Change In Terminology
After thinking about it for a bit, I have decided to change some of the terms I use here. From now on, the Loosers and other CTers are not going to be referred to as "Truthers"; they will be called 9-11 Deniers. And those who deny Osama was behind 9-11 (or claim that a number of the hijackers are still alive) will be referred to as Osama Apologists.
posted by Pat @ 8:11 AM
16 comments
16 Comments:
Rather than change terminology, why can't we just look at the evidence and agree?
Kevin Barrett Video: One View of The Evidence
How about calling those who deny 9/11 was caused by Muslim terrorists as "fruitcakes"? How about "psychopathic lonney-tunes."
Now, I don't want to cast aspersions on any of these whackjobs, but all of them severely need help. Lots of it.
1) Pat, question waiting for you on my Flt 93 photo link.
2) "9-11 deniers" is incorrect. We don't deny 9/11 happened, just not the way they powers-at-be told us how it happened and who was behind it.
3) "Osama apologist" is incorrect too. To be an "apologist" (such as a 'Bush apologist') suggests that you support that person. I don't know of any CT who supports friends and business partners of the Bush family.
Don't hit me with the rubber hammer for being the "middle of the road" guy here, but I think we should keep ourselves above the childlike behaviors that aggrevate us so much about the CTers.
I actually like being called a skeptic, in the sense that I am someone who demands evidence to prove to me a side of an arguement. Overall, I would just refer to all of them as CTers, and us as Debunkers or skeptics, but that is just my opinion.
Conspiracy Smasher and debunking911, you guys should be setting an example for the rest of the OCT flock by showing maturity and professionalism when debating.
However, you show the COMPLETE OPPOSITE.
You are the Phil Jayhan's of the OCT movement.
Grow up.
I have to post at least a half-hearted objection to the term "apologist" used in this context. In internet-speak in recent years it has come to mean something like "one who explains away the bad acts of..." But its origins in philosophy and theology has it meaning a (usually verbal, but that's neither here nor there) defense against false or spurious arguments. At the least, an apologia is a defense of something which is reasonably in dispute. Osama's actions, of course, are not.
I rue the recent debasement of the word "apologist" and would humbly ask that you not contribute to that debasement by using it attached to Osama. I'd suggest going with "Osama advocates," "co-conspirators," "defenders" or similar.
Thanks for your consideration.
I always liked "Al-Queada sympathizers" or just plain "enemy propaganda agents".
We are at war, these people are knowingly aiding the enemy and they just don't care.
Why not use simple and accurate terminology?
My point is that by name calling or labeling in a mean or malicious way, you simply inflame the situation, which may give a little satisfaction, if you are, on that occasion, annoyed with the person you are debating with, but in the long run it is actually counter productive to your purpose, which I assume is to show the world the "weakness" of their arguments.
Like, hey man, I'm Osama bin Ladin's alibi!
He said he didn't do it, and he never lied to me before.
I wasn't referring to any individual, but certainly db9/11 you have to admit that if you were watching a debate and one side made logical mature arguments, in a mature way, and the other side name called, and whined, you would likely favor the former.
If the goal of this site, and the posting here, is merely to inflame the CTers, and to serve as a place for those who are annoyed by them to let off steam, then hey great, go for it, name call away. But, don't expect the site or its comments to be taken seriously by the people you are hoping to protect from their outlandish claims, namely joe public. It works for D.A> and the crowd, because they are appealing to a naive, young, rebellious crowd. The majority of voting, law abiding, invested americans, do not fall into that catagory. So argue to convince them is my main point.
Or don't, I was merely putting in my pov.
Killtown, where am I supposed to see this question? I went to the post that I linked last week--is it elsewhere?
True, and I would say that my point didn't, and wasn't meant to address that argument.
And yes, you could say I was Whinny for complaining, but my manner of complaining wouldn't indicate whining, as the tone was quite matter of fact, without attitude or annoyance.
"Comon Db9/11, stop acting like a junvenile, comon man, jeez"...now that would be whining. :)
2) "9-11 deniers" is incorrect. We don't deny 9/11 happened, just not the way they powers-at-be told us how it happened and who was behind it.
9/11 was a terrorist attack caused by 19 Arab men hijacking four planes. You deny this. Ergo, you are denying 9/11.
3) "Osama apologist" is incorrect too. To be an "apologist" (such as a 'Bush apologist') suggests that you support that person. I don't know of any CT who supports friends and business partners of the Bush family.
You're apologizing for Osama, ergo an OSama apologist. Just like a Holocaust denier is both a denier and a Nazi and Hitler apologist.
To throw in my two cents, I don't care if I come off as immature. If I'm factually and logically correct, it shouldn't matter how mature or immature I act (and I'm the first to admit I'm a huge dick).
I guess, in the purest sense, the maturity level should not matter, if the argument is pure and correct.
But we are in the real world here (us Debunkers anyway), so how you present and/or approach the topic does matter in the minds of public opinion.
Like I said, if the main reason you argue over 9/11 is simply goes these guys tick you off and you wanna pick a fight with them, than by all means, dig in, scratch, claw, name call, whatever...
If, however, like me, you are trying to argue the points so that the public at large has a sane side to listen to wrt 9/11, so that someone is there to seperate the wheat from the chaff wrt evidence, then you might want to sound reasonable and mature in your arguements. The less "quibbling and squabbling" that eminates from this group, the more SERIOUS attention it will be paid by the majority of americans, who are, for the most part, sane, mature, rational adults.
The less "quibbling and squabbling" that eminates from this group, the more SERIOUS attention it will be paid by the majority of americans, who are, for the most part, sane, mature, rational adults.
Half of Americans think evolution is iffy, and a good portion believe a conspiracy (grassy knoll) and all killed Kennedy. Most Americans are, sorry to say, dumb.
Well, rather than dumb, ill-informed. People would rather watch American Idol than open a book on history. I mean I spend plenty of time watching mindless drivel and playing video games, but a majority of my free time is spent reading books on science, history, and politics. Our schools don't do a good enough job, so people have to go out on their own to learn (and few do).
If people were well-read most of us would only know the Illuminati as a group who wanted a republican Europe in the late 18th century. The Freemasons would be a frat for grown men. And the Priory of Scion would be a post-WW2 hoax by a French antisemite with an ego problem.
I used to be one of these nutjobs, and I still can't fathom how they are so stupid. It's like learning to ride a bike, you can't recall what it was like not being able to ride the bike.
It angers me enough that these people would believe something with no evidence, it cranks my yank even more than they continue to believe even when we blow said beliefs out of the water, and it REALLY pisses me off that they'd continue to deny the death of 3000 of their countrymen that most of watched live on television.
Post a Comment
<< Home