• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Jim Fetzer heads for Newtown

This is offensive beyond words. I think that we might consider institutionalizing these solipsistic delusionauts. Is there a designation for this syndrome in the DSM 5?
 
Captain_Swoop said:
He would say to the priest that he was obviously part of the conspiracy.
Click to expand...

Not only that but he could claim that the RCC took the kids for nefarious purposes.

It was the religious hand in the secular glove that did it.
 
carlitos said:
This is offensive beyond words. I think that we might consider institutionalizing these solipsistic delusionauts. Is there a designation for this syndrome in the DSM 5?
Click to expand...

"Insensitive Jerk" is the polite phrase - the one that would be most commonly used would get me a yellow card at a minimum.
 
carlitos said:
This is offensive beyond words. I think that we might consider institutionalizing these solipsistic delusionauts. Is there a designation for this syndrome in the DSM 5?
Click to expand...

They might buy some game cams and catch them in the act, a few stiff fines and/or prison sentences will take the fire out of these brave warriors who count coup on inanimate objects.
 
Yeah. Simon Shack and his band of idiots were vandalizing online 9/11 memorials. I'm frankly surprised that folks are moving to the physical world; I didn't think they interacted with it. Vandalizing stuff will get them more unwanted attention than vandalizing bytes.
 
Ranb said:
I have exchanged e-mails with him in the past; he says anyone who thinks Apollo was real is a chump.

Ranb
Click to expand...

I offered to debate him publicly on this subject, which is of course my particular area of expertise -- both professionally and in my own writings and appearances. He waved it off, assuming that if I didn't have a PhD then I wasn't worth debating.

From this I gather Fetzer really does know just how underqualified he is in most of the topics he professes, and that his entire career as a professional conspiracy theorist has been made largely on intentional bluff and bluster.
 
JayUtah said:
I offered to debate him publicly on this subject, which is of course my particular area of expertise -- both professionally and in my own writings and appearances. He waved it off, assuming that if I didn't have a PhD then I wasn't worth debating.

From this I gather Fetzer really does know just how underqualified he is in most of the topics he professes, and that his entire career as a professional conspiracy theorist has been made largely on intentional bluff and bluster.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but I have to say that this sounds suspiciously like creationist logic. "He won't publicly debate me, therefore he has no idea what he's talking about!" The veracity - or lack thereof - of his claims has nothing to do with whether or not he's willing or able to debate them. Public debates don't determine who has the stronger position, they determine which party is the more skilled debater. If nothing else, Duane Gish's legacy has surely taught us that.
 
Bishop said:
I'm sorry, but I have to say that this sounds suspiciously like creationist logic. "He won't publicly debate me, therefore he has no idea what he's talking about!"
Click to expand...

Nope. You're misrepresenting my argument. I know Fetzer doesn't know what he's talking about with respect to Apollo. Why? Because he's dabbling in my profession that I've practiced successfully for 25 years. His Apollo claims are almost entirely ignorant of the relevant fields. And I'm pretty sure he knows it. My argument is the reverse: "Fetzer has no idea what he's talking about, and that's why he won't publicly debate me."

Fetzer's long-standing m.o. is to wave his academic credentials, which have almost nothing to do with any actual knowledge, and on that basis pretend he knows everything about whatever subject he happens to be discussing that day. Fetzer has no relevant training, education, certification, or professional experience in any of the subjects having to do with his Apollo claims. But he manages to convince his fans that his "philosophy of science" degree covers all that.

It doesn't.

The veracity - or lack thereof - of his claims has nothing to do with whether or not he's willing or able to debate them.
Click to expand...

The veracity of his Apollo claims is not a question. He's laughably wrong.

And of course if one's living is made by convincing the public that one is an expert (but really just bluffing), the last thing one wants is to come up against an actual expert such that people can see one's head get handed to you.

Public debates don't determine who has the stronger position, they determine which party is the more skilled debater.
Click to expand...

Well, your problem here is manifold.

First, Fetzer does debate in public. He is a public figure who makes his living espousing and promulgating controversial claims. The problem is that his debate style is based entirely on intellectual bullying, without subjecting himself to any actual accountability. But Fetzer does recognize the need to debate. So your belief otherwise isn't binding on him.

Second, while there are indeed factors in public debate that produce an uneven playing field, public debate still has value in testing ideas and compelling their proponents to stand by them and defend them. One's sudden unwillingness to debate a controversial claim he has made in public is de facto suspicious. Further, public "sound-bite" style debates have historically favored fringe claims because it is easy in that format to simply drop innuendo and shift the burden of proof.

Third, Fetzer's reason for declining the invitation ("If he doesn't have a PhD then it's not worth my time") had nothing to do with any of your reasons, nothing to do with any actual expertise, and is a sudden new requirement for challenging his claims. It's a fight-or-flight response: normally he can "fight" with his typical bluff and bluster. But when faced with a situation where bluster probably won't work, he turns tail.

Fetzer's behavior requires us to decide why he avoids meaningful debate of his Apollo claims. You're giving us one set of reasons. But the most plausible reason remains that he knows he's wrong and doesn't want to have his bluff called.
 
Ah, it looks like I misunderstood your post somewhat. My apologies. That being said, though, I think I'm still going to disagree with you about the merits of public debates. What would stop Fetzer from just whipping out a Gish Gallop and forcing you to waste all your time scrambling to address every single one of the "issues"?
 
Uncle Fetzer has it all figured out:


Wednesday, May 14th, 2014

School closed, actors used: Robbie Parker, entertainer, exposed


Samuel Travis Delaney (aka “Robbie Parker”) is an actor, an entertainer and a musician who uses multiple aliases, including Robbie Parker, John Matthew Walker, Samuel Adams (his favorite beer, we were told) and Eugene Rosenberg, which is his alias on YouTube. (See [facebook, Robbie Parker] and [facebook, John Matthew Walker].)
Click to expand...


http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/05/14/school-closed-actors-used-robbie-parker-entertainer-exposed/


You'd think that after making a complete fool of himself over the claims of "Dallas Goldbug" that hundreds of familiar people were really actors (Walt Disney was really Adolf Hitler? :eye-poppi Henry Winkler is really Ahmadinejad? :jaw-dropp) Fetzer would be a little more circumspect. I wonder: Could this be a manifestation of alcoholic psychosis?

(The Fetzer-Goldbug love affair ended when Goldbug told Fetzer that Fetzer's pal Prof. Jim Tracy was really some other guy; IIRC, the founder of Oath Keepers.)
 
What's often significant is what Conspiradroids don't do. AFAIK, not one Truther has even attempted to interview a single member of FDNY who they claim mentioned demolition charges going off at the Twin Towers.

Likewise, Fetzer and Halbig's Newtown jaunt would have been an opportunity to check out how long it takes to drive from the school site to Danbury Hospital, since they claim that the failure to use emergency helicopters proves conspiracy somehow.

Funny, no mention of them doing such a test....:rolleyes:
 
It seems that the "Eugene Rosenberg" referenced by Fetzer as being the "real" Robbie Parker/Samuel Delaney is a fellow <SNIP> Sandy Hook truther.



Why the Vast Conspiracy would want to blow the lid off its own operations is a question best left to the (alcoholic? syphilitic?) demented brain of Jim Fetzer.
How Samuel R. Delaney fits in is anyone's guess.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Would someone like to attempt to convince me that Clementine Churchill is not Irene Fenwick the Great Aunt of Drew Barrymore? Therefore Lionel Barrymore is Churchill. Fact.
Click to expand...

Wow! never heard of this 'Dallas Goldbug' guy!
 
Bishop said:
Ah, it looks like I misunderstood your post somewhat. My apologies.
Click to expand...

No worries.

That being said, though, I think I'm still going to disagree with you about the merits of public debates. What would stop Fetzer from just whipping out a Gish Gallop and forcing you to waste all your time scrambling to address every single one of the "issues"?
Click to expand...

Absolutely nothing would stop him, except of course a gentleman's adherence to good form. But as you say, that's in short supply these days. For many, "public debate" means trading barbs and sound bites, not really delving into the issues. So in that respect you're right. I prefer public debates that have a moderator and some sort of format that makes the Gish Gallop problematic.

In Fetzer's case, since he prides himself on his alleged ability to do logical analysis and critical thinking, I'd probably get a fair amount of mileage just by pointing out that he is Gish-Galloping, and thereby shaming the Great Exalted Fetzer by identifying his sophomore debate tactics.

Years ago I shot a pilot for a series that would have been on History Channel before it became the Bigfoot, UFO, & Luftwaffe network. I managed to get most of my answers under 30 seconds, but it's difficult. The moderator was Lewis Black, which helped immensely. But that's not a public debate either. It's an orchestrated presentation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom