On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 12:35:52 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Actually, it depends on the moron. Some people don't change their
> opinion,
> and/or look for real facts, until ***after*** they realize that, "Yeah,
> I guess a lot of people don't agree with my, I wonder why that is?" But,
> its hard to tell the difference between a sheltered fool, and an
> internet troll, since they both tend to babble the same BS, often even
> persistently. Its not until weeks, months, or even years, later, when
> one comes back and says, "You people where the first ones to really
> challenge me, and come right out as say I was being an idiot.", that you
> can tell which is which some times.

Another circumstance in which to have a debate like this is when there's 
actually an audience.  There may be some in the audience who think "this 
guy's got a point" but who haven't spoken up.  By debating it publicly, 
you point out the errors not necessarily for the benefit of the fool 
taking the absurdist position, but for those who might be thinking that 
the fool has a valid point.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Seriously. Anybody stupid enough to believe this in the first place 
> clearly /wants/ to believe it.

Not all believers are stupid. Some of them are quite intelligent and
educated. It can simply be that they have been first lured into believing
it, they have become enamored with the feeling of being "in the loop", of
knowing something that the average person does not, and on top of that are
too stubborn to admit that they might be wrong about it (especially if
they have been holding the belief for a long time).

It's also a form of pseudo-intellectualism: They feel really smart and
intelligent when they think that they cannot be fooled by such a
conspiracy, and that they can spot everything that they are trying to
hide but missed.

The big irony in this is, of course, that they don't realize that they
are actually themselves being deluded and fooled by some clever conspiracy
theorists who have carefully and masterfully built an enormous amount of
material that makes it look like there's something going on, using all
the tricks in the book, plus talented presentation, expression skills and
charisma. They don't realize that they are actually being fed a carefully
cherry-picked selection of all available material, filtered through heavy
doses of plausible-sounding explanations, but which are ultimately just a
diversion.

It's like a magic trick: The magician makes you think you are seeing
something when in fact it's something else completely. You might think
that something just disappeared or appeared in front of your eyes, but
it's just deception. The magician skillfully fools you. He makes you look
somewhere else and abuses all the assumptions you make in order to make
the trick work.

In the case of conspiracy theories, sometimes the theorists deliberately
and maliciously do the fooling with full knowledge and intent, but probably
at least as often it's actually unintentional. They make their own
(mistaken) interpretation of something, they add it to their repertoire,
and then their audience believes the same interpretation. There might not
have been deceitful malice behind the interpretation, but the effect still
ends up being the same: Both the conspiracy theorists and his audience get
fooled.

What separates a true, experienced skeptic from a pseudo-intellectual is
that the former has trained himself to doubt hasty assumptions and alleged
explanations without further evidence and study. The true skeptic thinks
like "ok, that sounds interesting and even plausible, but am I just being
fooled by a cherry-picked red herring? Is there another explanation? Is
there perhaps something I don't know about the technology behind this
that's just deceiving me? Has someone else made a better analysis of this?"

Also, a true skeptic is always ready to admit having been wrong. If a
true skeptic was at some point deluded into believing a conspiracy theory,
but then they study the subject and find out that there's nothing to it,
they do not stubborningly hold to it because they fear admitting being
wrong (even to themselves).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 8/21/2012 2:55 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 12:35:52 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Actually, it depends on the moron. Some people don't change their
>> opinion,
>> and/or look for real facts, until ***after*** they realize that, "Yeah,
>> I guess a lot of people don't agree with my, I wonder why that is?" But,
>> its hard to tell the difference between a sheltered fool, and an
>> internet troll, since they both tend to babble the same BS, often even
>> persistently. Its not until weeks, months, or even years, later, when
>> one comes back and says, "You people where the first ones to really
>> challenge me, and come right out as say I was being an idiot.", that you
>> can tell which is which some times.
>
> Another circumstance in which to have a debate like this is when there's
> actually an audience.  There may be some in the audience who think "this
> guy's got a point" but who haven't spoken up.  By debating it publicly,
> you point out the errors not necessarily for the benefit of the fool
> taking the absurdist position, but for those who might be thinking that
> the fool has a valid point.
>
> Jim
>
Actually, most people who are serious about something that religion 
apposes avoid public "debates" like the plague. Why? Because they can 
trot out 500 bits of nonsense, and you have either a) no time to address 
them all, or b) to pick one, which you think is the most important, to 
address. After which, they can just declare that you failed to address 
the other 499 bullshit statements they made. There is no such thing as a 
"public debate" in such contexts, its virtually always a trap, to allow 
creationists, or the like to promote a long laundry list of gibberish 
statements and positions, and then claim victory, because, instead of an 
entire day to address everything that is wrong with everything they 
claimed, they only have the same 15 minutes the ass making the claims did.

That is the advantage to forums, instead of live debates. As long as the 
moderator is honest, and not deleting comments, etc., there is no time 
limits on how long someone has to spend refuting all claims, and people 
making them. In a public debate, everything from the time limits, to the 
audience, are often intentionally stacked against you, and the number of 
claim that must be dealt with, may as well be infinite.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 19:52:08 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Actually, most people who are serious about something that religion
> apposes avoid public "debates" like the plague. Why? Because they can
> trot out 500 bits of nonsense, and you have either a) no time to address
> them all, or b) to pick one, which you think is the most important, to
> address.

Of course, that's the reason Richard Dawkins doesn't debate 
creationists.  Well, that and he thinks they're idiots not worth his 
time.  He once said a friend of his said, in response to a request from a 
creationist for a debate, "well, that'd look good on your CV, not so good 
on mine."  His friend declined as well.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 8/22/2012 10:23 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 19:52:08 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Actually, most people who are serious about something that religion
>> apposes avoid public "debates" like the plague. Why? Because they can
>> trot out 500 bits of nonsense, and you have either a) no time to address
>> them all, or b) to pick one, which you think is the most important, to
>> address.
>
> Of course, that's the reason Richard Dawkins doesn't debate
> creationists.  Well, that and he thinks they're idiots not worth his
> time.  He once said a friend of his said, in response to a request from a
> creationist for a debate, "well, that'd look good on your CV, not so good
> on mine."  His friend declined as well.
>
> Jim
>
Funny thing is, a blog post I was reading involving some morons 
questions to the president and Mr. Etcha-sketch about faith brought up 
the comment of which passages, if any, the atheists that posted there 
liked. One involved the smell of asses, and the amount of ejaculate a 
horse produced, as being comparable to some woman's lovers. lol But the 
one that is most appropriate to this, especially given the irony, is:

Proverbs 72:3 -  “A fool may ask more questions in an hour than the wise 
can answer in seven years.”

I really need to try to remember that one. lol

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 11:05:27 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Proverbs 72:3 -  “A fool may ask more questions in an hour than the wise
> can answer in seven years.”
> 
> I really need to try to remember that one. lol

That is a good one, yes.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 23/08/2012 7:54 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 11:05:27 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Proverbs 72:3 -  “A fool may ask more questions in an hour than the wise
>> can answer in seven years.”
>>
>> I really need to try to remember that one. lol
>
> That is a good one, yes.
>
How about:
If women's tongues can cease for an answer
Macheath, The Beggar's Opera Act II

I've not been brave enough to use it myself.


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 20:45:54 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 23/08/2012 7:54 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 11:05:27 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>
>>> Proverbs 72:3 -  “A fool may ask more questions in an hour than the
>>> wise can answer in seven years.”
>>>
>>> I really need to try to remember that one. lol
>>
>> That is a good one, yes.
>>
> How about:
> If women's tongues can cease for an answer Macheath, The Beggar's Opera
> Act II
> 
> I've not been brave enough to use it myself.

Heh, I wouldn't be either.  I might wake up next week. ;)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 23/08/2012 9:31 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 20:45:54 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> I've not been brave enough to use it myself.
>
> Heh, I wouldn't be either.  I might wake up next week. ;)
>

If at all :-)
But you can say it in your head or say it out loud with a challenging 
look. So that they know you are winding them up. ;-)

I take no responsibility for any actions that are not my own.
BTW This product may contain nuts.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 25 Aug 2012 10:13:40 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 23/08/2012 9:31 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 20:45:54 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> I've not been brave enough to use it myself.
>>
>> Heh, I wouldn't be either.  I might wake up next week. ;)
>>
>>
> If at all :-)

Oh, no, there would be a wake-up period.  Otherwise there's no point to 
the exercise. ;)

> But you can say it in your head or say it out loud with a challenging
> look. So that they know you are winding them up. ;-)

Now *that* I have been known to do.  Usually a smirk does it.

> I take no responsibility for any actions that are not my own.
> BTW This product may contain nuts.

*may*? ;)

Jim

Post a reply to this message