4 minutes ago, LHookins said:

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

 

Well, technically, calling something a conspiracy theory isn't any kind of insult. A theory is a theory, and if it refers to a possible conspiracy it is indeed a conspiracy theory.  😄 Calling it that doesn't make it true or false.

I prefer the term bonkers conspiracy theory... one that has a very low probability of being true and is based on falsehoods.

11 hours ago, dave2013 said:

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. 

Considering that both sides are doing the same thing, I can't tell from this statement which side you are on. 😄 

Hook

5 minutes ago, martin-w said:

Well, technically, calling something a conspiracy theory isn't any kind of insult.

Um... actually, yeah, it is.  If I told you something you believe is a conspiracy theory, you wouldn't like it much.  Even if you say you don't care.  I don't care if someone calls me a conspiracy theorist, but I know I've been insulted.  

Hook

20 minutes ago, LHookins said:

If I told you something you believe is a conspiracy theory, you wouldn't like it much

 

Wouldn't bother me. If I was talking about a possible conspiracy, that may or may not be true, it would indeed be a theory. 🤔 So how is that an insult? Its fact! The definitions of those words are in the dictionary. I would simply say "yes, its a conspiracy theory, and I think its right."

If there were another derogatory word added to it, I might.  🤔

 

Quote

if someone calls me a conspiracy theorist  

 

Conspiracy theorist is different to conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theorist implies that somebody is unhealthily obsessed with conspiracy theories. And yes, many are these days. 

Edited July 30, 2025Jul 30 by martin-w

14 hours ago, dave2013 said:

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

I've explained my position clearly enough, and while I can explain it to you, I can't understand it for you, so I'll follow Hookin's good advice and leave it there.

I'll just add, however, that I wasn't directly accusing you of using such tactics, since I have no experience of debating you in such a context. I was simply stating that in my experience in many such debates, that is what I've found to be the case. If you are an exception to that then I'll gladly applaud you for it, but I stand by my opinion that those who do use the kind of tactics I mentioned, and more, have earned every name that gets thrown at them.

2 hours ago, martin-w said:

 

Well, technically, calling something a conspiracy theory isn't any kind of insult. A theory is a theory, and if it refers to a possible conspiracy it is indeed a conspiracy theory.  😄 Calling it that doesn't make it true or false.

I prefer the term bonkers conspiracy theory... one that has a very low probability of being true and is based on falsehoods.

Quite. LHookins mentioned the Warren commission: I've never had any firm opinion about the Kennedy assassination one way or the other, mainly because neither the lone shooter theory nor the theory that the conspiracy was wider than that seem to me to be in the same level of bonkersness as, say, Kubrick filming the moon landings* or the 911 conspiracy that half the country seems to have been in on and yet nobody talked. I wouldn't even write off the Rockwell dead alien story, since I can easily imagine a government covering something like that up. My objection is more about what comprises evidence for the promoters of such theories, and how comically low their bar often is.

*On location, apparently, because he was such a perfectionist. 😁

2 hours ago, LHookins said:

From Google AI.  It might even be right.

Hook

Don't get me started on AI. In my experience, AI is a lot more "artificial" than it is "intelligent".  And I think it's going to do a lot of damage.

8 hours ago, LHookins said:

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.

 

I can't even remember the details of what that was about... 🙂

4 minutes ago, Holdit said:

I can't even remember the details of what that was about... 🙂

We were discussing passage of lines.  One friendly unit in line passing through another.  You thought it wasn't possible.  I thought it was.

About halfway between then and now I saw a marvelous video of South Korean riot police maneuvering in several line formations.  At one point one line passed through another without even slowing.  My first though was, "Holdit needs to see this!  He'd love it."

Sorry, I haven't been able to find it since.

Hook

13 minutes ago, LHookins said:

We were discussing passage of lines.  One friendly unit in line passing through another.  You thought it wasn't possible.  I thought it was.

About halfway between then and now I saw a marvelous video of South Korean riot police maneuvering in several line formations.  At one point one line passed through another without even slowing.  My first though was, "Holdit needs to see this!  He'd love it."

Sorry, I haven't been able to find it since.

Hook

 

Im not even sure I know what that means. 

51 minutes ago, LHookins said:

We were discussing passage of lines.  One friendly unit in line passing through another.  You thought it wasn't possible.  I thought it was.

About halfway between then and now I saw a marvelous video of South Korean riot police maneuvering in several line formations.  At one point one line passed through another without even slowing.  My first though was, "Holdit needs to see this!  He'd love it."

Sorry, I haven't been able to find it since.

Hook

How time changes things. I can't even remember having a strong opinion either way on passage of lines. I do remember a reference in Duffy to units from Vandamme's division performing "the difficult passage of lines maneouvre" at Austerlitz. More recently, I've been reading up an a slightly related topic; how the Romans rotated fresh troops into the battle line, but since even ancient historians can't agree on that, I can't reach a conclusion either. Unfortunately it seems that the method shown in Episode 1 of HBO's Rome, while it looks plausible, wouldn't have been possible.

Edited July 30, 2025Jul 30 by Holdit

32 minutes ago, martin-w said:

 

Im not even sure I know what that means. 

It's when one military unit moves through the position of another. Not a big deal nowadays, I suspect, since soldiers are so well spread-out, but in the horse-and-musket period, when men were shoulder-to-shoulder and a line had (usually) three ranks, it could be tricky to do without leaving both lines disorganised, not a good thing if the enemy is in close proximity.

34 minutes ago, martin-w said:

Im not even sure I know what that means. 

Sorry, Martin.  We were talking about Napoleonic tactics.  We still today do a passage of lines when one unit takes over for another by moving through it.

Hook

I'm guessing this one has run it's course...every which-way, but loose!  Right turn, Clyde!