Free speech.

[Katman]

And therein lies the problem.

You can't mention the words Geo-Engineering without being told you're a fucking moron who doesn't know what a contrail is.

You can't question the events of 9/11 without being told you're a fucking moron who thinks everyone's out to get you.

You can't criticise Israel without being accused of being a fucking Anti-Semite.

You can't question our Defense Force without being called a unpatriotic terrorist lover.

You can't question deep sea oil drilling without being accused of wanting to fuck dolphins.

The list is seemingly endless.

[Katman]

Oh, and I forgot......

You can't mention the chance that a significant number of motorcycle crashes might occur due to the pressure of keeping up with others without being accused of being ...(insert insult of your choice).

[Woodman]

And therein lies the problem.

You can't mention the words Geo-Engineering without being told you're a fucking moron who doesn't know what a contrail is.

You can't question the events of 9/11 without being told you're a fucking moron who thinks everyone's out to get you.

You can't criticise Israel without being accused of being a fucking Anti-Semite.

You can't question our Defense Force without being called a unpatriotic terrorist lover.

You can't question deep sea oil drilling without being accused of wanting to fuck dolphins.

The list is seemingly endless.

If its any consolation katman, I whole heartedly agree with the open letter thing, but if you do put forward an opinion then be prepared for someone to disagree with it.

[Katman]

If its any consolation katman, I whole heartedly agree with the open letter thing, but if you do put forward an opinion then be prepared for someone to disagree with it.

I have no problem with someone disagreeing with my opinion and I'm quite happy to strongly defend my opinion.

But if someone's rebuttal consists of little more than 'conspiracy theorist', 'anti-semite', 'sandle wearing tree hugger', 'white supremacist', 'narcissistic P dealer' etc. that's usually when things start to go downhill.

[pritch]

You can't question the events of 9/11 without being told you're a fucking moron who thinks everyone's out to get you.

That's a bad example. The claims of the conspiracy theorists were completely loopy with no possible justification in fact. Anyone believing any of that rubbish has a problem.

You can't question our Defense Force without being called a unpatriotic terrorist lover

Funny, but I have just partaken in a too long discussion of a Defence related matter here, and I don't recall anybody being referred to as an "unpatriotic terrorist lover".
I did however note symptoms 1, 2, and 3 of the aforementioned 10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists in full display. As well as the mandatory reference to sheep.

The first step in problem solving is to admit a problem exists. Second step is to correctly identify the problem. I think that's where we are going wrong at the moment.

[Katman]

Funny, but I have just partaken in a too long discussion of a Defence related matter here, and I don't recall anybody being referred to as an "unpatriotic terrorist lover".

If the search function worked in PD I'd go back and find it for you.

[Akzle]

That's a bad example. The claims of the conspiracy theorists were completely loopy with no possible justification in fact. Anyone believing any of that rubbish has a problem.

i know right? like, on what planet can 2 aircraft bring down 5 buildings?? fucking nutbars.

...(insert insult of your choice).

a c*ssina

[Woodman]

I have no problem with someone disagreeing with my opinion and I'm quite happy to strongly defend my opinion.

But if someone's rebuttal consists of little more than 'conspiracy theorist', 'anti-semite', 'sandle wearing tree hugger', 'white supremacist', 'narcissistic P dealer' etc. that's usually when things start to go downhill.

That's just a technique to derail the argument, the problem is you never seem to be able to rise above it, and quite often you start the name calling when their is actually a reasoned debate going on.

[Katman]

That's just a technique to derail the argument.

Why would someone choose to go with the option of trying to derail an argument instead of rationally discussing it?

Could it possibly be because they've run out of ideas - but still love the sound of their own voice?

[Katman]

That's a bad example. The claims of the conspiracy theorists were completely loopy with no possible justification in fact. Anyone believing any of that rubbish has a problem.

See, I find that interesting.

You seem unable to cope with the idea that there are people who are vastly more intelligent than you (and I'm not meaning me, by the way) who very strongly question the events of 9/11.

[Woodman]

Why would someone choose to go with the option of trying to derail an argument

To shut it down?
Discredit the opposition?
Entertainment?
It's just KB?
Nothing on telly?
Personal challenge to see how long it takes before the opposition start calling you a fucking moron, shit for brains, autistic..........

[Katman]

To shut it down?

Yes, that's what this thread is about.

[Woodman]

Yes, that's what this thread is about.

I thought this thread was about susan devoy and people who can't handle being offended wanting to make laws so arguments don't even start in the first place.

[pritch]

See, I find that interesting.
You seem unable to cope with the idea that there are people who are vastly more intelligent than you (and I'm not meaning me, by the way) who very strongly question the events of 9/11.

Nobody with all their marbles, and I've told you that before. Anybody who gives credence to that rubbish is by definition a conspiracy theorist. "Normal"* people just don't get sucked in by that stuff. Also I tried to show you that there were people who had actually anticipated a second attack on the WTC by Al Qaeda, specifically even an attack by aircraft, although they did not foresee the scale of the attack that brought it down. All you could see was Mills and Boon. But I tried.

Conspiracy theorists generally are people who are not happy with their circumstances and they get caught up in all the nonsense because they believe it gives their life meaning. That's why I referred to them as "sad bastards" previously. And no, that's not aimed at you specifically, it's just part of the pattern. It isn't a crime to be a conspiracy theorist and there normally aren't any victims. They don't need guys in white coats to come and take them away. It can sometimes get rather tedious though.



* Whatever that is.

[yokel]

Nobody with all their marbles, and I've told you that before. Anybody who gives credence to that rubbish is by definition a conspiracy theorist. "Normal"* people just don't get sucked in by that stuff. Also I tried to show you that there were people who had actually anticipated a second attack on the WTC by Al Qaeda, specifically even an attack by aircraft, although they did not foresee the scale of the attack that brought it down. All you could see was Mills and Boon. But I tried.

Conspiracy theorists generally are people who are not happy with their circumstances and they get caught up in all the nonsense because they believe it gives their life meaning. That's why I referred to them as "sad bastards" previously. And no, that's not aimed at you specifically, it's just part of the pattern. It isn't a crime to be a conspiracy theorist and there normally aren't any victims. They don't need guys in white coats to come and take them away. It can sometimes get rather tedious though.



* Whatever that is.

You do realise that not a single thing you have siad has adressed the facts , inconsistencies, lies and otherwise around the event that is 9/11.

Your rationale is flawed.