In Defense of Chemtrail Conspiracy Theorists

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
Who the # are you calling "Professional debunkers"?

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
Professional debunker would mean I get paid to do so, but since I don't I am the non professional debunker...sorry to burst your bubble there.

When I said "professional debunkers" I was talking about Mick West and his network of debunking dudes. You know?--Mick West, the owner of metabunk.com, the guy with a website in his own name (mickwest.com...) promoting his "debunking" websites? I was referring to Mick West wannabes who think it's a fair strategy to declare something false and then all evidence gathering proceeds from there. They call this "science," but it's a process that uses science primarily for the sake of confirmation bias. Same thing happens here. In fact, it's like a conspiracy in and of itself.

originally posted by: Petros312

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
Who the # are you calling "Professional debunkers"?

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
Professional debunker would mean I get paid to do so, but since I don't I am the non professional debunker...sorry to burst your bubble there.

When I said "professional debunkers" I was talking about Mick West and his network of debunking dudes. You know?--Mick West, the owner of metabunk.com, the guy with a website in his own name (mickwest.com...) promoting his "debunking" websites? I was referring to Mick West wannabes who think it's a fair strategy to declare something false and then all evidence gathering proceeds from there. They call this "science," but it's a process that uses science primarily for the sake of confirmation bias. Same thing happens here. In fact, it's like a conspiracy in and of itself.

Speaking of tactics and stigmatizing. You may not be aware of it, but isn't that exactly what you're doing here? You have zero evidence that Mick West is being paid for his efforts. But of course that's the only way in which a true believer can explain anyone not agreeing with their precious beliefs.

I've been called a professional debunker myself a couple times. I've also been accused of having multiple accounts and posting under different handles. Of course I'm the only one who REALLY knows whether all this holds any water, but I can tell you that it's very telling that these chemmies seem to get just about EVERYTHING wrong, and one has to wonder how you can be so deluded to such a point..and it's also very entertaining, in a way.

It's such a silly stance to propose that everyone who questions your beliefs has to be a paid shill to do so. I could make the same claim, If I just propose that every chemtrail believer is just a gevernment agent who is trying to make us look up and be scared of clouds, and keep us busy staring at commercial airliners to distract us from real issues.

See how easy that is?

So instead of second guessing people's motives, I think it's a far better exercise to just stick to the facts. Present your evidence if you have any, and if you don't, well, then it's case closed.

originally posted by: payt69
Speaking of tactics and stigmatizing. You may not be aware of it, but isn't that exactly what you're doing here?

-No! The term "professional debunker" was just a descriptor for a Mick West wannabe. That's no tactic.

originally posted by: payt69
Present your evidence if you have any, and if you don't, well, then it's case closed.

Evidence of what? And "case closed" for what?

Do you mean evidence that a contrail contains chemicals that qualify as pollution?

or do you mean evidence that yet ANOTHER debunker has misrepresented what I actually said (this time about Mick West being paid by someone) ?

Do you even know what you're debunking here at this thread or are you on auto-debunking pilot?

a reply to: Petros312

How were you misrepresented? You just confirmed that you called Mick West a professional debunker. That's what you said! So where is your evidence that he is being paid for it? Or are you going to pretend that "professional" means something else, like you did with "chemtrail"?

Well done for picking up the baton for the weakest justification of the term "chemtrail" ever deployed though.

originally posted by: waynos
a reply to: Petros312

How were you misrepresented? You just confirmed that you called Mick West a professional debunker. That's what you said! So where is your evidence that he is being paid for it? Or are you going to pretend that "professional" means something else, like you did with "chemtrail"?

Well done for picking up the baton for the weakest justification of the term "chemtrail" ever deployed though.

I sent you a private message that should explain a lot about the topic.

originally posted by: waynos
a reply to: Petros312
You just confirmed that you called Mick West a professional debunker. That's what you said! So where is your evidence that he is being paid for it?

So this thread is going to further devolve into useless skirmishes?

Mick West has a CAREER as a writer, which is manifested by the "debunking" website that HE OWNS. I do not know if he has any monetary gain from his endeavors, which may very well be possible, but note one definition of the term "professional" is simply:

"of, relating to, or connected with a profession."

Note there is no mention of "being paid." Writers have careers but they are not always paid for their work. Another example of a professional that may or may not be paid for what they do is an activist. Another is a political lobbyist. I could have substituted the term "career oriented debunkers" and it would have had the same intended meaning. Am I making myself clear now or do I need to create a new thread called In Defense of Chemtrail Conspiracy Theorists: Part 7 "Professional Debunkers" ?

You know, I do realize I'm just being played here...

originally posted by: Petros312


I do realize I'm just being played here...

Well, you started it. LOL

Professionals do their thing for money, amateurs do it for the love of it. Like footballers. It really is as simple as that. I do enjoy the way you like to overcomplicate things Petros, it almost looks deliberate.

originally posted by: Petros312

originally posted by: waynos
a reply to: Petros312
You just confirmed that you called Mick West a professional debunker. That's what you said! So where is your evidence that he is being paid for it?

So this thread is going to further devolve into useless skirmishes?

Mick West has a CAREER as a writer, which is manifested by the "debunking" website that HE OWNS. I do not know if he has any monetary gain from his endeavors, which may very well be possible, but note one definition of the term "professional" is simply:

"of, relating to, or connected with a profession."

Note there is no mention of "being paid." Writers have careers but they are not always paid for their work. Another example of a professional that may or may not be paid for what they do is an activist. Another is a political lobbyist. I could have substituted the term "career oriented debunkers" and it would have had the same intended meaning. Am I making myself clear now or do I need to create a new thread called In Defense of Chemtrail Conspiracy Theorists: Part 7 "Professional Debunkers" ?

You know, I do realize I'm just being played here...

Part 7? Why stop at seven? If Stephen King can write over 50 books, I think you could knock out 12 more threads in this series. Maybe you could make one that accuses debunkers of every single fallacy on the link below and give some made up scenario.

Fallacies

I do enjoy the make believe scenarios you use. Might I suggest accusing debunkers of making even more grandiose claims.

a reply to: Petros312

They call this "science," but it's a process that uses science primarily for the sake of confirmation bias.

I think I might understand what you're saying but I'd like to be sure. So, you're saying they use science the way you use doublespeak to support your confirmation bias? Do I have that right?

If you could link to an example in support of your belief it might be helpful. Thanks.

originally posted by: waynos
a reply to: Petros312

How were you misrepresented? You just confirmed that you called Mick West a professional debunker. That's what you said! So where is your evidence that he is being paid for it? Or are you going to pretend that "professional" means something else, like you did with "chemtrail"?

Well done for picking up the baton for the weakest justification of the term "chemtrail" ever deployed though.

To be fair I don't see anything wrong with being a "professional debunker" - removing bunk is something everyone should aspire to.
It surprises me that "believers" think "professional debunker" is some sort of insult - all that tells me is that they are igorant of 1 or 2 (more!) things:

- either they are happy to believe in bunk (and hence don't want any debunking), or they do not know what bunk is!!

- either they are happy to believe in bunk (and hence don't want any debunking), or they do not know what bunk is!!

That about sums it up.

Sent you a PM.

originally posted by: waynos
I do enjoy the way you like to overcomplicate things Petros, it almost looks deliberate.

--Right. That's called "critical thinking," which is something most debunkers can't do.

originally posted by: Petros312

originally posted by: waynos
I do enjoy the way you like to overcomplicate things Petros, it almost looks deliberate.

--Right. That's called "critical thinking," which is something most debunkers can't do.

Actually critical thinking is exactly what is required for debunking - you cannot debunk unless you can recognise bunk, which requires quite a lot of critical thinking.

It is those people who do not debunk that do not think critically - by definition htey simply accept bunk!

As for pollutants in jet exhaust - this has been around for several years now:

a reply to: Petros312

--Right. That's called "critical thinking," which is something most debunkers can't do.

By looking at these threads of yours...I think you have captured that title all by yourself.