Lack of common sense/logic in posts

I've noticed an increase in sensationalist post topics due to the earthquake and subsequent nuclear emergency in Japan.

What gives?

Shouldn't there be a rule on ATS about not making such threads?

Especially threads with titles like "Could x be the sign of x" when the subjects in question are completely unrelated.

It's getting annoying and akin to reading the Weekly World News.

Originally posted by The Sword
I've noticed an increase in sensationalist post topics due to the earthquake and subsequent nuclear emergency in Japan.

What gives?

Shouldn't there be a rule on ATS about not making such threads?

Especially threads with titles like "Could x be the sign of x" when the subjects in question are completely unrelated.

It's getting annoying and akin to reading the Weekly World News.

From my visit on ats so far it appears that "Could x be the sign of x" seems to be about what 99.9% of any conspiracy theory starts out with.

reply to post by The Sword

I get bored with threads complaining about threads..

If you don't like them then don't click on them..

Hmm, maybe I'll take my own advice someday..

reply to post by The Sword


Stop reading it then.

Or, even better, if you don't agree with what you read do some research and post some facts of your own.

Or would it just be easier to make a rule shutting everyone else up?

You mean like threads about dolphins using underwater alien technology to retaliate against Japan?

I think the MOD's need to start acting like MOD's, and clean up the nonsense.

reply to post by MysticPearl


Mods enforce the ATS Terms And Conditions Of Use and facilitate courteous conversation. We are not the arbiters of what is or is not "nonsense". If membership can prove something to be a hoax, then we move the thread to the appropriate forum. Other than that, speculation is encouraged. This is, after all, a place where the fantastic and unbelievable is discussed. Sometimes it is utter bunk. Sometimes it turns out to be true.

Hefficide
ATS Member and moderator

I agree with the OP very strongly.

I sort of agree woth the mod too, but would point out that although speculation is encouraged, who on earth would encourage speculation that eating potato can turn your left knee purple? And that is about as absurd as some of these threads get lol!!!

What I find so peturbatory about some posts, specificaly ones pertaining to the risks of nuclear devastation that may arise from the Japan Disaster, and in more general terms throughout the site, is that the fallacies being assumed by some posters, and OP's , would make themselves clear to those making the errors if they had but rudimentary understanding of the science that they are talking about.
I can assure you , I have no qualifications in the subjects often discussed here, but I have acquired along the road of my life, accurate and widely available information on many subjects, across many feilds. While I understand that because of that, my word holds little weight, I can at least discern ideas of significant merit, from worries surrounding falsehoods. This should be the norm here, and when I first joined, it very much seemed that way.
Nowadays, it does seem as if the general knowledge of some posters and OP's is lacking in the sharp edge which makes the difference between flailing paranoia and informed concern, and although I believe it is important that everybody who has something to say, has the chance to say it, I also believe that outright refusal to re-evaluate ones position when informed by those who have knowledge as well as logic and sense, is detrimental to the cause of denying ignorance, and is RIFE amongst some sectors of the membership.
That said, its important that informed members prevent themselves from becoming aloof when faced with fallacies and confusion. It is by no means the case, that the majority of ill informed posters are incapable of altering thier perceptions to fit reality. In many ways the voicing of flawed opinion is a beacon, a request for new data from some members. I would advocate a friendly and understanding approach when dealing with a clearly under informed post or OP.

So, we should censor posts because YOU don't want to read it? Just stupid. Just because someone doesn't like or understand it, doesn't mean anything. You don't have to read it. I figured it out the first time I joined ats. Find out who the members are that post what you don't want to read, it's usually the same ones, and make sure they didn't author yhe thread. It's fairly simple really. Just like I can avoid concvetsations with idiots in real life.

reply to post by The Sword


common sense is exceedingly rare

Could this thread be the sign of a whole new world forming?

Originally posted by TrueBrit
What I find so peturbatory about some posts, specificaly ones pertaining to the risks of nuclear devastation that may arise from the Japan Disaster, and in more general terms throughout the site, is that the fallacies being assumed by some posters, and OP's , would make themselves clear to those making the errors if they had but rudimentary understanding of the science that they are talking about.
I can assure you , I have no qualifications in the subjects often discussed here, but I have acquired along the road of my life, accurate and widely available information on many subjects, across many feilds. While I understand that because of that, my word holds little weight, I can at least discern ideas of significant merit, from worries surrounding falsehoods. This should be the norm here, and when I first joined, it very much seemed that way.
Nowadays, it does seem as if the general knowledge of some posters and OP's is lacking in the sharp edge which makes the difference between flailing paranoia and informed concern, and although I believe it is important that everybody who has something to say, has the chance to say it, I also believe that outright refusal to re-evaluate ones position when informed by those who have knowledge as well as logic and sense, is detrimental to the cause of denying ignorance, and is RIFE amongst some sectors of the membership.
That said, its important that informed members prevent themselves from becoming aloof when faced with fallacies and confusion. It is by no means the case, that the majority of ill informed posters are incapable of altering thier perceptions to fit reality. In many ways the voicing of flawed opinion is a beacon, a request for new data from some members. I would advocate a friendly and understanding approach when dealing with a clearly under informed post or OP.

Such eloquence and intelligence is a rare pleasure on this site these days.

Originaly posted by Brindle

Could this thread be the sign of a whole new world forming?

Lets hope so!

Originally posted by notsofast
Just like I can avoid concvetsations with idiots in real life.

This particular sentence is priceless.
I love how you call people idiots in the very same sentence that you brutalize the word "conversations".


As far as the lack of common sense and logic in posts....

This doesn't appear to be a new thing.It seems to have gradually happened over the last 6 months or so.I'm not sure if half of these topics are even serious or maybe just cries for attention.They could also be people just trying to get stars and flags.Go take a look at the "prediction" threads people make.If those people are even half way serious they are not only a threat to themselves but to whoever they encounter on a day to day basis when not heavily medicated.


I'm all for free speech but at least make a rule that it has to be coherent and not the ramblings of some waterhead looking for attention.I don't think people need censored but they should have to fit a certain criteria in order to start a thread.

Originally posted by Maka213
I'm all for free speech but at least make a rule that it has to be coherent and not the ramblings of some waterhead looking for attention.I don't think people need censored but they should have to fit a certain criteria in order to start a thread.

In a perfect world, maybe.

This is open source media. All you need is an email address and an opinion. We manage the site to keep everything in compliance with the T&C, to the best of our ability. When it comes to other subjective criteria, each member makes their own determination.

The very best thing you can do with a thread that seems like incoherent rambling to you is ... ignore it. Don't post in it, even to slag it. That'll just bump the thread.

Oh, if the nonsense could be collectively ignored into oblivion what a wonderful world it would be.

On the other hand, if a number of members want to have discussions about lizard people overtaking the news networks, or whales generating tsunamis, etc ad infinitum, they should be free to do it in an environment free of personal attack and incivility. That's the way we've grown, that's the way we intend to operate.

Find a thread that IS worthy of your participation, and go for it. Leave the other stuff alone. Look at it this way, it maybe keeps some of those "waterheads" (your word) out of the threads in which you do have an interest.

Originally posted by yeahright
On the other hand, if a number of members want to have discussions about lizard people overtaking the news networks, or whales generating tsunamis, etc ad infinitum, they should be free to do it in an environment free of personal attack and incivility. That's the way we've grown, that's the way we intend to operate.

Please correct me if i'm wrong but don't people get penalized for posting hoaxes?Isn't posting known lies and obvious BS along the same lines?You and i both know that half of the off the wall stuff being posted is being posted by people who want these almighty stars and flags and or attention and know damn well there is no truth to it but do it anyway.The other half are obviously mentally challenged.


Don't get me wrong,i am not what someone would call a skeptic.I do however think that if someone posts about dolphins attacking a country unless they are "special people" they can't seriously believe it.A hoax is BS spelled differently.

reply to post by Maka213


There's a difference between "what if?" speculation and deliberately posting false info. Skunk Works is a forum for speculation. If someone deliberately posts false info, that's an immediately bannable offense. There's no rule against speculation.

Originally posted by yeahright
reply to post by Maka213

 

There's a difference between "what if?" speculation and deliberately posting false info. Skunk Works is a forum for speculation. If someone deliberately posts false info, that's an immediately bannable offense. There's no rule against speculation.

I see what your saying,i can respect that.I think i'll have some more fun in the dolphin thread though.It did make me giggle like a drunken prom date so i guess it does have it's advantages.