Dealing with 9/11 Madness (argumentum ad hominem veritas)

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


i find that commendable.
one jref is enough.

Are you guys not enforcing your civility rules? Because it seems like the skeptics can get away with just about any uncivilized behavior they want.

It's funny how people on both sides of the debate accuse the other side of being uncivil, rude and ignorant. But in the case of 9/11, skeptics, come the hell on guys. I can understand being skeptical about issues that are unproven, in fact I understand it so well that I am one. But being a skeptic for skepticism's sake, throwing out an encyclopedia of evidence, or taking each individual piece of evidence alone and explaining it away, is just goofy.

The skeptic's version of what happened on 9/11 is exponentially more ridiculous than what actually happened that day. Skepticism for skepticism's sake is playing games with your own life. What happened on 911 was not a game... it was a wargame gone "wrong."

So when is this "truther" word finally going to fall under the category of "Ad Hominem" or be applicable under the rules of grouping people without referencing? I'm not a truther, I'm damned sure not a twoofer, and I'm not too comfortable sitting back watching the rules take sides on the issue. You guys claim this extra scrutiny is from a desire to deal with Ad Hominem Attacks, but don't mind folks calling your members twofers when it's painfully obivous that is intended as an insult? How does that work ATS?

[edit on 15-9-2009 by twitchy]

reply to post by Majic


THANK YOU FOR SALUTING ME!!!

Originally posted by weedwhacker


I value the creation of this thread, under the conditions that have been established.

I'm not terribly conversant in Latin...but I see two words there, one is 'argue' and the other is 'truth'.

'ad hominem' is a phrase I've seen before...hey, I'm winging it here!...

'homo' is man...or single...so, is "argumentum ad hominem veritas" possibly translated as "No single argument is truth"???

.
Really, I tried this on my own, no help from Google...just thought it would be fun...

Sheesh...oops, off thread....sorry. Or is it? The heading was 'Dealing with 9/11 Madness'. Here's my question....WHY is there any 9/11 'Madness' to deal with? Is the 'Madness' referring to Muslim extremism, or to 9/11 'inside job' conspiracy theories, or to something else?

Was the 9/11 attack just a concerted, co-ordinated attack, ala the USS Cole? Or, was it somehow an orchestrated event envisioned and carried out by members of the current US Administration (or shadow government, if you will)??

So...let's decide......"Inside Job" or "Act of Terrorism"

That, after all, is the question here. The question of 'Madness' can be decided later.....

Jg hossafats weed I would have never in a life time thought that I would ever agree with you. Untill this last post of yours.
I hope your Latin is good enough to keep both of us on topic.

The evidences are just waayy to obvious!

Sadly enough in the world of clashing schemata Ad Hominem is the most readily available weapon.....

I might be a bit off topic since I tend to quick read everything. The World Trade Center was bombed. I have the proof, but I don't have enough of a post count to post it just yet. The plane didn't take the tower down, the bombs did.

Originally posted by twitchy
So when is this "truther" word finally going to fall under the category of "Ad Hominem" or be applicable under the rules of grouping people without referencing?

Or even just "troofer" or "twoofer." I've been wondering the same thing.

I haven't really seen anyone address this. As far as I know, it's a gray area.

Unless I call myself a "truther" though, which has never seriously happened, then I shouldn't expect to be slapped with the label and sucked into a mass grouping with everyone else that I don't even know. For purposes of blanket insults of course. Because the only people who really use the term "truther" anyway are the ones arguing with "us."

Personally I find "troofer" or "twoofer." to be very offensive and not in spirit at all with ATS and its ideals.

reply to post by talisman


Agree. I don't care for any of the labels. I could add to that: duhbunker, shill, disinfo agent, denier and even believer. If a person labels themselves in some manner, then fine. Otherwise, it's a tawdry attempt to cubbyhole someone's opinion with others and thereby discredit them.

We should be better than that. We should be able to exchange ideas and evidence without referencing someone or their personality, or indirectly by inferring they fit within a label of some sort.

I think that's the primary reason why some choose to rarely participate in the 9/11 threads........ it's true for me, at least; not a fear of confrontation or anything else, just more a recognition that the hyperbole has gotten above chest-high.

[edit to add: denier] *sigh*

[edit on 22/9/09 by argentus]

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


THANK YOU

This is the current status.

I complained concerning a thread yesterday, that called the search for truth---- "twoofers-garbage" and then an insult to those who found some interest in the thread--- "deluded fanboys."

Nothing was done.

It seems the "Spirit" of ATS has changed.

Here is the POST


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Hay Turbo,

Reheat Since you're propagating twoofer garbage, why don't you explain to your equally deluded fanboys what the hay GPS has to do with remote control?

reply to post by talisman


I've also complained about a couple of more extreme cases but similarly not much/nothing was done as a result.

I know these complaints go off to a moderator forum. I suspect moderators have even had this same discussion, and had to draw the line somewhere. And I get the feeling that the line stops just short of moderating "twoofer," even though it's an obvious insult and I fail to see why it wouldn't fall under the moderation policy.

To date my attitude has just been "fight fire with fire" while aiming to avoid moderation myself, and reporting more extreme violations. I realize how petty all of this sounds, but I actually take exchanges on this forum fairly seriously and consider it an information "war" of sorts. This is reality, after all, and we are each real people behind these usernames and posts, so don't think for a second what people think here has no ripple-effect anywhere else.

reply to post by bsbray11


Your correct, I am no better although I think certain people, like reheat get away with a lot, so I take it case by case as well. If it is out of the ordinary so be it or if there is that line that is hard to define I suppose we have to deal with it.




[edit on 28-9-2009 by talisman]

Just a thought on the 911 lies that are still keeping our troops in harms way Donald Rumsfeld in a press confrence stated they shot flight 93 down and a day or just a couple days befor 911 Donald Rumsfeld also mentioned that the pentagon had lost 2.3 trillion dollars in just 1 year so keep on believing the lies given to the sheeple also those news clips keep getting removed from youtube also comments are getting farmed by you big brother on youtube )o

reply to post by bsbray11

Originally posted by bsbray11
I've also complained about a couple of more extreme cases but similarly not much/nothing was done as a result.

Did you protest the "Caricaturizing one's opponents doesn't help 9/11 discussions" thread? It was deleted today, much to my chagrin. I think there should be -somewhere- where we are allowed to talk in a civilized manner concerning differences we have with others so that this can be resolved instead of just letting differences fester, and that thread was my effort to create such a space. Perhaps this thread is the place for it though.

Originally posted by bsbray11
I know these complaints go off to a moderator forum. I suspect moderators have even had this same discussion, and had to draw the line somewhere. And I get the feeling that the line stops just short of moderating "twoofer," even though it's an obvious insult and I fail to see why it wouldn't fall under the moderation policy.

I agree, that does sound unnecessarily insulting.

Originally posted by bsbray11
To date my attitude has just been "fight fire with fire" while aiming to avoid moderation myself, and reporting more extreme violations. I realize how petty all of this sounds, but I actually take exchanges on this forum fairly seriously and consider it an information "war" of sorts. This is reality, after all, and we are each real people behind these usernames and posts, so don't think for a second what people think here has no ripple-effect anywhere else.

I think that Watcher in the Shadows pointed out how you yourself have fallen to insulting others, when you labelled the Germans who were fooled by Hitler as "stupid". I don't like using the term at all, and I definitely see it worse then "twoofers". Granted, Watcher in the Shadows may have said a few rough things against you as well, but I defended his initial point anyway. I've certainly been called some things myself, -by- people who believe that 9/11 was an inside job, even though I myself am one of them. I was finally responding to some rather nasty ones today from some in this group in that very thread when the entire 60+ post thread was deleted and even references to the responses I made were OTed.

Originally posted by scott3x
I think that Watcher in the Shadows pointed out how you yourself have fallen to insulting others, when you labelled the Germans who were fooled by Hitler as "stupid".

Hmm. Well, if you think that's an insult, so be it. I'd rather like to think of it as a fact, considering what they allowed to happen to the Jews and homosexuals and gypsies and all. Unless you think those things can be chalked up to just a difference of opinions. If so, I can only agree to disagree with you on that.

A couple of us reached some conclusion above that a certain level of ad hom is apparently allowed in the 9/11 forums despite the warnings all over it. So it's pretty much just saying whatever you want within the intuitive bounds of what will be moderated and what won't. Above all else, I think I'm going to have to side with Crowley: Do what you will is the whole of the law.

Reply to post by bsbray11

I know we buried this between us but I have to say: Yes, but, how hypocritical to do unto others what you hate being done to you?


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com