|
|
|
Atheria
New Member
USA
18 Posts |
 Posted - 03/18/2009 : 15:04:35 [Permalink]
|
Ok how much more plainly do any of you want this? If I can not even invoke thought in my opponent or the audience then why should I try. Answer the question.
If you can come up with a reason, then I'll continue. Arguing for argument's sake is something I've done over the internet numerous times. It's agravating even IF I'm in the right, The other person refuses to openly admit either their defeat or their change of mental state. I get no joy or satisfaction b/c there is very little in the way of proof of agreement on the net. So WHY do I have an obligation to continue a debate for which no invocation of thought can be made? For your entertainment?
I also noticed you haven't even commented on the other things in my post about Bush. Is it b/c you deem them too absurd for consideration or for another reason altogether?
~Atheria |
| Edited by - Atheria on 03/18/2009 15:07:24 |
 |
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2009 : 15:12:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Atheria
Is it you folks default position to aggravate others?
|
I'm surprised that you find having your assertions questioned and refuted to be aggravating. Why would you not expect this? Why didn't you address the points made by DaveW? Did you click through to any of the links provided by Kil?
Originally posted by Atheria
I already said I am unwilling to agrue the point with someone I'd never meet in real life. If you were standing right in front of me, and we were discussing it, I'd argue my points till I was blue in the face. I don't back down from debates from someone I can see.
|
If the goal is to establish who is the more polished speaker then face to blue in the face arguments are the way to go. If the goal is to determine whether your assertions are correct, then a written debate is a better choice. Opportunity for thoughtful replies are sure to expose bad ideas.
Originally posted by Atheria
But why should I waste valuable time and energy on a person, whose mind I can not change b/c of the past experiences with idiots touting my banner, for a position, that while I believe in, that you can not entertain thoughts as to it's validity? That is absurd.
|
Yep. That sure would be absurd. Why indeed.  |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2009 : 15:19:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
Originally posted by Halfmooner
"I won't change my mind, and I won't talk about it" is one position to take.
But if you really believe the 9/11 Truth nonsense, you should be willing and able to answer the technical objections to it. Either that, or you should consider abandoning your counter-evidential, counterintuitive notions. |
That's a bit unfair. Not wanting to argue is an entirely valid position to take. Indeed, I have taken it many times on various subjects. Dawkins refuses to debate Creationists, do you criticize him for this?
|
How gentle must I be? I didn't condemn Atheria for not wanting to debate. I've pulled out of arguments here often enough myself, especially when I was in over my head.
By writing "'I won't change my mind, and I won't talk about it' is one position to take," rather than calling him a cowardly quitter (which I don't believe he is), I meant to acknowledge that not debating at all is a legitimate option.
But I also wanted to make clear that's not the only option -- nor is it the best option for someone with such earth-shaking beliefs. Atheria believes some pretty gnarly things went down on 9/11/2001. I think it's important for his sake for him to subject his beliefs to tough criticism, to make sure he's not being mislead.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 03/18/2009 15:24:55 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2009 : 15:20:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Atheria
Ok how much more plainly do any of you want this? If I can not even invoke thought in my opponent or the audience then why should I try. Answer the question.
If you can come up with a reason, then I'll continue. Arguing for argument's sake is something I've done over the internet numerous times. It's agravating even IF I'm in the right, The other person refuses to openly admit either their defeat or their change of mental state. I get no joy or satisfaction b/c there is very little in the way of proof of agreement on the net. So WHY do I have an obligation to continue a debate for which no invocation of thought can be made? For your entertainment?
I also noticed you haven't even commented on the other things in my post about Bush. Is it b/c you deem them too absurd for consideration or for another reason altogether?
~Atheria
|
Atheria, you keep saying that your failure here is a result of the other members being close-minded, but not once have you mentioned the possibility that it is you who are wrong. Maybe the evidence which initially convinced you isn't as strong as you were led to believe. Is that out of the question? Rather than become angry with us for refusing to accept your viewpoints uncritically, why don't you reassess whether your beliefs are actually sound? Of course, no one has any desire to "make" you believe anything. You are free to believe what you want. But most of the people here are interested in the truth. That means we cannot believe anything we want, we must submit our views to open criticism and see if they hold up. I think you're just finding that process to be harder than you bargained for.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Atheria
New Member
USA
18 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2009 : 15:24:36 [Permalink]
|
No having my ideas or assertions refuted isn't aggravating it's what the fun part of debate IS. I read through the links, I even referenced one of Kil's citations in my responses. What do you want, That I bow over and immediately agree?
*sigh* No I do not believe I am wrong, I have considered multiple times the validity of my argument or those of other abducating a simular view, but have found the other side of agruement lacking.
Do you want an explaination as to why? Oh wait that would start the debate again.
I am female btw... I appreciate the worry over my knowledge base and my view of the world. I feel the same about your's but graciously bowing out of a debate does not earn me the rude behavior I've gotten, seriously the sacrasm is not appreciated. |
| Edited by - Atheria on 03/18/2009 15:35:25 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2009 : 15:27:44 [Permalink]
|
Ricky, it's quite clear to me that Dawkins is referring to staged events, i.e. public oral debates in front of packed lecture halls. I can't imagine Dawkins feels that written debates are to be avoided, since that's essentially what publishing in peer-reviewed journals entails. In fact, I think most scientists would encourage creationists to present their arguments in such a format.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2009 : 15:34:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Atheria
But What Halfmoon said after I conceded IS aggravating. That I should abandon my thinking b/c I am un-willing to debate any further a topic that I can not change his mind on is aggravating. Maybe you have met others who will continue to debate OVER THE INTERNET with someone they cannot convince but I am not one of them, under usual circumstances. The unusual circumstance is if I think the audience is receptive, but this has also proven to be false, so I ask again, Why should I continue to debate? |
Nobody's forcing you to do anything. I'd sure like you to continue in a discussion with people here who use critical reasoning, though.
Your beliefs on 9/11 put you mentally into a shadowy, hostile world of huge, weird conspiracies at the highest levels. That has deep implications as to how you should be behaving in response.
I can't emphasize too much how important it is that you consider especially the toughest objections to your beliefs.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2009 : 15:39:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Atheria
The Commissioned report SAYS the South tower fell in ten seconds, yet the very person you cite says not only is the exact time unknowable, but it is most likely over 15 seconds, based on his calculations of basic laws of the conservation of momentum (which I was going to bring up BTW). If this is true then the government is speaking lies, so what assuredness do I have they are telling the truth about anything else to do with the tower's collapse? |
So, debate or not, here is what you should know. The 9/11 Commission Report was never intended to be a technical report. It contains no technical data at all about the buildings collapse. The report was about what lead up to 9-11, agency responses to the crisis, and changes in procedures. It contains no technical information about the causes of the building collapse.
The 9-11 Commission Report
Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Official Government Edition
| The Commission's Final Report provides a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11th, 2001, terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks. It also includes recommendations designed to guard against future attacks. Below you will find the official Government edition of the Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. |
The paragraph on page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report where the ten seconds figure is taken was talking about the firefighters efforts at the site and included some guesses. It wasn't meant to be technical or definitive.
The technical stuff was in the
NIST and the World Trade Center report.
So no, you aren't being lied to, aside from what the “truthers” are telling you, about the time it took for the buildings to collapse. What you are doing is repeating cherry picked evidence from the wrong report, and running with it.
And as for our closed mindedness, perhaps you too should stand back and take a new look at the evidence, eh?
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Atheria
New Member
USA
18 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2009 : 15:42:14 [Permalink]
|
| Nobody's forcing you to do anything |
<snip>
I can't emphasize too much how important it is that you consider especially the toughest objections to your beliefs.
|
So I should continue to debate b/c that's what's best for me? Wow! Never knew ppl could care so much, other than my family.
Seriously folks... what do I respond to that with? |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2009 : 15:46:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Atheria
| Nobody's forcing you to do anything |
<snip>
I can't emphasize too much how important it is that you consider especially the toughest objections to your beliefs.
|
So I should continue to debate b/c that's what's best for me? Wow! Never knew ppl could care so much, other than my family.
Seriously folks... what do I respond to that with?
|
Respond whatever way you like. I do happen to care that people employ critical thinking, oddly enough. I think if you looked closely at most of the comments here, you'd see that others do, too.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2009 : 15:52:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Atheria
What do you want, That I bow over and immediately agree?
|
No I would not expect that, but in more than one post you have accused others of being closed to the possibility that you might be right. I just wanted to be sure that you were equally aware of the possibility that you might be wrong.
Originally posted by Atheria
*sigh* No I do not believe I am wrong, I have considered multiple times the validity of my argument or those of other abducating a simular view, but have found the other side of agruement lacking.
|
Which you have yet to establish in this thread so it's possible that you might be wrong.
|
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2009 : 15:55:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Atheria
So I should continue to debate b/c that's what's best for me? Wow! Never knew ppl could care so much, other than my family. |
Yeah, encouraging skeptical thinking is sort of our thing. We even have a mission statement and everything! The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact. We put it right at the top of the main page.
Seriously folks... what do I respond to that with?
|
Well, that's for you to decide, but I would suggest skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic...
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2009 : 16:09:43 [Permalink]
|
Atheria:
I also noticed you haven't even commented on the other things in my post about Bush. Is it b/c you deem them too absurd for consideration or for another reason altogether? |
Of course not. I stuck with your first point as you requested.
By the way, I hate Bush too and think he was capable of serious deceit and even treason. Well, not just capable. I think he was treasonous. I just don't think he or his administration had the competency to pull off a conspiracy of that magnitude. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Grayven
New Member
19 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2009 : 17:05:43 [Permalink]
|
I thought the 911 truthers were just idiots. But if you frame it around "What Would Bush DO", I'm unsure. Bush and his minions have gone to great lengths to prove their lack of scruples at attaining their idiotic goals. Maybe we should rethink this. Would Cheney have tried to pull this off (yes)? Would he have been competent to do so (prolly not, but who knows)? Did he get the goals that something like this would have helped him get (yes)?
I doubt what most of the truthers say, that this was a demolition rather than a terrorist act. If they merely said that this was terrorism that the US govt let some rogues get away with, I just might buy it.
Of course, Occam's razor points to imcompetence as the simplest explanation. |
|
|
 |
|
Guantanamo detainees say they planned Sept. 11
