves it seems!!

Whoah! Hold on there!

The standard of proof is very different between truthers and JREFers.

From our viewpoint, if an act is performed that is typical of a certain group of people and found virtually nowhere else, then it's reasonable to assume that a member of this group did it.

Are we 100% sure? No, but it's a REASONABLE conclusion.

Truthers, on the other hand, feel that if an act is performed and someone benefits from that act, then this is sufficient evidence to accuse them of treason and call for their immediate imprisonment.

If it's an entire group that benefits, then truthers have no problem arbitrarily assigning blame to one or more of the group's leaders, usually the one they personally like the least.

So, by truther standards, we can not only say that a truther did it, we can personally hold Jim Fetzer or Dylan Avery responsible and accuse them of "larceny" or "perjury" or some other crime that we have re-defined in order in order that we may accuse them of it, and sound impressive doing so.

 

[Shalamar]

Hmm.. The truther terrorists are really coming out of the woodwork these days.

Evidence that the vandalism was done by a 'truther'? Well, The 'Inside Job' sprayed upon the memorial is an excellent sign. That it was misspelled and badly written is another. (He/she/it was likely in a rush to avoid getting caught.) As well, truthers have a reputation of being rude, and even violent against others who say that their claims are false.

Does anyone have any evidence that the vandalism was done by a debunker?

 

[1337m4n]

Then the thread became an excuse for everyone to verbally assault ALL "truthers".

Yes, because you set such a wonderful example. Who would want to "verbally assault" someone so polite, kind, and friendly as you?

 

[1337m4n]

So, by truther standards, we can not only say that a truther did it, we can personally hold Jim Fetzer or Dylan Avery responsible and accuse them of "larceny" or "perjury" or some other crime that we have re-defined in order in order that we may accuse them of it, and sound impressive doing so.

"First-degree aggressive property destruction with treasonous intent".

There, I just made up a crime.

Isn't being a Truther fun?

 

[SteveAustin]

Yes, because you set such a wonderful example. Who would want to "verbally assault" someone so polite, kind, and friendly as you?

Thank you. I do try to set a good example.

 

[1337m4n]

38 Become personal, insulting and rude as soon as you perceive that your opponent has the upper hand.
In becoming personal you leave the subject altogether, and turn your attack on the person by remarks of an offensive and spiteful character.
This is a very popular technique, because it takes so little skill to put it into effect.

26 A brilliant move is to turn the tables and use your opponent’s arguments against himself.
Example: Your opponent declares: “so and so is a child, you must make an allowance for him.”
You retort, “Just because he is a child, I must correct him; otherwise he will persist in his bad habits.” "

28 When the audience consists of individuals (or a person) who is not an expert on a subject, you make an invalid objection to your opponent who seems to be defeated in the eyes of the audience.
This strategy is particularly effective if your objection makes your opponent look ridiculous or if the audience laughs.
If your opponent must make a long, winded and complicated explanation to correct you, the audience will not be disposed to listen to him.

#1: Read off a numbered list of "debating tactics" that somebody else wrote because you're out of arguments yourself.

 

[1337m4n]

Thank you. I do try to set a good example.

Sorry, my sarcasm detector is still being calibrated; did you actually take that seriously?

 

[MarkyX]

And this is minor compared to some of the crap the truthers have done. The Wheelchair incident comes to mind.

Stabbing his own father in his sleep another, Luke and his girlfriend pretending to be part of the Wallace family is another, then there is that other truther with pipe bombs in his New York apartment and supplying the tax-evading Browns is another..

 

[SteveAustin]

Evidence that the vandalism was done by a 'truther'? Well, The 'Inside Job' sprayed upon the memorial is an excellent sign. That it was misspelled and badly written is another. (He/she/it was likely in a rush to avoid getting caught.) As well, truthers have a reputation of being rude, and even violent against others who say that their claims are false.

Does anyone have any evidence that the vandalism was done by a debunker?

So going by that standard of "evidence" if I were to have written on that same memorial "twoofers suck" you would be saying that debunkers did it!

The facts that everyone here (except TAM) is avoiding is that everyone (except TAM, DAVE and Davidjames) came into this thread and started verbally assaulting "truthers" without any proof that the vandalism was even committed by "truthers", without any evidence whatsoever.

Most of you have been using this thread as another excuse to bash "truthers" and this time it backfired on you. You have been disrespectful for using this thread to further your own need to make yourself feel better by attacking someone else (yes Dave this is where you come in and say I am doing the same thing, while ignoring the fact I'm just pointing out what others are doing) and you have all done so by "ASSUMING" it was a truther without evidence.

If you want to continue bashing "truthers" do it in another thread where it won't be disrespectful to the dead. If you want to discuss the irony of "debunkers" jumping to conclusions without evidence while demanding "truthers" produce tons of evidence do it in another thread.

If you want to comment on how disrespectful it was for whoever vandalized the memorial that is not disrespectful.

Unless OP your purpose was to use the vandalism of the memorial as an excuse to bad mouth "truthers" again?

Hmm.. The truther terrorists are really coming out of the woodwork these days.

This is the worst kind of insinuation I can think of, but if you think I am a terrorist then call homeland security on me, seriously call them or send them a link and tell them what you believe.

But this was just more of the verbal assault I am getting used to from most JREF'ers. Anyone who does not believe the government story is a "terrorist"

 

[MarkyX]

Anyone who does not believe the government story is a "terrorist"

You don't considering threatening people and having pipe bombs in their apartment as a lunatic?

 

[beachnut]

You keep dodging and weaving there buddy. You are the one claiming it was a "truther" that vandalised the memorial so you need to show the proof of this. I have never claimed it was anyone one way or the other, I will wait for evidence to evaluate before I make a decision on that one, you however being a debunker automaitically assumed it was a "truther" because that is how you work.

So again, stop dodging and stop trying to derail the thread. Either show proof that it was a "truther" or admit you were wrong to bash "truthers" for this one.

Derail; you are being disrespectful by not slamming the vandalism.

You spew government lies without evidence and support vandalism. Good for you for standing up for your failed ideas on 911! Bravo.
Nice try with the false flag vandalism; got some proof? You like to throw in irony?

... But this was just more of the verbal assault I am getting used to from most JREF'ers. Anyone who does not believe the government story is a "terrorist"

who believes the government story; we don't believe the lies you offer!

I have the 19 terrorist took 4 planes and tried to hit buildings and you have junk ideas and lies. Good job

 

[SteveAustin]

Derail; you are being disrespectful by not slamming the vandalism.

As if I need to express my feelings about this vandalism here in this thread or else i'm being disrespectful. And if I do will you then say it's not enough? Or that it's too little too late?

I'll let someone else point out how wrong you are with that statement.

You spew government lies without evidence and support vandalism.

Combining an off-topic comment about theories on 9/11 that differ from your beliefs with an assumption of my beliefs regarding the vandalism of the memorial.

Keep talking, you really are making yourself look really bad.

Good for you for standing up for your failed ideas on 911! Bravo.

Off-topic rant, but you just have to throw that in, and always with the "failed" part because it's not enough for you to simple label them "conspiracy" you have to go even furhter and label them as "failed"

Nice try with the false flag vandalism; got some proof? You like to throw in irony?

Why would I need proof? I mean you have supplied no proof to support your claim that is was a "truther", besides I never claimed to know who did it, only that it "could" have been someone trying to frame a "truther"

who believes the government story; we don't believe the lies you offer!

I have the 19 terrorist took 4 planes and tried to hit buildings and you have junk ideas and lies. Good job

Yes and that argument is just as convincing today as it was 7 years ago.

 

[jaydeehess]

Well, in going over this thread I see that the truthers that have responded have made no apologies for their brethern's defacing this monument.

Just excuses.

Somethings are just plain wrong and should be acknowledged as such.

So, I assume that since you have accused "truthers" of vandalizing this memorial that you actually have proof of this right?

Please post your proof!!

This wouldn't be the first time for what could be called "false flag vandalism", this is actually quite common where someone tries to frame someone else for a crime.

Oh you so pwned him. You got him real good. Run along now and brag to your friends on one of the truther forums.

TAM

Off-topic post to try and recover for the "debunker movement" noted.

Talking down to me really does not make you look any better either TAM, it makes you look petty and small as well.

Did you have anything substantive to add to the conversation or was this just a drive by insult?

Can you post some proof that it was a truther that vandalized the memorial?

If you cared to read the OP and several posts you would see that the topic is centered on the disrespectfullness of defacing this monument.
You chose to derail the thread on a quest to defend the TM.

My post, to which you responded originally added that some things are juist wrong. Instead of addressing that part of my post and at least agreeing that this was wrong, you chose to go on your crusade to try and suggest a false flag vandalism. (to quote a well known comedian, "that there is funny, I don't care who ya are.")

If you want to continue bashing "truthers" do it in another thread where it won't be disrespectful to the dead. If you want to discuss the irony of "debunkers" jumping to conclusions without evidence while demanding "truthers" produce tons of evidence do it in another thread.

If you want to comment on how disrespectful it was for whoever vandalized the memorial that is not disrespectful.

Unless OP your purpose was to use the vandalism of the memorial as an excuse to bad mouth "truthers" again

Correct me if I am wrong but so far you have failed to condemn the act.

I fail to see how it is being disrespectful of the dead of us to condemn the persons most likely to have committed the deed.

Yes, it is most likely, indeed of the highest probability that a member of the self titled "911 Truth Movement" that did this defacement.

The evidence is contained in the video in the OP where this slogan is chanted at a memorial service by several members of the TM. It is in the many other videos of such acts and the ubiquitious use of that slogan by the TM. There would be little need for a false flag act of vandalism given that members of the TM can be seen committing similar acts.

Did members of the TM do this deed? The probability is just shy of that for the Pope being Roman Catholic.

 

[Shalamar]

So going by that standard of "evidence" if I were to have written on that same memorial "twoofers suck" you would be saying that debunkers did it!

Correct. And they would be just as condemned for it. Of course, you seem to think that troothers would never ever do this.

The facts that everyone here (except TAM) is avoiding is that everyone (except TAM, DAVE and Davidjames) came into this thread and started verbally assaulting "truthers" without any proof that the vandalism was even committed by "truthers", without any evidence whatsoever.

Yet. There is evidence, Why do you ignore it? If you have additional evidence to the cause, feel free to present it.

Most of you have been using this thread as another excuse to bash "truthers" and this time it backfired on you. You have been disrespectful for using this thread to further your own need to make yourself feel better by attacking someone else (yes Dave this is where you come in and say I am doing the same thing, while ignoring the fact I'm just pointing out what others are doing) and you have all done so by "ASSUMING" it was a truther without evidence.

And yet, there is evidence. Including past tactics. All you had to say was 'While I feel that the government is covering up something, and that people should know about it, doing it in such a disrespectful way to the victims does not further the cause, and I condemn anyone who did this'. Instead, you claim that this act was an.. INSIDE JOB! without evidence.

If you want to continue bashing "truthers" do it in another thread where it won't be disrespectful to the dead. If you want to discuss the irony of "debunkers" jumping to conclusions without evidence while demanding "truthers" produce tons of evidence do it in another thread.

If you want to comment on how disrespectful it was for whoever vandalized the memorial that is not disrespectful.

And yet, some truther did that terrible vandalism.

This is the worst kind of insinuation I can think of, but if you think I am a terrorist then call homeland security on me, seriously call them or send them a link and tell them what you believe.

But this was just more of the verbal assault I am getting used to from most JREF'ers. Anyone who does not believe the government story is a "terrorist"

No. Not all truthers are terrorists. But it seems that many are indeed so. They are spreading lies and insinuation cause fear and panic over the government. "The government caused 9/11! They killed all those people! You're next!" Not all terrorism is caused by bombs and killings. I do think that many truthers are deluded and misguided, not understanding the evidence, or even purposely ignoring it.

 

[SteveAustin]

Correct me if I am wrong but so far you have failed to condemn the act.

So if I do not come out in this very thread and condemn it by default I support it right. Is that what you are implying? I ask because others here have come right out and said that.

I fail to see how it is being disrespectful of the dead of us to condemn the persons most likely to have committed the deed.

What is disrespectful is to use the vandalism of the memorial as an excuse to verbally assault "truthers". There is no proof that "truthers" did it but lacking this proof has not stopped you or many others from jumping in here and verbally attacking ALL "truthers". If there was proof that a "truther" committed the vandalism you might have a leg to stand on, but as there is no proof all you should be doing is condemning the act itself. PERIOD

Yes, it is most likely, indeed of the highest probability that a member of the self titled "911 Truth Movement" that did this defacement.

The evidence is contained in the video in the OP where this slogan is chanted at a memorial service by several members of the TM. It is in the many other videos of such acts and the ubiquitious use of that slogan by the TM. There would be little need for a false flag act of vandalism given that members of the TM can be seen committing similar acts.

Did members of the TM do this deed? The probability is just shy of that for the Pope being Roman Catholic.

You know what they say about assumptions right? Well this is an assumption based on what you want to believe. The probability of this vandalism having been committed by a "truther" is equal to it having been committed by a "debunker" and equal to it having been committed by "anyone".

The slogan "9/11 was an inside job" is standard fare for the truth movement and if a "debunker" wanted to try and defame the character of 9/11 truth activists then why not vandalize a 9/11 memorial and make it look like a "truther". Note here again I am not saying this is what happened, however I have seen "debunkers" do similar things first hand in front of my eyes.

 

[SteveAustin]

No. Not all truthers are terrorists.

How...kind of you

But it seems that many are indeed so. They are spreading lies and insinuation cause fear and panic over the government. "The government caused 9/11! They killed all those people! You're next!" Not all terrorism is caused by bombs and killings. I do think that many truthers are deluded and misguided, not understanding the evidence, or even purposely ignoring it.

I'd be willing to bet a lot of money that you (and most JREF'ers though not all) do not see the very deep irony in that statement.

 

[Shalamar]

I'd be willing to bet a lot of money that you (and most JREF'ers though not all) do not see the very deep irony in that statement.

What? The irony of going through the evidence presented, finding that it fits the official reports very well based on what we saw, eyewitness reports, and basic physics?


As opposed to.. erm.. what? 'False Flag Vandalism?'