The hatred of debunkers

a reply to: network dude

Confirmation biases are tough to shake and people will defend them to the death.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

originally posted by: AshOnMyTomatoes

originally posted by: stirling
many threads get devolved into useless arguments over the validity of stated premise rather than discussing the posted theory....

I'd say the second half of your sentence directly contradicts the first.

Unless what you really mean is "many threads get distracted from abject fantasy by discussion of facts."

Do you not see the irony of your posts?


The sour attitude you have brought into this thread is exactly the type of "debunking" people have found to be pointless!


Stirling made a good point that was easily comprehendible but you've decided to twist it in a fashion of "I'll debunk your message"...


To what gain?

I know exactly what Stirling meant.
So did others.


Is your reading comprehension lacking...
Or are you intentionally being obtuse.

Because I know exactly the kind of thing Stirling is talking about too. For example, I was involved in a thread a week or two ago whose premise was "Pyramid power: what did the ancients use it for?"

Note that it was not called "Pyramid power: does it exist?"

You can't have a discussion about the factual uses of a made-up phenomenon. This is the sort of thing anti-debunkers are defending.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

He actually brings up a good point. Many people mistake someone debunking their theory with a personal attack against them. This results in them being hostile towards the debunker and creates the sour attitude.

There is NEVER an excuse not to be skeptical of what you know, and all contradicting points should be considered. No matter how nonsensical they may seem. REAL truth only emerges once all the BS is removed.

For instance, you if make a supposition based on an assumption, then your whole supposition could be questioned if you just question the assumption one of the premises is based on.

I am very interested in what everyone is faithfully accepting as fact by simply nod of the majority of the population that has decided to travel down one path of acceptence thereby making the other path seem nonexistant by way of ignorrance.

What most are accepting as fact is just theories that exist inside a closed loop system of belief based on repetition. If one can do something twice then we can all accept the notion and remove any previous notions that go against the new faithfully accepted "fact".

Now if we go back to the start and find that any faith has been misplaced we would have to account for everything else we have accepted on faith that would be rendered null. We would then have to weigh the benefit of accepting any thing based on the status quo. It is all about the herd with some.

a reply to: ATF1886

Could you link me to the post in question?

Time I debunked the OP. That could be hard though, there is nothing to debunk there. Oh well, time to go make coffee then.

a reply to: deadeyedick

Would peer reviewed science that also makes sense be acceptable?

originally posted by: ATF1886
At all your mad cause you know I was right and you got a$$hurt cause I responded to your post in a manner that was right, yes now I was not right for coming back with the answer I did to the poster to my post but in reality you know I was right and you can't stand it .when asked for proof I always provide whether I am right or wrong I could care less cause I learn a lot from ats but what I can't stand is when someone requires proof of set argument and provides none and you got involved with bias towards my response.

a reply to: network dude

No clue what bug crawled up your backside & rendered you so nasty, but dude, chill out. There's no reason to maul the OP, and if you think there is, you're exemplifying the very reason credibility is so scrutinized with CTers because if you have to be lowbrow, you don't have much else to go on. The attitude does not help you.

Edit:
BACK IT UP, BUDDY, and park it. I see in the link you provided, you made a claim & refused to provide the proof for it. Look, the onus is on you to prove your claim before asking it to be disproven. This is where die-hards need to buck up more. If you make a claim, put forth the proof you need to shore your claim up. Sitting on your duff yelling "YOU disprove ME first before I do any work!" is the lazy man's route & you look like a hollering fool. It's that basic.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: network dude

Confirmation biases are tough to shake and people will defend them to the death.

Site motto should be "DENY BIAS
(& ignorance)!"

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: ATF1886

Could you link me to the post in question?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here you go continue to try and make your point.

a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes

You can't have a discussion about the factual uses of a made-up phenomenon.

Exactly.

Half the time I am like, should I even bother posting? Because if somebody doesn't cut through the BS then next time a thread will appear that begins, "Now that we have established the veracity of Pyramid Power…"

and down the road the multiple threads on it are used as "proof" of Pyramid Power and oh, by the way where were you?

Now guess who's ignorant?

originally posted by: AshOnMyTomatoes

You can't have a discussion about the factual uses of a made-up phenomenon. This is the sort of thing anti-debunkers are defending.

I also think there are posts that dedunkers/disbelievers should just stay away from, and yours is a good example. If I had a post called "Tell me your real life ghost story" I do not think it is proper for someone to try to debunk every post in this case.

Hatred is the not the sole property of those who are debunked

Even so called Debunkers can suffer the same emotion of hatred when challenged

Hatred is a Human trait is what I am saying and all are capable of it

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: ATF1886
At all your mad cause you know I was right and you got a$$hurt cause I responded to your post in a manner that was right, yes now I was not right for coming back with the answer I did to the poster to my post but in reality you know I was right and you can't stand it .when asked for proof I always provide whether I am right or wrong I could care less cause I learn a lot from ats but what I can't stand is when someone requires proof of set argument and provides none and you got involved with bias towards my response.

a reply to: network dude

No clue what bug crawled up your backside & rendered you so nasty, but dude, chill out. There's no reason to maul the OP, and if you think there is, you're exemplifying the very reason credibility is so scrutinized with CTers because if you have to be lowbrow, you don't have much else to go on. The attitude does not help you.

No bug at all I'm not mad all I stated was the op was hurt at a comment I responded to him How am I being nasty cause I' responded to someone who tried to belittle me on a post your right I'll shut up I guess that's what the answer to this problem is...

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: deadeyedick



Would peer reviewed science that also makes sense be acceptable?

Life would be much different if we had all the facts.

We do not so staking our lives on something because it makes sense and everyone has givin it a nod is not wise.

I can see where great benefit can come by using methods but when you close the door behind you and start labeling faith as fact while belittling other religions for doing the same at that point you are ignoring several red flags.

I think it great and even fun to examine such thoughts as science does but esentially it has lost the fun and began to war with other religions.

At the least until we have all the answers on everything we should try to remain intelluctely honest.

Just because today i can not tell you this or that does not mean this or that does not exist.

a reply to: network dude

Some of us don't have the time to be on ATS 24 hours a day trying to shoot down other peoples' ideas.

The fact that some of us have to go out and make money and can't reply to every nitpicking "debunker" makes us cowards,huh?

That's news to me.

originally posted by: FalcoFan
a reply to: network dude

Some of us don't have the time to be on ATS 24 hours a day trying to shoot down other peoples' ideas.

The fact that some of us have to go out and make money and can't reply to every nitpicking "debunker" makes us cowards,huh?

That's news to me.

Priceless Epic Win post is worth a million stars

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: AshOnMyTomatoes

You can't have a discussion about the factual uses of a made-up phenomenon. This is the sort of thing anti-debunkers are defending.

I also think there are posts that dedunkers/disbelievers should just stay away from, and yours is a good example. If I had a post called "Tell me your real life ghost story" I do not think it is proper for someone to try to debunk every post in this case.

So questioning if that lady the person saw in the window was really just a malfunctioning light or something? Or maybe that disembodied voice was the wind traveling down a unique section of hallway creating interesting acoustics? Those aren't valid things to ask after hearing a personal ghost story?

We should all just go "Cool story bro! Here's a star!"?

a reply to: Xtrozero

Those are the only 2 "conspiracies" I can even think of. My sisters Fiance asked me what conspiracy I find the most pertinent. I asked him if he understood how our world works.

Turned out he's a lobbyist for veterans affairs. I said that's probably the only lobbyist that should even be legally allowed.

EDIT: Stupid quote system glitching...

ATF, refer to the edit in my previous post. In the thread you linked, attempting to back yourself here, you made a claim and refused to provide proof of said claim. You failed Claim Making 101 right there, and you're ripping the OP for it? The OP's post is more than valid in this context.