Something needs to be done about the conspiracy theories forum

I don't give a fúck what a posters position is and you are assuming I do.

What I do care about is honest debate and transparent discussion. If I make a claim, I'll support it with available evidence and lay out my thinking.

It's a standard in debate that one opens their position with same.

If an OP doesn't or can't? The should be called out on it and their hypothesis afforded zero credibility until they do.

It's not that hard to present a cogent argument, with the circumstances and thinking laid out, to develop an actual theory.

Much of what's wrong with the CT forum isn't people asking questions or rubbishing claims. It's the lack of theory and the preponderance of ill-thought hypothesis.

Still waiting for some one to answer the questions I asked:

Or a comment on the idea proposed by nullzero and sydthebeat.

Also out of curiousity since Markus popped in:

Most recently in a thread he fabricated an image and claimed it was a real one he found on google. This was only exposed by people asking him where the image came from.

How do people propose dealing with something like this if we aren't allowed to ask questions?

Should we have just pretended that the image was real? Should this kind of behaviour be allowed because it supports the conspiracy theory?

That actually what a lot of threads are.

You can try it and if you don't like it, un-ignore them.

Its not really though, for example...

Doesn't make a lot of sense, since there was long of evidence of persecution and even official policy.

Usually for a good conspiracy you have a lot of circumstantial evidence. That's what makes it plausible.

A conspiracy theory has no such basis... A conspiracy theory is not the same as a conspiracy

Wiki etc.

I think the lines are getting blurred between a conspiracy theory and conspiracy. I think people think they are talking about a conspiracy theory, but are in fact talking about conspiracies, some of which can be very negative, even harmful. They are trying to defend a conspiracy with circular reasoning which won't work if there's a wealth of evidence.

But why does asking people to explain their theory more or asking why they believe something "ruin" the thread?

Here's the thread about how all space flight is fake: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058161764/we-landed-on-mars-again-mod-note-post-1/p1

Could you point out some examples of where skeptics ask unfair or off topic questions?

Could you comment on the behaviour of the people proposing the theory also? Was that acceptable?

People keep saying conspiracy theorists are "badgered for proof" or they are being asked unfair or off topic questions.

I'm saying this isn't the case.

At the same time, no one complaining seems all that concerned about the behaviors of some conspiracy theorists that absolutely do kill discussion.

Here's a perfect example:

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/116894087#Comment_116894087

Here we have a conspiracy theorist listing a bunch of questions and stating:

Is this acceptable?

Then I did answer all of those questions directly, clearly and concisely with references and evidence. I did so with every follow up question he demanded.

How many questions did I, the skeptic that everyone says "badgers people", ask? One. That question wasn't a demand for proof or even evidence. It was asking him to further explain his conspiracy theory. A question we still have not actually seen an answer to.

Is this acceptable?

A lot of this thread reads like “I have a personal dislike for King Mob because he asks me questions I don’t like and it puts me out of me comfort zone”.

I don’t understand why people wouldn’t answer questions requesting them to explain their conspiracy theory unless they are built on water and the person proposing it knows it.

Indeed, on the surface some of these are the "harmless silly conspiracies", but underneath, these individuals are frequently anti-science and you often find them pushing anti-vaccination views, Covid denial, etc, which end up dominating the forum.

It goes without saying that no one's views are so holy they need to be protected from basic discussion, and given the current circumstances, the last thing anyone needs is medical disinformation being sheltered on the forum.

Again, making false claims about what we want and don't want. All we are looking for here is to have the charter restored and enforced and not have every single thread created in the forum spammed to death by people who clearly hate conspiracy theories and theorists.

Quote: There isn't a single poster in the conspiracy forum who isn't open to questions, valid criticisms and lively debate

You must be joking. That is exactly what many of the posters in there are not open to, and exactly what they are hoping to get rid of through this thread.

What these posters want is a place where they can spout any nonsense they like and not be challenged on any of it, not have any posters asking pesky questions about evidence or reasons.

A charter that allows unfounded and unchallenged claims isn't fit for purpose.

This is a discussion site, you seem to be vehemently opposed to needing take the basic formulatory step in a discussion of presenting a basis for any theory and then having the hypothesis presented protected from challenge or attack.

There are no sacred cows. If someone proposes a theory it is incumbent upon them to lay out their support for it. Be it circumstantial, inference or any other form. Saying "9/11 was an inside job" isn't a theory, it's an opinion and not even worthy of response other than to ask for evidence.

Saying '9/11 was an inside job"and presenting the evidence that led you that opinion, be it the Hulsey report, the 9/11 report and cherry picking parts to build a narrative or any other amalgamation of evidence is at least a basis for discussion, exchange and challenge for supporters and Skeptics.

Your aim seems to be an arena where no claim is challenged and the discussion of hypothesis can circle amongst like minded people?

That's not how an open discussion works. Nor is it remotely akin to free speech. Free speech is the right to challenge, to oppose and to discuss.

You don’t want questions. That is basically a safe space online. So what I posted is accurate.

Based on your and the other supporting posters opinions. Fighting Tao has made a perfectly valid summation of what you appear to want.

NullZero has recognised the issue and proposed a template. Why not try that for a while and see how it goes?

So you do t want to discuss anything at all? Why have an account on Boards then?