Make the CT forum Members only

superluck

Darwin had a theory of evolution but we don't ask those who believe in it to provide evidence it's true because we understand it's just a theory..nothing more, it doesn't require evidence.

Billions of people on this planet pray and worship symbols that represent their supernatural all powerful God and yet nobody questions their sanity or demands evidence these Gods even exist.

As someone already said, imagine If I were to visit the religious forums every single day and demand evidence their God exists.How long would it be before I was permanently banned? ..Even banned from the site for trolling?

In my opinion, religion is no more than theory, but you may have your own beliefs and find that an offensive inflammatory comment.

I completely agree, it is offensive to suggest a medical condition or question the sanity of someone who believes in God.
If someone wants to believe in God, that's fine, who am I to judge that person?

Well, I find it offensive to constantly defend my belief in a particular Conspiracy Theory, especially when I've made enormous effort
to educate the person who clearly doesn't understand what I'm discussing and is either incapable of absorbing information provided or
simply doesn't want to learn about it.

There's a pattern in the behavior and it appears the only aim is to frustrate the original poster rather than engage in any meaningful debate.

The strategy of a few there consists of asking endless inane questions and when provided with answers, simply ignore and
ridicule more. From an OP perspective, this is extremely frustrating because you're not having a healthy discussion, you're just playing a psychological mind game with these people although I suspect that's the desired effect.

It's not unreasonable for a sceptic to make rebuttal based on the information provided by the original poster.
However, it should be expected the sceptic have a basic understanding of the topic being discussed and doesn't require being spoonfed information for 50+ pages before the topic is locked with multiple infractions or bans.

This CT forum is a joke not because of the content in it, it's complete failure because of abuse towards people who genuinely want to discuss theories without being attacked by the usual crowd that visit the forum daily.

I received a 2 week ban for "personal abuse" because I insinuated the behaviour of regular trolls in the CT forum is because of an underlying medical condition or that they have simply nothing better to do in their spare time.

Arguably there is something missing from their lives otherwise they wouldn't spend it antagonising people on the CT forum...they clearly have no interest in CT what so ever but persist in posting there everyday, no matter what the discussion is and it predictably descends into heated exchange of insults.

It has to be said that these trolls are far from being intellectual in any capacity due to their bizarre behaviour.

It's a mystery to me why any sane person would allocate so many hours of the day to argue, ridicule and mock people with a genuine interest in discussing conspiracy theories.

ken wrote:

Start a thread here Forum Requests and see if you get support for it.

That's a good suggestion but most people who had a genuine interest in CT were permanently banned due to arguments with trolls.

PseudoFamous wrote:

I think making the conspiracy theory forum private would be a terrible idea. If the only posts in there could be about discussing why each theory is true, we would inevitably see the forum devolve into a circlejerk.

Theories are just theories, a conjecture, hypothesis, opinion...it shouldn't necessarily require evidence or evaluation of truth because it's just a theory...

I can see why some people have a hard time understanding quantum mechanics.

That's not directed at you personally PseudoFamous, just a wider observation.

Monty Burnz

I'd be one of the people that certain people would like to see excluded from posting on the CT forum. But I consider many CTs to be absolute fact - we've seen them time and again throughout history. A recent example might be the WMD scandal that was used to justify the Iraq invasion - a deliberate misreading of the facts to present a case that the public would (temporarily) swallow to launch a war.

There are other conspiracy theories that are far less certain but merit serious investigation - JFK is my standard example there.

And then there are the conspiracies that are just totally ridiculous (Obama is the biblical anti-Christ, mystery aeroplanes in the sky are poisoning us all, etc. etc.). We see a lot of these on the CT forum and I do what I can to point out how ridiculous they are using logic and evidence. In return, I'm often accused of 'swallowing propaganda' (most humourously in the current thread about North Korean propaganda) or - in extreme cases - I've been accused of being 'one of them' (i.e. part of the conspiracy).

What is the point of posting about a possible conspiracy if you ignore any factual or logical challenge to it? If the theory is true, it will hold up in the face of such a challenge. If the theory is false, isn't it better that you realise it and bin it?

Of course, some people will persist with things that are plainly not true for their own reasons (how many religions are there in the world today? They can't all be right, can they?) but for the neutral reader, it should become clear which theories stand up in the face of these challenges and which ones don't add up.

Monty Burnz

superluck wrote: »

Darwin had a theory of evolution but we don't ask those who believe in it to provide evidence it's true because we understand it's just a theory..nothing more, it doesn't require evidence.

Well no. Scientific theories do require evidence - ideally mountains of it. Which evolution has.

What you are thinking of is a scientific hypothesis - 'I think that maybe the sun orbits the earth'. Then you go looking for the evidence (multiple observations and experiments) that might prove your hypothesis, and when you have the evidence that supports the hypothesis you have a theory.

We could indeed have a 'conspiracy hypothesis' forum, but it would essentially be no different from a fairy story forum if nobody was asked for any evidence for any of their hypotheses...:)

superluck

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I'd be one of the people that certain people would like to see excluded from posting on the CT forum. But I consider many CTs to be absolute fact - we've seen them time and again throughout history. A recent example might be the WMD scandal that was used to justify the Iraq invasion - a deliberate misreading of the facts to present a case that the public would (temporarily) swallow to launch a war.

There are other conspiracy theories that are far less certain but merit serious investigation - JFK is my standard example there.

And then there are the conspiracies that are just totally ridiculous (Obama is the biblical anti-Christ, mystery aeroplanes in the sky are poisoning us all, etc. etc.). We see a lot of these on the CT forum and I do what I can to point out how ridiculous they are using logic and evidence. In return, I'm often accused of 'swallowing propaganda' (most humourously in the current thread about North Korean propaganda) or - in extreme cases - I've been accused of being 'one of them' (i.e. part of the conspiracy).

I find accusations of working for the government hilarious too but I have absolutely no problem with any of the content being discussed because after all, they're no different from religious beliefs.

I mean, prove how Jesus turned water into wine or fed 5000 people with a few loaves of bread and fish...people believe this stuff and yet nobody questions it what so ever.

What is the point of posting about a possible conspiracy if you ignore any factual or logical challenge to it? If the theory is true, it will hold up in the face of such a challenge. If the theory is false, isn't it better that you realise it and bin it?

Well if we look at religion again, it's been around for thousands of years and there's no evidence any God exists so I don't have a problem if people want to believe the government spreads harmful chemicals in the atmosphere to control weather or kill people with the help of extraterrestrials...it doesn't matter to me, I just overlook it and read something else.

Why must theories be either True or False? Maybe some of it's true and some isn't.

Is Darwins theory true or false? ...we don't know, it's just a theory.

superluck

Well no. Scientific theories do require evidence - ideally mountains of it. Which evolution has.

It's conjecture at best because the information is inconclusive.

How about dinosaurs?, how were scientists able to document the behaviour of dinosaurs?
Did they have a camera crew sent back in time with scientists to monitor them?

It's all just guesswork, theories which can neither be proved or disproved.
Like Quantum physics, something can be both true and false at the same time.

CTs can't necessarily evaluate to true or false, a person can only provide their own opinion based on available evidence and nothing else.
Nobody is right or wrong unless you have all the facts and that's not possible for a CT...hence "Theory"

We could indeed have a 'conspiracy hypothesis' forum, but it would essentially be no different from a fairy story forum if nobody was asked for any evidence for any of their hypotheses.

I'd be open to a sub forum for that but it's up the admins I believe

King Mob

Superluck, when us mean old skeptics are asking you for evidence or proof, we aren't really using the strict scientific senses of the word (though from what you're saying you don't quite get what those are either.)

We are asking you what facts or reasoning convinced you (or otherwise think are convincing) that the theory or part of the is true, or even a plausible possibility.

What precisely is the issue with being asked for this?

And then what if the reasons you have for believing or even entertaining the theory are flawed, or based on information that is incorrect, does this not affect it?

Because this is unfortunately how critical discussion goes. If you are presenting a view point people don't agree with you might have to explain why you do and unless your reasons stand up to scrutiny, as most don't in the CT forum, you're not going to convince anyone and makes you wonder why it's worth discussing in the first place.

superluck

And then what if the reasons you have for believing or even entertaining the theory are flawed, or based on information that is incorrect, does this not affect it?

Do sceptics have a problem understanding words from the English language?
You understand what "Theory" means don't you? Or do I have to fetch that information for you also since all your questions in each and every thread are the exact same...it's almost like you copy/paste the questions from notepad.

We're not discussing subjects of scientific nature so why should we conclude in a discussion if something is true or false?

You're in the wrong forum!
Conspiracy Theories are not conclusive so why don't you do us a favour and find something else to do with your time?

Life is short.

Because this is unfortunately how critical discussion goes. If you are presenting a view point people don't agree with you might have to explain why you do and unless your reasons stand up to scrutiny, as most don't in the CT forum, you're not going to convince anyone and makes you wonder why it's worth discussing in the first place.

Fairly hostile tone you have there.
Indicates a superiority complex.

My estimation is you find pleasure in correcting people, patronising them, making them feel inferior to yourself because you're unhappy with yourself.

There's no need to take your problems out on people in the CT forum who are just discussing theories between themselves.

What harm are they doing to you personally?
Why so serious?

Insect Overlord

superluck wrote: »

Do sceptics have a problem understanding words from the English language?
You understand what "Theory" means don't you? Or do I have to fetch that information for you also since all your questions in each and every thread are the exact same...it's almost like you copy/paste the questions from notepad.

We're not discussing subjects of scientific nature so why should we conclude in a discussion if something is true or false?

Oh, the irony...

the·o·ry   [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]
noun, plural the·o·ries.

a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.

King Mob

superluck wrote: »

[/B]
Do sceptics have a problem understanding words from the English language?
You understand what "Theory" means don't you? Or do I have to fetch that information for you also since all your questions in each and every thread are the exact same...it's almost like you copy/paste the questions from notepad.

We're not discussing subjects of scientific nature so why should we conclude in a discussion if something is true or false?

You're in the wrong forum!
Conspiracy Theories are not conclusive so why don't you do us a favour and find something else to do with your time?

Life is short.

Please refer to the first half of the post.

Superluck, when us mean old skeptics are asking you for evidence or proof, we aren't really using the strict scientific senses of the word (though from what you're saying you don't quite get what those are either.)

We are asking you what facts or reasoning convinced you (or otherwise think are convincing) that the theory or part of the is true, or even a plausible possibility.

If you are not willing to discuss the reasons for your conclusion that the theory/part of the theory is true or at least possible, or are unwilling to entertain the possibility that those reasons are wrong, it's not a discussion.

If you are not concluding it is true, or even concluding that theory is true for the sake of argument, then there is nothing to discuss. As monty pointed out, it would be pretty much the conspiracy fantasy forum where any one could spout out any nonsense they can dream up.

superluck wrote: »

Fairly hostile tone you have there.

I'm not the one making personal attacks and hilariously undermining my own point.

superluck

@Insect Overlord: It's a little more complex than that but thanks for your input, thanks for nothing.

superluck

King Mob wrote: »

Please refer to the first half of the post.


If you are not willing to discuss the reasons for your conclusion that the theory/part of the theory is true or at least possible, or are unwilling to entertain the possibility that those reasons are wrong, it's not a discussion.

What kind of discussion can we have when you don't even understand what's being discussed and have no desire to educate yourself about it, just ask endless inane questions.

I've seen posters make sincere efforts trying to help you understand a topic and you blissfully ignoring the content because of some stupid reason.

If you are not concluding it is true, or even concluding that theory is true for the sake of argument, then there is nothing to discuss. As monty pointed out, it would be pretty much the conspiracy fantasy forum where any one could spout out any nonsense they can dream up.

I've asked you already what your problem is, tell me, what is your problem buddy?
Why are you so obsessed with the CT forum?

I'm not the one making personal attacks and hilariously undermining my own point.

You're very subtle, but there's no point denying it.

superluck

King Mob, you're very judgemental about people posting on the CT forum and you're indirectly responsible for most of the people that genuinely wanted to discuss CT being banned so I hope you're satisfied with those results.

You pretend your questions are sincere but when they're answered sincerely, you just ignore the content and ask more inane questions which clearly shows you to be a time waster.

Maybe you don't see it, but you frustrate people with your own ignorance about the world.

King Mob

superluck wrote: »

What kind of discussion can we have when you don't even understand what's being discussed and have no desire to educate yourself about it, just ask endless inane questions.

I've seen posters make sincere efforts trying to help you understand a topic and you blissfully ignoring the content because of some stupid reason.

You're misunderstanding ignorance with pointed questions which are trying to get at why people are convinced by particular conspiracies.

I'm asking these questions to see if the theories are in actually in any way convincing. It's a way of educating myself.
But if you are going to insist then that I should go read or watch some youtube videos, then it is not a discussion and you don't have any interest in educating people.

superluck wrote: »

I've asked you already what your problem is, tell me, what is your problem buddy?
Why are you so obsessed with the CT forum?

I'm not obsessed, I'm just interested like most of the people who post there (my particular favourite topic being the Moon landings).

But again, you've now just spun off into personal attacks when I've just been making as bland and as in offensive posts as I can.

Attacking me undermines your point entirely.
But somehow this will have been my fault...

superluck

Why can't you watch video content?

King Mob

superluck wrote: »

Why can't you watch video content?

I do watch videos if they seem interesting.

I don't watch videos if they are 10 hour long series and posted instead of discussion or posted in answer to a question with no indication that the answer is in fact included let alone where it is in the multi hour epic.

The odd times I have watched the films posted like that it rarely contained answer that was claimed to be in it.

And the one time I went into a long video in point by point detail, most of my points were ignored.

Further I'm just not as interested the conclusions of the people in the film as I am with people who I might be able to discuss it with.

If you just want to post videos rather than discuss stuff, there's a thread in CT for that too.

superluck

Most Youtube videos are about 10 minutes long, usually less so they can't all be useless.

Anyway, the point I'm making is that if someone wants to post in a thread Obama is the anti christ, bilderbergers are trying to kill us all or aliens are heating up the planet to make it more inhabitable for lizard people, then that should be allowed and those people shouldn't be ridiculed for not providing evidence.

So would you agree that a sub forum might resolve some of the past issues?

Would it make you happy to have 1 forum that deals with what you feel is fantasy and another that's backed up by evidence as Monty suggested?

King Mob

superluck wrote: »

Anyway, the point I'm making is that if someone wants to post in a thread Obama is the anti christ, bilderbergers are trying to kill us all or aliens are heating up the planet to make it more inhabitable for lizard people, then that should be allowed.

And who said it's not allowed. They can post that stuff all they like. But putting their ideas on an open forum means they might have to see people disagree with them and even ask them why they believe in something so fantastic.
Your point is that you wish to forbid a certain viewpoint.

The fact you are posting these examples as silly suggestions when some people on the forum actually believe stuff like it is a fruedian admission that you are dismissing conspiracy theories without "educating yourself" about them.

superluck wrote: »

So would you agree that a sub forum might resolve some of the past issues?

Would it make you happy to have 1 forum that deals with what you feel is fantasy and another that's backed up by evidence as Monty suggested?

No, because 1) it would just freeze up any meaningful discussion and the forum would just become a bunch of threads of youtube links and mini blogs and 2) it would be hypocritical for the idea of a forum that houses free discussion about how people might be conspiring to remove your freedoms to have areas where only certain types of opinion are allowed.

And again, I point out there is and has been for some time a provision in the charter that allows people to exclude certain viewpoints in a thread within reason.
But few have used this and I hope It's because people realise how silly and hypocritical that it.

superluck

I believe the world is controlled by wealthy bankers but you disagree with this...so all I can say is we agree to disagree and leave it at that, how would you feel then?

How do you feel about the billions of people that believe in God?
Should you not be preaching to them about the lack of evidence to prove a God even exists?

King Mob

superluck wrote: »

I believe the world is controlled by wealthy bankers but you disagree with this...so all I can say is we agree to disagree and leave it at that, how would you feel then?

Like no discussion actually took place, neither of us learned anything either about the truth or about each others opinions or what they were based on.

That would be a terrible forum.

But what if I asked you what lead you to this belief? What do you think supports it? What if I tried to follow your logic, but found a problem with it, perhaps you had already considered that problem and had a solution to it consistent with a theory.
Answering these posed questions is a discussion.

But then what happens if I did believe the same thing, but believed that it was a different set of bankers? Who's opinion should not be questioned? What would there be to discuss if we don't agree on who's behind it all?

There's nothing about the lines of discussion I suggested above that means it can't be followed in this example as well. But by your rules they would not be allowed because they would involve questioning why your believe something.

superluck wrote: »

How do you feel about the billions of people that believe in God?
Should you not be preaching to them about the lack of evidence to prove a God even exists?

You mean perhaps post about it on say like the Atheist and Agnostic forum when religious people post their opinions there?

superluck

I've studied financial issues for over 4 years now and I know the world is controlled by bankers.

There's evidence all around us that bankers rule the world, far too much in fact that i apologise for saying makes your question seem senseless.

I asked a question on the CT forum in relation to private banks having control of central banks because there is a difference and it's easy to get confused with the difference.

Central banks are supposed to be owned by the people, they create money which the government uses to pay it's employees and then the employees can deposit that money in a private bank. The private bank can then issue it's own loans based on it's capital reserves.

Today however, the government must borrow from the central bank with an interest rate.
Not only that, but the private banks can borrow from the central bank at 0% and lend to the government at 2.5% for a 30 year T Bond. (in the states of course)

This isn't the way it's supposed to work but people seem to ignore it and can't answer why the government is borrowing money from private banks at 2.5% when those private banks are borrowing from the central bank at 0%

Nobody has properly addressed this and I doubt anyone will without conceding that private banks are in control of the central banks and therefore, private banks control the world....because they are the only people that can create money now and are holding governments/countries to ransom.

King Mob

superluck wrote: »

I've studied financial issues for over 4 years now and I know the world is controlled by bankers.

There's evidence all around us that bankers rule the world, far too much in fact that i apologise for saying makes your question seem senseless.

I asked a question on the CT forum in relation to private banks having control of central banks because there is a difference and it's easy to get confused with the difference.

Central banks are supposed to be owned by the people, they create money which the government uses to pay it's employees and then the employees can deposit that money in a private bank. The private bank can then issue it's own loans based on it's capital reserves.

Today however, the government must borrow from the central bank with an interest rate.
Not only that, but the private banks can borrow from the central bank at 0% and lend to the government at 2.5% for a 30 year T Bond.

This isn't the way it's supposed to work but people seem to ignore it and can't answer why the government is borrowing money from private banks at 2.5% when those private banks are borrowing from the central bank at 0%

Nobody has properly addressed this and I doubt anyone will without conceding that private banks are in control of the central banks and therefore, private banks control the world....because they are the only people that can create money now and are holding governments/countries to ransom.

See this completely random and off topic ramble is more suited to a blog than a discussion board.
It doesn't answer my point at all as I was just using analogy that you used rather than making a statement about who may or may not control the world.

The content of the theory is irrelevant to the point I'm making. The point is that even if two conspiracy theorists agreed on a conspiracy, they can still disagree on points about it and that the only way to engage in any sort of discussion would require them to resort to the type of posting you wish to forbid or section off ie. asking why they believe what they do.

looksee

King Mob wrote: »

And who said it's not allowed. They can post that stuff all they like. But putting their ideas on an open forum means they might have to see people disagree with them and even ask them why they believe in something so fantastic.
Your point is that you wish to forbid a certain viewpoint.

The fact you are posting these examples as silly suggestions when some people on the forum actually believe stuff like it is a fruedian admission that you are dismissing conspiracy theories without "educating yourself" about them.

There's no wonder the CT forum gets into rows! Superluck a point has been put to you here in response to your observations. You have not made any attempt to answer it though and have just gone off into an irrelevant ramble about bankers.

Can you not see the difference between discussing the CT forum and trying to divert the discussion into a debate about a particular theory?

Of course I could reveal that Boards was set up with the sole purpose of disproving some of these dangerous facts that CT contributors are trying to tell us about.

The people proposing that the forum should be private are actually government agents who are afraid that too much information is being revealed to the public, and they want to contain it as much as possible. The people with the inside information are to be kept separate and membership of the forum controlled.

I give this proposal a big -1 in the interests of truth and the freedom of knowledge - I'm on to you, you secret agents, you shall not confine this wisdom within a locked forum!

Brown Bomber

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I'd be one of the people that certain people would like to see excluded from posting on the CT forum..

I'd just like to say that I'm definitely not one of them FWIW. I personally think your a positive member of the forum. In fact, I wouldn't like to see anyone exlcluded from the forum so while I'd be against a private forum I'd be in a favour of a sub-forum or forum name change even.

Brown Bomber

Insect Overlord wrote: »

Oh, the irony...

Well you have to understand the broader meaning of "Conspiracy Theory". It is not Conspiracy+Theory. It is a (perjorative) catch-all term that includes virtually anything that is beyond the pale and the associated culture(s).

If "conspiracy theory" is to mean a form of peer-review then we're on a hiding to nothing, the forum loses all relevance.

There is no freedom to discuss anything speculatively or generally. Can you imagine if in the religion forum they were constantly badgered to prove that there was a God before being able to discuss anything else?

The religious forum(s) primarily cater for the religious (with some religious mods). The atheist forum primarily caters for atheists (with atheist mods) The spiritualíty primarily caters for the spiritually minded (with likeminded mods) The paranormal forum primarily caters for those with beliefs in the paranormal (with like minded mods) Even Irish Skeptics caters primarily for those who are skeptically minded (with skeptic mods).

On the other hand Conspiracy theories doesn¨t cater primarily for those who are conspiratorially minded nor have have mods of the same,

Perhaps the forum should be renamed to "conspiracies" to avoid this confusion? With perhaps a "conspiracy theorising" sub-forum for those who want to go at it hammer & tongs?

Monty Burnz

superluck wrote: »

I've studied financial issues for over 4 years now and I know the world is controlled by bankers.

There's evidence all around us that bankers rule the world, far too much in fact that i apologise for saying makes your question seem senseless.

I asked a question on the CT forum in relation to private banks having control of central banks because there is a difference and it's easy to get confused with the difference.

Central banks are supposed to be owned by the people, they create money which the government uses to pay it's employees and then the employees can deposit that money in a private bank. The private bank can then issue it's own loans based on it's capital reserves.

Today however, the government must borrow from the central bank with an interest rate.
Not only that, but the private banks can borrow from the central bank at 0% and lend to the government at 2.5% for a 30 year T Bond. (in the states of course)

This isn't the way it's supposed to work but people seem to ignore it and can't answer why the government is borrowing money from private banks at 2.5% when those private banks are borrowing from the central bank at 0%

Nobody has properly addressed this and I doubt anyone will without conceding that private banks are in control of the central banks and therefore, private banks control the world....because they are the only people that can create money now and are holding governments/countries to ransom.

Hi Superluck - just on this issue, you have the purpose of a central bank wrong. The Central Bank's role is not to print money for the government, it is to act as a bank to the privately owned banks and government, and to act as a lender of last reserve.

The reason that Central Banks don't (or don't in a properly working country) lend to the government at zero interest, or print money to 'give' the government, is because this would lead to hyperinflation unless the government was amazingly disciplined, and hyperinflation is an economic disaster - especially for the poor.

humanji

looksee wrote: »

I don't go on the CT forum because I know I would find it too irritating, so I just stay out. However. If I post in the Christianity forum I can offer opinions just provided I am not saying 'Christianity is rubbish' or 'If you believe that you believe anything'. You are not supposed to force Christians to keep defending their faith in a general sense. Fair enough. (It is of course the ultimate CT )

So why can't people who post in CT have to stick to the actual argument instead of making generalised anti CT remarks? It is a forum for theories, but you should be able to offer some basis for your argument for or against.

The problem is that nobody who uses the forum is going to change their opinion on a theory. Many times the evidence for a theory has been proven correct and the person who put forward that evidence refuses to accept it. Likewise, there's been many times when sceptics have been unable to prove evidence wrong, but have refused to concede.

There are very few threads in that forum that go along the lines of "Could this be a theory?". They usually go along the lines of "This is a theory" and one side argues for and one side argues against. Not many people try and come from a middle point to weigh up the pros and cons.

There's an important part of the forum charter that comes into play:

Charter wrote:

There should be a reasonable give-and-take in terms of how strongly someone expresses a belief in the truth (or falsity) of something, and how others react to it.

For example, if you state that something is a fact, then it's not unreasonable for someone to ask you to show that there is a strong basis for making such a claim. Conversely, if you state that you personally tend to favour one interpretation over another, it would be unreasonable for someone to ask you to prove your stance to be correct.

And this is mostly the cause of arguments. Someone claims something as fact (either for or against a theory), can't back it up, but refuses to accept the possibility of being wrong. Others try and argue against them, nobody is willing to budge, and the thread descends into stupidity.

Tzar Chasm wrote: »

THIS +++++++++++++++ Billions

I've been lurking/posting in the CT forum for a bit now, and this is the Problem, I was under the impression that there was a general Site wide rule on boards of Attack the post not the poster, however all too often the poster or the Source of the material that the poster uses are ridiculed mocked or derided instead of people engaging with the content of the post.

This came up again today as someone called Run to the Hills has posted a rather interesting Documentary on Propaganda which purports to have been created in the DPRK by 'the Glorious Leader' for the edification of his populace.

However rather than a discusion on the rather interesting film there is a discussion on the Posters motives for posting the Film.

This happens a lot, I happenend to be one of the first respondnats to the thread this time around which is why I got sucked into the discussion but normally I find that a thread s already at the second page of tit for tat before I come upon the discussion,
which puts me of from voicing an opinion on the subject as I would deem it pointles to engage in a thread which has already been derailed by what seems to be long standing fueds amongst posters that I find dull, petty and childish.

And you're the only one who did the right thing with regards that thread and reported the posts. Unfortunately there were no mods about at the time to sort it out, so I've to go through it deleting and infracting as I go.

When discussing evidence, it's important to discuss who is providing that evidence. As you've said, the problem arises when people decide not to even review the evidence and only go by who provided that. And that's something the mods will be sorting out shortly.


With regards to the rest of the thread, it's too awkward to be picking and choosing so I'll just make a number of points:

1) Superluck, although you were wrong to bring up evolution as an example of a theory, as a scientific theory is different to a layman's theory, the general point you were making was correct. The forum discussed unproven theories in general. And the Charter even makes this distinction. But as I mentioned above, many claim a theory as fact, and that is fair game for questioning.

2) There's no point bringing up the religious forums, as they are a different format and are there for a different reason. It's simply not comparable. They are not there to discuss if their religion is right or wrong. The CT forum is for discussing conspiracy theories, not discussing why these theories are right.

3) In regards to point one, many people prefer to argue against one tiny remark rather than the bigger picture, in this case the definitions of theories. It's petty and isn't adding to the discussion. But many people refuse to simply ignore people who are bothering them like this. I really don't understand why this is so difficult for some people. Just let it go and move on. If someone's badgering you, but you ignore them, they'll move on as they're not getting a rise out of you.

4) Insulting people isn't a valid way to discuss a point.

5) As I said before, I'm 100% against a forum or sub-forum that excludes people. It goes against the principle of this site. There might be something to a sub-forum for theories and conspiracies are posted in the main forum, but who decides which is which? How much proof is needed to be able to say it's no longer a wild theory?

6) From the charter:

Charter wrote:

If you want to start a thread which explicitly excludes certain viewpoints, please contact the mods by PM to discuss it beforehand.

So we have offered the facility to allow some threads to a viewpoint to be excluded. I don't remember if this has ever been used, though. I'm also wary that it will be abused by people asking for all their threads to exclude sceptics, etc. But we've had no precedent to test it with.

7) A lot of the problems can simply be solved by stating that something is a belief and not a fact. And this stems from people refusing to accept that they could be wrong. For example, those who believe 9/11 was an inside job refuse to accept that this could be false, and those who oppose the theory refuse to accept that this could be true. If people were more willing to view other angles of a problem, they'll come up with a more satisfying solution. The worst it can do is give you something else to think about, and the best it can do is reinforce your original belief.

Sarky

superluck wrote: »

Darwin had a theory of evolution but we don't ask those who believe in it to provide evidence it's true because we understand it's just a theory..nothing more, it doesn't require evidence.

just a theory

just a theory

My name is URL

It's a CT forum, it doesn't pretend to be anything other than that. People who post there the most often are under no illusion as to what a 'CT' means within 'CT' circles. Many of the more vocal, and some drive-by posters are all too happy to see it as a place for crackpots and one where illogical thought is commonplace.. and you know what, maybe they're right.

So what is this forum trying to be, exactly? Is it a place where only the logical, rational and cogent are acceptable forms of discourse or is it, as with all other forums which cater for those into CTs, a place where they can discuss freely and without the threat of being brow beaten into submission? Has anyone ever had their minds changed in a thread there? Has anyone ever turned around and said 'ya know what, I was wrong and you're right'?.. for the most argumentative of places on Boards it happens extremely rarely, if ever.

Honestly, if the people who start threads there wanted to do so while at the same time providing undeniable evidence to back up their claims then why does it need to be in the CT forum? Why not History, Sociology, Science or Politics? What's the point in having a bloody CT forum at all?

I used to browse the forum and post in it quite a bit but not any more, it's become so tedious that I've lost interest in even looking at it. It's got to be the most hostile, unwelcoming and monotonous forum on Boards.. the same two polar opposite sets of people end up arguing ad nauseam in every thread. Stop trying to be all things to all people. It's is either a place for debunking or for freely discussing stuff without being dependent on strict logic, if it's both then it's neither, and doesn't serve much of a purpose for anything.

Having said all that, I don't think it should be made private. It'd be better to close the forum completely.

hooradiation

My name is URL wrote: »

Having said all that, I don't think it should be made private. It'd be better to close the forum completely.

Seems fair to me.

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

There is no freedom to discuss anything speculatively or generally.

Yes there is.
1) by simply stating it's speculative and that you don't actually hold the theory as fact. You still might have people curious about why you hold such a thing to be plausible, but that's part of discussion.
2) By availing of the part of the charter that allows you to exclude undesirable viewpoints from the thread, within reason.

But if you are unwilling to discuss why you believe something (ie provide the evidence you used to reach your conclusion) then there's very few if any lines of discussion left open.