Truthers VS Debunkers, what gives??

reply to post by TheComte

I would rather think that it would be the person being bullied growing up to be the conspiracy theorist.

reply to post by Frankidealist35


Are you emplying that truthers or conspiracy theorist's in general may naturally feel insecure when confronting debunkers?

I dont know about that I have seen *Balls to the wall* truthers that even when confronted by members ATS using gang strategy were still unbendable and had rock hard data to back it up.

reply to post by Frankidealist35


By what reasoning do you arrive at this conclusion?

I think of Truthers to be a subgroup of conspiracy theorists. Truthers want to know the truth about 9/11, and they have their theories about that. Conspiracy theorists are more into the fantastic types of theories like Reptilians, Hollow Earth/underground cities, those types of things.

[edit on 15-7-2008 by TheComte]

reply to post by snowen20

Yeah, but you're forgetting ATS is populated by many people who actually believe in conspiracy theories. In real life if you were to talk about a conspiracy theory people would either not believe you or they would think you're crazy. So you'd naturally feel insecure about talking about them no matter what proof you had.

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
And debunkers are completely satisfied with their lives so they must attack someone else for having an opinion about something causing distress in their life.

You are contradicting yourself. This happens a lot with conspiracy theorists. On one hand you said debunkers are completely satisfied with their lives then on the other hand you said they attack because they have distress in their life. So which is it? Are they satisfied or do they have distress?

reply to post by TheComte

Don't you feel like it would make more sense for someone who grew up always thinking there was something wrong with the world and getting bullied for what they believed in to study conspiracy theories? And that someone who has had a perfect is less likely to study conspiracy theories because they feel like life is perfect?

reply to post by WhatTheory

You misread what I said. Maybe I wasn't so clear. But I was just saying the confident person (the debunker) would be more likely to attack the person who believed in something making a claim about something they saw that was distressing them.

I'm not saying debunkers are completely satisfied with their life, I was using sarcasm. I was replying to the post where it said that conspiracy theorists tried to blame a problem bigger than themselves for causing distress in their life.

[edit on 15-7-2008 by Frankidealist35]

[edit on 15-7-2008 by Frankidealist35]

I dont know maybe Im over simplifying it.
I guess im my mind if a debunker has no insecurity to stand up for what they believe then I dont see why a truther would insecure either.

Unless to the truther it really isnt reality and they are trying to convince themselves of somthing that may or may not be there by making themselves insecure.

If you are truly grounded in what you believe and have no need to convince yourself I dont see how a person could possibly feel inferior.

I could very well be looking at that completely wrong however.

[edit on 15-7-2008 by snowen20]

reply to post by Frankidealist35


No, I think the same principle is at work with the bully and the CTer. That is, self-esteem problems, dissatisfaction with life, depression, makes them want to elevate themselves above others either by strength, as in the case of a bully, or knowledge, as in the case of a CTer.

Complete truthists and complete debunkers are just extremists, both sides not really capable of rational thought. I myself am extremely skeptical on some topics, but open minded on others (although others will tell you otherwise)

I believe complete truthists use quotes like the one below and use the terms, sheeple, disinfo, troll and ignorant in excess. They also tend to not resources or evidence to back up their cliams and tend to dislike anything of a government or military nature.

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
Debunkers of any conspiracy theorists try to debunk conspiracy theories because they can't accept things that contradict their own already government-made opinion.

While complete debunkers use terms such as stupid, paranoid and tend to ridicule other members without providing any back up information to their claims. They tend to (I wont say like) support anything of a government or miltary nature.

Both sides are narrow minded and ignorant, but most allegations towards other members come from the "truthist" side

Well thats my 2 cents

reply to post by TheComte

I disagree with you. There are many conspiracy theorists, or, people who believe in conspiracy theories, because they know that their government isn't perfect. It's like how people study philosophy because they want to know the truth and the meaning of life. People study conspiracy theories because they want to know the truth about the government, and, they want to see how far the rabbit hole goes.

reply to post by TheComte


Thats an interesting concept.
So you are saying that a weak person is more likely to believe in a conspiracy because by somehow haveing knowledge no one else has makes them feel superior, perhaps stronger mentally?

Makes no difference if the knowledge is real or not?

Broad strokes of the brush. Let X= the set of all bullies. Let Y = the set of all victims. Let x' = debunkers; let y' = truthers. Let z'=fuzzy bunny rabbits. Now let's create a theorum that encompasses the whole of them, attempting to fit all people who don't align with any of the subsets, into neat little categories.

Not trying to minimize your exchange, just wondering why the labels are so necessary and widely encompassing. It really doesn't matter who started it first.

My opinion, and nothing more. Take it for what it isn't worth.

reply to post by Frankidealist35


That's fine. See we can disagree and still be civil.

Originally posted by snowen20
Thats an interesting concept.
So you are saying that a weak person is more likely to believe in a conspiracy because by somehow haveing knowledge no one else has makes them feel superior, perhaps stronger mentally?

Makes no difference if the knowledge is real or not?

Well, I wouldn't say weak. I would say low self esteem because of any number of factors, some of which could be entirely out of their control. The same factors that turn a kid in school into a bully, turn grown ups into CTers.

Originally posted by argentus
just wondering why the labels are so necessary and widely encompassing.

First of all, it's easier to understand and therefore discuss. And because if we talked about every single example we'd be here forever. Of course, not every case fits into these two categories.

I listened to the Alex Jones show today on the radio and this guy honestly believes the world is going fall down around our heads any day now.
Infact his whole radio show seems built around doom and gloom.

Jones was talking to a caller on the radio and literally blew up, screaming at the caller because the caller was talking over him.

His excuse in all this was that he was so stressed out over the NWO and that he is so busy trying to spread the word that he is just falling apart.

Thats very noticeable when you hear him talk.
Now I wonder if his behavior and panic and distress are propagating through his media and actually causing the anger and distress that I notice a lot of truthers display.

I suppose it is easy to let somthing over take your life if your not careful.

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
reply to post by snowen20

 

Yeah, but you're forgetting ATS is populated by many people who actually believe in conspiracy theories. In real life if you were to talk about a conspiracy theory people would either not believe you or they would think you're crazy. So you'd naturally feel insecure about talking about them no matter what proof you had.

It's biased to assume how anyone would would feel in that situation. Actually I am often successful in pointing peoples attention to the 'behind the scenes' kind of things. I am successful because I know how to keep myself calm and collective while providing hard evidence. Also the most important part, is respecting the opposing party's beliefs, because they are entitled to believe whatever they wish. This right should be respected at all times no matter what the topic. I always tell people they have the right to believe what they want to, it is reassuring and after you show them you respect their beliefs, they are more likely to listen to you.

reply to post by snowen20


" I can well imagine that many theorists find it easy to believe in something that makes the world mysterious so that it takes the edge off. "

just more sludge.....

pathetic...

its rare that i encounter a "Truther" that can convince me aliens and the multitude of conspiricies are real, having said that its rare that i encounter a "Debunker" that can prove to me these conspiracies are not real.

some threads on ATS remeind me of a Monty Python sketch

No it isnt !
Yes it is !
No it isnt !

also some conspiracy docos ive seen there have been debunkers on there, they take an alleged Photo of an Aliens, Lochness monster, Big foot etc and say well if i do this with (insert photo editing software) i get this it looks like the photo so that proves (what ever conspiricy it was) doesnt exist. Which at face value sounds rather compelling however i could take a photo of the pope and a photo of the vatican superimpose the pope into the vatican photo and make it look genuine, have i now proven that the pope has never been inside the vatican?

In my mind to debunk a theory you should be providing just as solid evidence to the contrary as you demand from the person making the claim, if neither can provide evidence .. goto Monty python reference.

Me personally i neither believe nor disbelieve, i feel there is something sinister going on in the world but what that could be i dont know, i guess thats why im on ATS to see if anything fits in with my gut feeling.

reply to post by Demandred


This is how everyone should take things on here. Take bits and pieces that make sence and fit together in your head, its all generally the same idea. The main thing is to just know whats on other peoples minds. From that you can root through everything and decide for yourself what to believe and what not to believe. Take bits from both sides, make a desicion, and let others in on it, tell them how you feel. Don't do it as to degrade someone or make them feel dumb.