Obsessive Debunking Disorder (ODD)?

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by ParanoidAmerican

 

So ignore trolls is the crux of the argument?

Some of us are just too darn feisty for that. I'll gladly accept several point deductions and even risk banishment to speak my mind. This is also why I avoid certain topics. I know what my triggers are. Impulse control has never been my strong suit, but I'm working on it.

I've questioned, at times, whether these trolls are purposefully instigating members in order to get them banished. If so, should they not also be penalized in some way for instigating?

The T & C's here are difficult to follow. I find them a bit constraining, but I understand their purpose and do my best to respect them. I wish there wasn't a double standard that I see here regarding these infractions, but that's a different subject all together.

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by muzzleflash

 

I can't. I know I can't. Is there a trolls anonymous around here? Sometimes I am one, sometimes I feed one.

Hmm...

Sometimes I troll my husband when he gets home from work, lol

He gets me back by putting me on ATS restriction for a few days

Then I go into these weird withdrawals... Sweating, trembling, nightmares, eventual convulsions...
Anyone else?

I think some posters failed to read the article. It basically is saying nothing is positively certain and 'debunkers' who claim to know rarely present facts or the credentials they request of the other-side. It is saying hey theorize it is ok, it does not discuss conjecture. Both CTers and debunkers often fail when they start with the conjecture and/or fail to provide the facts they claim to have.

I defiantly think ODD is a real issue just as extreme CT is with nothing but conjecture.

reply to post by ParanoidAmerican


Of course, the author of the article is deeply into fringier CT. It's another "how dare you question my credulity" rant, just a bit better written than the usual shill-shouting you see.

eta: "not everything is known, therefore magic" is the argument of the intellectually lazy.

reply to post by ParanoidAmerican


ROFL!!!

and all the "sane" have shown up
to obsessively debunk this thread

as they are only interested in what the men in the white coats tell them that which is a ’fact’.

proving only how "sane" they really are



S&F

further recommended reading
Blinded by Scientism

Scientism is the view that all real knowledge is scientific knowledge—that there is no rational, objective form of inquiry that is not a branch of science. There is at least a whiff of scientism in the thinking of those who dismiss ethical objections to cloning or embryonic stem cell research as inherently “anti-science.” There is considerably more than a whiff of it in the work of New Atheist writers like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, who allege that because religion has no scientific foundation (or so they claim) it “therefore” has no rational foundation at all. It is evident even in secular conservative writers like John Derbyshire and Heather MacDonald, whose criticisms of their religious fellow right-wingers are only slightly less condescending than those of Dawkins and co. Indeed, the culture at large seems beholden to an inchoate scientism—“faith” is often pitted against “science” (even by those friendly to the former) as if “science” were synonymous with “reason.”

Despite its adherents’ pose of rationality, scientism has a serious problem: it is either self-refuting or trivial. Take the first horn of this dilemma. The claim that scientism is true is not itself a scientific claim, not something that can be established using scientific methods. Indeed, that science is even a rational form of inquiry (let alone the only rational form of inquiry) is not something that can be established scientifically. For scientific inquiry itself rests on a number of philosophical assumptions: that there is an objective world external to the minds of scientists; that this world is governed by causal regularities; that the human intellect can uncover and accurately describe these regularities; and so forth. Since science presupposes these things, it cannot attempt to justify them without arguing in a circle. And if it cannot even establish that it is a reliable form of inquiry, it can hardly establish that it is the only reliable form. Both tasks would require “getting outside” science altogether and discovering from that extra-scientific vantage point that science conveys an accurate picture of reality—and in the case of scientism, that only science does so.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I don't believe in skeptics, page 1
www.abovetopsecret.com...

That's right: the nerds won, decades ago, and they're now as thoroughly established as any other part of the establishment. And while nerds a relatively new elite, they're overwhelmingly the same as the old: rich, white, male, and desperate to hang onto what they've got. And I have come to realise that skepticism, in their hands, is just another tool to secure and advance their privileged position, and beat down their inferiors. As a skeptic, I was not shoring up the revolutionary barricades: instead, I was cheering on the Tsar's cavalry.

An idea worth censoring: 'The Science Delusion' www.abovetopsecret.com...

The Logical Trickery of the UFO Skeptic www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by ParanoidAmerican

I think some posters failed to read the article. It basically is saying nothing is positively certain and 'debunkers' who claim to know rarely present facts or the credentials they request of the other-side. It is saying hey theorize it is ok, it does not discuss conjecture. Both CTers and debunkers often fail when they start with the conjecture and/or fail to provide the facts they claim to have.

I tried to read it. I could tell he was pissed at someone for popping his bubble.

Debunking is just that. You bring a picture of an underground UFO base and carry on about the secret alien agenda and someone else says oh thats just a picture from a scene in an obscure movie. That ends the thread. It isn't about picking on anyone or denouncing theories of secret underground alien bases. Someone made a claim and backed that with bogus evidence.

People who are offended by that aren't really seeking the truth about anything anyway. Who wants to stoop to that level?

...nothing is positively certain...

Thats like saying, "There is no absolute truth".

Oh? Is that the absolute truth?

reply to post by B1rd1nFL1ghT

Hmm...

Sometimes I troll my husband when he gets home from work, lol

He gets me back by putting me on ATS restriction for a few days

Then I go into these weird withdrawals... Sweating, trembling, nightmares, eventual convulsions...
Anyone else?

Used to. I would run screaming into the woods. Now I just walk my dog a lot. Trees are really green.

You don't live in a town called Stepford, by any chance?

Originally posted by intrptr
"Debunking" isn't the problem, most people are glad to find out the truth about stuff. Its "obsessive denial disorder" that creates problems.

Spot on ! It is also called 'disagreeing with everything you say disorder' .. my brother suffers from this particular ailment - drives me crazy !

reply to post by HelenConway

It is also called 'disagreeing with everything you say disorder' .. my brother suffers from this particular ailment - drives me crazy !

Hopefully he grows out of torturing you.

Pretend that you know he is going to do that every time you walk in the room. Then its not so bad.

I have to say that I don't believe in ODD and think it's hogwash. There is no way that's a real disorder. It's been thoroughly debunked by modern psychological theories.

Truthfully, I'm tired of hearing "swamp gas".

reply to post by Ghost375


Well the fact you think it does not exist is probably proof right there...obsessively denying and debunking even a suggestion that you might be Compulsively responding out of a belief system, not a true fact system.

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by B1rd1nFL1ghT

 

Hmm...

Sometimes I troll my husband when he gets home from work, lol

He gets me back by putting me on ATS restriction for a few days

Then I go into these weird withdrawals... Sweating, trembling, nightmares, eventual convulsions...
Anyone else?

Used to. I would run screaming into the woods. Now I just walk my dog a lot. Trees are really green.

You don't live in a town called Stepford, by any chance?

well, yes, actually...I do

The town of Stepford is one of the only towns where the schools are not filled with gang members. Sad, but true.

I have just came up with a cure for ODD.

Ask questions for a OP's Reasoning first.

Questiions are always good.

Depending on the answer, one can make judgement without being labled as a denier.

Originally posted by ParasuvO
reply to post by Ghost375

 

Well the fact you think it does not exist is probably proof right there...obsessively denying and debunking even a suggestion that you might be Compulsively responding out of a belief system, not a true fact system.

I was just being ironic.

I have noticed a curious phenomenon on ATS that relates to ODD...

Personality conflicts...

Some members, for reasons unknown just hate my guts and no matter what I post; they will invariably take the
opposite view, add a few insults and promptly disappear so I can't respond to them.

It's not just me they respond to in that manner so I can't really feel singled out. It just seems a strange approach to take on a "discussion" forum.

Its funny, the 'theorists' out there had a fit when it was suggested that they be classified with a disorder. But when the other side is the one being labelled, they think it is great.

Good lord, between politics, morals, and this nonsense, I am beginning to think this world is full of nothing but disgusting hypocrites.

So what's the difference between a serial debunker and a disinformation agent?








One of them gets paid to be cranky............

reply to post by muzzleflash

It is when after consecutive unchallenged facts are presented and explained in detail, yet still denied at face value or ignored in spite, that a problem really begins to fester.

Boy you said it. The hardest argument to walk away from is one where you know you are right.

Denying ignorance can be undeniably indignant.

reply to post by B1rd1nFL1ghT

reply by intrptr

 

You don't live in a town called Stepford, by any chance?

well, yes, actually...I do

The town of Stepford is one of the only towns where the schools are not filled with gang members. Sad, but true.

There are kids in Stepford? Oh, thats right. No children either. Yep, no gangs, children, crime... except the crime of Chauvinism. I really dug the first movie when it came out. I thought what an awful place. In the end when Katharine Ross's character was killed and replaced by a compliant copy, I nearly died.