The hatred of debunkers

a reply to: Bedlam

I wish.

But they couldn't pay me enough to try to stop/discourage people from speaking out about their experiences/pieces of data regarding possible evidence of or experiences specifically related to the existence of alien life/contact/sightings.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: AshOnMyTomatoes

Why is it not proper for someone to try and help explain what happened to someone when they thought they saw a ghost? Why shouldn't a paranormal experience be subject to scrutiny?

Why is it proper? I'm sure there is a proper way to do it, but that is not always the case. How does a atheist properly go into the Religious forum and tell everyone that there is no God, when it is all based on faith anyways?

There are two separate issues here. 1. The person relating the story (presumably) DID experience a thing. Fine. But 2. Just because they experienced a thing, does not make them correct about the assumptions they made about the thing they experienced.

And they experienced it, not you, so kind of hard for you to put facts into it all. As I said, there is a way to help them, or there is a way to just debate that one does not believe in ghost and so one will attack every post.

So what you're saying is that if something is faith-based, that makes it beyond the reach of skepticism? I see. I guess George Bush really WAS God's choice for President, then. I guess Muslim extremists really ARE going to get virgins in the afterlife, and Zeus really DID turn into a swan and do the nasty with someone, etc. etc. etc.

a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes
Are you ignoring my reply to you deliberately?
Or did it just get lost?
Everything posted in the grey area is speculative is it not?

a reply to: network dude

No offense taken,bro.

I come off sounding like an angry bot at times.

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: ATF1886

originally posted by: Nyiah
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.

And like I said the original issue was not me and op it was me and another poster if op would have never
thrown in his two cents then it would be me and the guitar guy it had nothing to do with network dude.

Now if I made a statement and the original woulda Ben network dude I would provided him the proper info so no I'm not wrong when network dude jumped in as a third party and with an insult at that I did the same in return.

I'm not going to refute this point less circle with you or dude I stand on what I said like it or not.

GuitarPlayer did ask if you had stats to back your claim up. You asked if he had stats of his own to disprove it. NetworkGuy asked you to not be the Negative Proof guy. Your very next post afterward was you acting cocky & jerky about it. Your final posts in the thread had no proof whatsoever. So if you are trying to say you would have given GuitarPlayer the statistical proof he asked for, you would have? When? Next year?

You have no leg to stand on, period. You were an ass, even when the same person you claim to be willing to provide proof to had ASKED for it. You're digging yourself a nice hole, keep at it.

hey the holes big enough for the both of us ,
So If I go provide proof of my argument like already done by others in the post can I get a star from you...
I understand an apologize for my actions I'm sorry that someone with more time on their hands (thanks eunachorn) provided the info that was asked of me as of today to make niyah happy when asked for information I will provide upon request sorry network dude for offending your theory on negativity and niyah for her time and ability to point out my mistakes!!!

originally posted by: stirling
a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes
Are you ignoring my reply to you deliberately?
Or did it just get lost?

If you think I am debating you specifically in this thread, that is also a delusion.

A polite reply usually calls for an answer....if you aren't here to discuss then why are you here?
a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes

Maybe there should be an all inclusive NASTY FORUM...you take your chances if you go into that forum and you know it will be Nasty.

I don't care if someone debunks, in fact I would expect it on some subjects. What gets me is when someone comes at you with a tidal wave of hate - haters going to hate...so make a forum for it. No wussies allowed and go for it.

a reply to: network dude

some people are just stupid.
and one does not simply debunk stupidity.

Like a literary cage match? bravo!

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Xtrozero

Questioning someone's shaky story is hijacking the thread? So you really do want to just tell ghost stories and have an echo chamber of back slaps and stars.

Why is it a shaky story? Maybe it is shaky to you because you do not believe in ghost...

If a person said "I had a apparition fly across my room" what can you add to that shaky story? You tell me, are ghost real or not?

So where can you go as a debunker in this case other than a direction that is solely based on your disbelief as you argue your points?

a reply to: ATF1886

You know what would have been easier than several posts of pointless attitude in the thread in question? Something like this, plus a quote:

"Hey, I don't have the time to do it myself right now, but I see Eunuchorn did post what I was referring to. This is what I was talking about guys."

Furthermore, a simple "Sorry I got crappy folks. I didn't need to be so condescending" would work here in this thread, too. Just a thought for future posting exchanges.

originally posted by: stirling
a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes
Are you ignoring my reply to you deliberately?
Or did it just get lost?
Everything posted in the grey area is speculative is it not?

The Grey Area is for speculation, yes. Note that the forum description does not say "please do not doubt the veracity of the OP."

a reply to: Xtrozero

I could ask the time of day. Maybe it was an animal going by the window that causes a shadow to go across your face. I'm not trying to dissect every possible ghost encounter idea you can throw at me here in this thread. I'm not going to deny that there are bad debunking arguments, but there are no restrictions on these thoughts even if you don't like them.

originally posted by: Nyiah
a reply to: ATF1886

You know what would have been easier than several posts of pointless attitude in the thread in question? Something like this, plus a quote:

"Hey, I don't have the time to do it myself right now, but I see Eunuchorn did post what I was referring to. This is what I was talking about guys."

Furthermore, a simple "Sorry I got crappy folks. I didn't need to be so condescending" would work here in this thread, too. Just a thought for future posting exchanges.

I was not being condescending , nor was I being crappy obviously the question was answered that's why guitar never responded. I'm sorry mom not a problem I promise I'll specify when someone answers a question for me next time.

originally posted by: AshOnMyTomatoes

So what you're saying is that if something is faith-based, that makes it beyond the reach of skepticism? I see. I guess George Bush really WAS God's choice for President, then. I guess Muslim extremists really ARE going to get virgins in the afterlife, and Zeus really DID turn into a swan and do the nasty with someone, etc. etc. etc.

Thank you so much to providing great examples...

Yep, I'm sure I said that... now wait a minute...hmmm....that is what you said I said, which is totally false..nice...why are you suggesting that I said something that I did not? Is that a tactic of yours to change the statement of others into something you can attack? I see....

So what you're saying is that if something is faith-based, that makes it beyond the reach of skepticism?

I said it is beyond the reach of debunking....You can have all the skepticism you want. Now you take that skepticism to a post that is purely faith based what are you going to provide in a positive way? Are you going to factually disprove that there is a God?

I guess George Bush really WAS God's choice for President, then.

I do not think I suggested this either...wait a minute....are you trying to discredit me by associating my statements with a wacko type statement that you just made up?

I guess Muslim extremists really ARE going to get virgins in the afterlife, and Zeus really DID turn into a swan and do the nasty with someone, etc. etc. etc.

Provide the proof that they will not... Prove to me that the universe was not created Last Thursday...

Once again how do you dedunk what is impossible to debunk, why debate faith....

a reply to: Xtrozero

In a similar post I put forth this and it seems most did not get my point that none of these theories can be proved or disproved..

Especially if its just a 'theory'.

Thing is though, when confronted by posters who's minds are already made up, it doesn't matter what you might say. There is no proof that will convince a skeptic.

About subjects in the realm of spirituality or unknown phenomenon, you can't prove anything, just tell your story so others can see if it matches their experience.

I have such experiences, i love to share them and don't get riled if people don't believe me about it. Right now I'm involved (for some dumb reason) on a 911 thread and there I can say something conclusive to hard cases by demonstrating with images and videos. I don't know why I can't just leave it, they obviously are either unteachable or playing dumb while spreading dis information.

originally posted by: AshOnMyTomatoes

originally posted by: smurfy

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."

Some conspiracies have turned out to be true, some conspiracies have turned up information about wrongdoing aside from the original conspiracy, thankfully by virtue of good discussion. Stirling makes a valid point.

I guarantee that any conspiracy that turns out to be true had people working hard to suss out the facts and skim off the fantasy. Just because some conspiracies turn out to be based in reality, does not give one carte blanche to post any passing fancy and expect no one to question it. A conspiracy or theory standing up to debunking is what I come to ATS to find, and many of them have been spectacular reads.

You don't make a conspiracy out of a fantasy..that's stupid.

a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes
You are simply deflecting the point without even informing yourself.....
What about my thread made you think I was lying?
There were pulenty of disclaimers in the introduction....which you might want to read.....
I find your answers rather spurious in the usual debunker style.....
if not why refuse specifically to deal with it....?
The call was specifically for such speculation not the debunking of crop circles perse...and the dismissal of all the research which has gone into them....
just a simple postulate to ponder.....

originally posted by: stirling
a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes
You are simply deflecting the point without even informing yourself.....
What about my thread made you think I was lying?
There were pulenty of disclaimers in the introduction....which you might want to read.....
I find your answers rather spurious in the usual debunker style.....
if not why refuse specifically to deal with it....?
The call was specifically for such speculation not the debunking of crop circles perse...and the dismissal of all the research which has gone into them....
just a simple postulate to ponder.....

I was not involved in your thread, nor have I specifically mentioned your thread here. You seem to be getting a bit overly-defensive.