Skeptic Project

Posted: Jan 11, 2011 - 18:20

(0)

Ordo Ab Chao.

Level: 8
CS Original

He made a specific claim first. He's just trying to slip past it. That's what I was referring to. Sorry I wasn't clear.

Matt, have a cookie. You're right.

#31

Posted: Jan 11, 2011 - 18:31

(0)

Genuine American Monster

Level: 70
CS Original

What exactly appealed to you about Zeitgeist?

#32

Posted: Jan 11, 2011 - 18:42

(0)

Ordo Ab Chao.

Level: 8
CS Original

My growing disappointment being Catholic, my dad's entertaining of woo, and me being a young tween in a big scary world that is run by evil people who are against freedom.

It appealed to all three.

#33

Posted: Jan 11, 2011 - 18:44

(0)

Genuine American Monster

Level: 70
CS Original

Do you still think the world is run by evil people?

Because I don't think the world is run by anyone at all.

#34

Posted: Jan 11, 2011 - 18:51

(0)

Ordo Ab Chao.

Level: 8
CS Original

No it isn't.

It's kind of chaotic. Governments, businesses, alliances, etc. they all have influence in one way or another, and somehow, it mixes and ends up with at least some sort of stability for certain parts of the world.

I'm no expert, so I cannot say that that view is unlikely or whatever. It's what I observe from my eyes is all.

#35

Posted: Jan 11, 2011 - 18:52

(0)

Genuine American Monster

Level: 70
CS Original

That's pretty accurate.

#36

Posted: Jan 11, 2011 - 19:05

(0)

Ordo Ab Chao.

Level: 8
CS Original

I need evidence to back up my claim that the Bush Administration handled whatever information they had about an attack poorly.

If that's inaccurate, what is?

#37

Posted: Jan 11, 2011 - 19:16

(0)

Genuine American Monster

Level: 70
CS Original

Tell him to read Maureen Dowd's book Bushworld. It explains, in great detail, exactly how the ball was dropped, by who and how.

He probably won't though as there is no three minute cliffnotes version in YouTube format.

#38

Posted: Jan 11, 2011 - 19:20

(0)

Ordo Ab Chao.

Level: 8
CS Original

Thanks.

Not to sound sappy here, but Matt and Muertos have been very influential in my online antics.

#39

Posted: Jan 11, 2011 - 19:21

(0)

Level: 4
CS Original

Doesn't seem fair, matt. You won't accept arguments presented to you in a video but you have no problem recommending a book to make your argument for you?

#40

Posted: Jan 11, 2011 - 19:23

(0)

Genuine American Monster

Level: 70
CS Original

No, I don't. Now shut up.

#41

Posted: Jan 11, 2011 - 19:27

(0)

Ordo Ab Chao.

Level: 8
CS Original

Probably because YouTube video makers usually aren't credible. Hell, they can be totally anonymous.

#42

Posted: Jan 11, 2011 - 19:31

(0)

Genuine American Monster

Level: 70
CS Original

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Ordinary claims do not. What's "fair" is irrelevant.

#43

Joe

Posted: Jan 11, 2011 - 19:31

(0)

Level: 8
CS Original

"No. Because they *are* CTs.

They're just pussies about admitting it."
I agree with that; because when I was a CTer I did the same thing. I used the open minded excuse myself.

#44

Posted: Jan 11, 2011 - 19:39

(0)

Level: 4
CS Original

I was talking about the debate between Hitchens and Blair about whether or not religion is a force for good in the world, but since matt doesn't want to revisit that topic, i will leave it at that.

#45

Posted: Jan 11, 2011 - 19:47

(0)

Genuine American Monster

Level: 70
CS Original

WASSAMATTA DOMOKATO GOT A CHIP ON YOUR SHOULDER?

#46

Posted: Jan 11, 2011 - 20:28

(0)

Level: 4
CS Original

naw man, what? i'm just calling you out is all. it's what friends are for

#47

Posted: Jan 11, 2011 - 20:43

(0)

Genuine American Monster

Level: 70
CS Original

Start a new thread for me to ignore rather than trying to have the same tired debate in unrelated threads.

Don't be a Nanos, son.

#48

AKBastard

Posted: Jan 11, 2011 - 22:27

(0)

Level: 5
CS Original

I want to see this thread.

#49

Muertos

Posted: Jan 12, 2011 - 00:43

(0)

Paid Disinformation Blogger

Level: 14
CS Original

Omni-Science, kudos to you for getting out of CT's, denouncing Zeitgeist and realizing you had been sold a bucket of shit.

I only hope your friend manages to see the light and eventually realizes that Zeitgeist is a dangerous bullshit ideology.

#50

Posted: Jan 12, 2011 - 12:43

(0)

Level: 4
CS Original

i'm talking about your standards for debate, not about the debate itself that we were having

#51

Posted: Jan 12, 2011 - 12:45

(0)

Genuine American Monster

Level: 70
CS Original

I wasn't aware your standards meant jack shit.

Nice false equivalence though, broseph. You really need to let it go. I wasn't "debating" anyone. I was replying to Omni.

This little crusade you're on is tiresome as hell.

#52

Posted: Jan 12, 2011 - 16:28

(0)

Level: 4
CS Original

Crusade? Maybe you need to let it go and stop thinking everything I say is directly related to that thread.

I'm just trying to point out the double standard you seem to have for debates and who is allowed to make arguments for whom. If you're tired of it, that's fine, I'll try not to engage you in critical self-analysis anymore. You seemed to appreciate it in the past is all.

re: facebook

I don't care to re-open the debate on religion any more than you do.

#53

Posted: Jan 12, 2011 - 16:31

(0)

Genuine American Monster

Level: 70
CS Original

You're right, I have a double standard when it comes to bullshit. If someone tells me that UFOS are real and domokato is a sexy blonde woman with huge tits, I'm going to call bullshit and not bother with any formal arguments.

What you're trying to do is a logical fallacy known as false equivalency. For some reason, you think I should be held to some sort of standard when having an idle conversation with Omni.

No one was debating in this thread. No one. You are looking for things to disagree with that simply do not fucking exist.

#54

Posted: Jan 12, 2011 - 16:44

(0)

Level: 4
CS Original

you recommended that omni recommend a book to the truther in HIS debate with him. Yes, you are not debating, but you recommended using a tactic that you yourself would criticize as unacceptable in a debate.

And on top of that, you implied you would criticize the truther if he didn't read the book, which strikes me as especially hypocritical.

Also, my comment in response was pretty off-hand and not meant to be taken super seriously. Just a bit of ribbing, again..

#55

Posted: Jan 12, 2011 - 16:52

(0)

Genuine American Monster

Level: 70
CS Original

More false equivalency, your premise relies on the Truther being on equal footing in regards to evidence.

Regardless, I was comfortable that Omni can debate without me holding his hand. If you think otherwise, then take it upon yourself to "educate" him. Its not my job and I never asked for it in the first place. I don't recall him asking you to take the job either.

The intent was never to tell Omni what to copy/paste to his friend. Like I said, it was idle conversation so you can put your hypocrisy microscope away now.

#56

Posted: Jan 12, 2011 - 17:00

(0)

Level: 4
CS Original

Like I said, it was idle conversation so you can put your hypocrisy microscope away now.

Yes it was, and so was my comment, so you can lower your fists too.

(Really, we gotta figure out a way to better convey tone of voice over the internet...)

#57

Posted: Jan 12, 2011 - 17:02

(0)

Genuine American Monster

Level: 70
CS Original

You should know better than to think trying to poke holes in someone's argument is funny around here.

You can pretty much throw any insult BUT that around here. You're dealing with logic nerds man, come on now.

#58