Some real life examples. Show was popular because everyone could relate to it.

 

 

3 hours ago, LHookins said:

I thought you two were arguing from the same side.

No, his comments certainly didn't give me that impression.  

1 hour ago, Holdit said:

Disagreeing with me does not in and of itself make someone a conspiracy theorist, but rather their tendancy to argue dishonestly and their inability to think or evaluate critically and inability to grasp that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, whether that be accidentally or by design.

So, let's see if I understand: if someone disagrees with you, and you claim they are "arguing dishonestly" and therefore are "unable to think or evaluate critically", which of course you are able to do as you must be right, then it is acceptable to label them a "conspiracy theorist".  How convenient and self-serving.  You sound like someone else here.

As far as concerns most of the topics I've debated, I have provided evidence in the form of multiple articles, graphs, tables, documents, and a few documentary videos to support my claims.  I have also conceded a couple of things when I've done more research and discovered I was wrong, but the other side is unwilling to make a single concession, claiming that their side has the ultimate truth and therefore cannot be challenged. 

It's hard to debate anyone who flat out refuses to consider any arguments you make or facts you present, and it is frustrating, but what I don't do is call those I disagree with derogatory names.

Dave

Guys, if you're gonna have a p*ssing contest, take it private.  This is the kind of thing that gets threads shut down or deleted.

If you haven't noticed, you can talk about pretty much anything until someone gets nasty.

Hook

6 hours ago, dave2013 said:

It's hard to debate anyone who flat out refuses to consider any arguments you make or facts you present, and it is frustrating, but what I don't do is call those I disagree with derogatory names.

Did Holdit call you a conspiracy theorist?  If so, I missed it.

I've debated Holdit in the past.  Long ago, and the subject was Napoleonic tactics.  We still parted as friends.  I've found him to be intelligent and reasonable.

Someone calling ME a conspiracy theorist doesn't bother me.  It's happened a few times.  

People don't change their minds easily.  Just accept it and move on.  Not everyone will agree with you.  Accept that, too, and agree to disagree.  Some people will be dishonest.  They may not know they're being dishonest.  And some people are full of bovine excrement.  Gently point out the error of their ways if you wish.

Holdit is not your enemy.

Hook

21 hours ago, LHookins said:

What's the difference between a conspiracy theory and accepted truth?

 

One has a low (but not zero) probability of being true, the other has a much higher probability of being true.

From time to time, a conspiracy theory will be true, but most of the time its utter nonsense made up by those with nothing better to do... like the moon landing conspiracy and the flat Earth nonsense.

21 hours ago, LHookins said:

I'll generally trust my mechanic, but many of them practice "fee building."  "

 

Car mechanic was just an example... but, obviously, a genuine expert in a field is more likely to be right than your sisters beautician. Mindy the nail technician who's never heard of a neutron is less likely to be right than particle physicist Brian Cox. Even good old Mindy might get lucky, but again, think liklihood and probability.

 

17 hours ago, dave2013 said:

Terms like "conspiracy theory", "denier", "tin foil hat", etc. are used to malign and ridicule people to discredit them in order to avoid actually having to debate them. 

 

More commonly, Dave, they are used when appropriate. When somebody repeatedly makes statements that are contrary to fact, misrepresents, miss quotes, and promotes easily debunked myths. 

7 minutes ago, martin-w said:

Car mechanic was just an example... but, obviously, a genuine expert in a field is more likely to be right than your sisters beautician.

I agree.  But not everyone is honest.  Trust but verify.

Hook

17 hours ago, Holdit said:

Or as Richard Dawkins put it, "It's good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out."

 

Yep, he does say that. I think it originally came from Richard Feynman. But its been used so many times, going way back, who knows.

11 hours ago, dave2013 said:

 I have provided evidence in the form of multiple articles, graphs, tables, documents, and a few documentary videos to support my claims. 

 

Yeah, not really, Dave. The stuff you supply is easily debunked, if its the subject I'm thinking of. 

You may be referring to a different subject matter of course.

11 hours ago, dave2013 said:

It's hard to debate anyone who flat out refuses to consider any arguments you make or facts you present, and it is frustrating, but what I don't do is call those I disagree with derogatory names.

 

Personally, I always consider your claims. They are usually the same claims I've been debating for years. Regarding a certain subject, very easy to counter them with fact.

You've called me some derogatory names. 😁 Not that I mind. 

4 minutes ago, martin-w said:

More commonly, Dave, they are used when appropriate. When somebody repeatedly makes statements that are contrary to fact, misrepresents, miss quotes, and promotes easily debunked myths. 

I'll say it again:  We're all on the same side here.

There are people who spout insane conspiracy theories.  There are also people who call a viewpoint (that may be true) that doesn't agree with "accepted orthodoxy" a conspiracy theory.

After the Warren Report was published, anyone who doubted any part of it in any way, even in the slightest, was called a conspiracy theorist.  You were not allowed to question the official report, the orthodoxy.  I decided at the time that just because something could be called a conspiracy theory didn't mean there wasn't a conspiracy.

I'm going to evaluate everything I hear.  If it matches the pattern of how the Warren Report was treated, the "conspiracy theory" might just well be true.  If something isn't true and factual, just say it's wrong, don't say that it's "misinformation" or a "conspiracy theory".  Those are terms used to discredit something with a word rather than showing why it's wrong.

If someone says something that's a bit too far out there, like William Cooper did, just discount it and ignore it.  Most people are intelligent enough to know the difference.

Hook

I forgot to add:  It doesn't matter if we disagree, as long as we do so respectfully.

Hook

From Google AI.  It might even be right.

Quote

The saying "It's good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out" is often attributed to G.K. Chesterton. While other sources, like Time Magazine, also mention the quote, they attribute it to Jansen. Regardless of the exact source, the quote is a popular expression reminding people to be open to new ideas, but not to the point of being credulous or lacking critical thinking. 

Hook