Debating techniques: Attacking the messenger, or the message?

[240 is Back]

As we debate the many political and social topics here, it's become clear to me that very often, when a person is confronted with very strong evidence (the message), he/she often will avoid seeking evidence which disproves this claim.  Rather, he will look up bad things about the speaker, and post those.

This shows poor judgment.  No one is perfect.  This President snorted coke and drove drunk.  The last one got BJs in the white house.  Nobody is perfect.

Let's stop this.  If someone posts a piece of information, don't insult the source.  Sure, if it's blatently made-up, disregard it.  But this latest surge of "MSM sources only!" or "This MSM source is too left/right".

Fact is, if the argument is THAT flawed, you should have NO PROBLEM at all finding informatino to refute it. 

Remember that many of the common investions of technology and thought were once the work of one labeled kid in his bedroom with a pen and paper.  So shitting on a 911 website from a nobody, while blindly listening to any leader is poor logic.  Hell, chances are, the leader you're quoting has many more lies and crimes on record. 

in closing: Attack the message, not the messenger.  Refute the statment, not the speaker.

[Bigger Business]

Sure, if it's blatently made-up, disregard it.

I dont think Ive ever posted one truthful word on this site.

Not once 

edit: this may also be made up...i dont even know anymore

[240 is Back]

I dont think Ive ever posted one truthful word on this site.

Not once 

You just did 

[Dos Equis]

If the source is not credible, the message is automatically suspect. 

[Al-Gebra]

If the source is not credible 240 is Back, the message is automatically suspect. 

corrected.

[24KT]

240, why are you even asking such a thing?

The answer is clear enough. When they are unable to attack the message, ...they go after the messenger.

[240 is Back]

If the source is not credible, the message is automatically suspect. 

Then it should be immensely easy to prove it incorrect.  Just about every story you hear on cnn seems to be on the underground message boards before it reached cable tv.

You know what I love?  The fact that people on getbig are opening their eyes.  Beach Bum and Al G look like scared kids at this point.  Jag, berserker, and a few others have delivered proof of our nation's lies and agenda to force us into war, as well as some serious flaws in the Official 911 story. 

And they're still attacking 240 and not the mounting pile of evidence! lol...

You guys don't have to be scared.  No govt is perfect.  Ours has become corrupt.  They lie, and they lie often.  When you have a lifelong neocon like Phil Zeiglow (sp?) admitting the war in Iraq was done at Israel's bidding, your position have zero credibility.

[24KT]

When you have a guy like Colin Powell publicly stating:

"The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism"

...you outta now know what time it is.  For those who don't let me state it for you:

It's time to take your country back from those who hijacked it!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAL0ZJtJNWI

[Always Sore]

The problem is sometimes the messenger has a bias and can pick and choose or edit or slant what they post to fit there side. If it was a situation where someone posted info from both sides and could be middle about topics or admit when there wrong then maybe. I have proven it here before I can take almost any topic and find info that is the complete oppsite and slat it in my favor. Plus it just do not go on on this level look at how so many people view Fox news, the message gets killed by the hatred of the delivery service. There is no way to seperate the two.

example see above poster..

[Dos Equis]

Then it should be immensely easy to prove it incorrect.  Just about every story you hear on cnn seems to be on the underground message boards before it reached cable tv.

You know what I love?  The fact that people on getbig are opening their eyes.  Beach Bum and Al G look like scared kids at this point.  Jag, berserker, and a few others have delivered proof of our nation's lies and agenda to force us into war, as well as some serious flaws in the Official 911 story. 

And they're still attacking 240 and not the mounting pile of evidence! lol...

You guys don't have to be scared.  No govt is perfect.  Ours has become corrupt.  They lie, and they lie often.  When you have a lifelong neocon like Phil Zeiglow (sp?) admitting the war in Iraq was done at Israel's bidding, your position have zero credibility.

What you and Jag have shown, repeatedly, is you are incapable of debating a topic without eventually insulting people.  In addition, your sources are not credible, you quote out of context, you misstate people's positions, and sometimes just make stuff up. 

But it is entertaining. 

[a_joker10]

The whole point of requiring that you use MSM is that the quotes and context of most of your CTer sites is biased, slanted and erroneous misquoted or out of context.

I have to spend 15 minutes everytime you post something to get the actual context of a story.

This is very annoying.

Then you spend 15 pages of post backpeddling or playing down the actual source.

Also annoying.

When you post from the MSM then at least there is a legitimate starting point for discussion.
I actually like to hear your opinion, but I hate that crappy CTer info, for the above reasons.

[240 is Back]

What you and Jag have shown, repeatedly, is you are incapable of debating a topic without eventually insulting people.  In addition, your sources are not credible, you quote of context, you misstate people's positions, and sometimes just make stuff up. 

I get frustrated when I debate with someone who will make a statment, be completely debunked by MSM facts which I deliver, then they'll respond with 'oh, so maybe the CIA told the media to ask the UFOs about it'.

Juvenile shit like that, in the midst of our men dying and our future economy being mortgaged, pisses me off.  If for no other reason that the security of the nation your daughter will live in, you should really give a shit about what is happening here.  And if you choose not to - at least come up with facts instead of mocking someone who DOES give a shit about the world your child will face.

[240 is Back]

The whole point of requiring that you use MSM is that the quotes and context of most of your CTer sites is biased, slanted and erroneous misquoted or out of context.

I have to spend 15 minutes everytime you post something to get the actual context of a story.

This is very annoying.

Then you spend 15 pages of post backpeddling or playing down the actual source.

Also annoying.

When you post from the MSM then at least there is a legitimate starting point for discussion.
I actually like to hear your opinion, but I hate that crappy CTer info, for the above reasons.

I know, and I feel the same way when you refer me to a 10,000 page NIST report.

That's why I'm now using this MSM website - nothing but a catalog of terror, war, and 911 articles taken from teh media.  The author does nothing but save and source/cite them.  I really want to take the website attacking out, so I am limiting my statements to those verifiable thru websites you know and trust.

[OzmO]

Well,

Now that i'm back in the land of the living...

240

My issues with your "facts" are based on inaccurate reporting of the facts

Sometimes in our passion we insert words like:

"all"
"every"
"none"
"always"

Also too, in the heat of a debate the "facts" sometimes get drowned out in a pool of rheotoric and persuation. 

We need to sometimes filter that stuff out in order to get to the heartof the matter.

Add that to how our opinions are strongly influenced by the information we consistantly pour into our brains.  So, I believe we must scutinize what we put into minds allowing considerations from the sources they come from and the point of view of the writers.  That's why i do not trust CT-web sites and rather would like independent neutral sources of info.

So if I question your "facts" it's purely for those reasons alone and not neccesarily an attack on your character.

[Dos Equis]

I get frustrated when I debate with someone who will make a statment, be completely debunked by MSM facts which I deliver, then they'll respond with 'oh, so maybe the CIA told the media to ask the UFOs about it'.

Juvenile shit like that, in the midst of our men dying and our future economy being mortgaged, pisses me off.  If for no other reason that the security of the nation your daughter will live in, you should really give a shit about what is happening here.  And if you choose not to - at least come up with facts instead of mocking someone who DOES give a shit about the world your child will face.

I think what bothers you is you don't like it when someone shows you how absurd some of your theories are.  For example, Timothy McVeigh not being executed, Barbara Olsen still alive.  Regarding the CIA, I asked you why the media isn't reporting about a 9/11 conspiracy and you essentially said it is because the CIA controls the media.  Most rational people would step back and look at that statement and realize how dumb that notion really is.  Perhaps you and Jag are just too immersed in this whole conspiracy nonsense to recognize how truly bizarre it is to believe the CIA controls the media.  Those are the kinds of statements that cause you to lose credibility, which then makes all of your information suspect.  If you cannot trust the messenger, you should absolutely be very suspicious of the message.  

[Eldon]

I think what bothers you is you don't like it when someone shows you how absurd some of your theories are.  For example, Timothy McVeigh not being executed, Barbara Olsen still alive.  Regarding the CIA, I asked you why the media isn't reporting about a 9/11 conspiracy and you essentially said it is because the CIA controls the media.  Most rational people would step back and look at that statement and realize how dumb that notion really is.  Perhaps you and Jag are just too immersed in this whole conspiracy nonsense to recognize how truly bizarre it is to believe the CIA controls the media.  Those are the kinds of statements that cause you to lose credibility, which then makes all of your information suspect.  If you cannot trust the messenger, you should absolutely be very suspicious of the message. 

exactly !

[OzmO]

I think what bothers you is you don't like it when someone shows you how absurd some of your theories are.  For example, Timothy McVeigh not being executed, Barbara Olsen still alive.  Regarding the CIA, I asked you why the media isn't reporting about a 9/11 conspiracy and you essentially said it is because the CIA controls the media.  Most rational people would step back and look at that statement and realize how dumb that notion really is.  Perhaps you and Jag are just too immersed in this whole conspiracy nonsense to recognize how truly bizarre it is to believe the CIA controls the media.  Those are the kinds of statements that cause you to lose credibility, which then makes all of your information suspect.  If you cannot trust the messenger, you should absolutely be very suspicious of the message. 

I agree with a lot of this. 

That's what happens when you start getting too wrapped up into something....  You lose objectivity.  And start not recognizing BS when you see it.

[jwb]

I know, and I feel the same way when you refer me to a 10,000 page NIST report.

That's why I'm now using this MSM website - nothing but a catalog of terror, war, and 911 articles taken from teh media.  The author does nothing but save and source/cite them.  I really want to take the website attacking out, so I am limiting my statements to those verifiable thru websites you know and trust.

I think you need to read the NIST report before you can claim to be an authority on 911 robbie...

I'm not saying you should believe a single word of it but it is out there, as an official document of what they think happened, and you should read it and know it back to front before you can claim to be an expert on 911.

Only reading 911 sites doesn't cut the mustard if you want us to take you seriously.

[a_joker10]

I think you need to read the NIST report before you can claim to be an authority on 911 robbie...

I'm not saying you should believe a single word of it but it is out there, as an official document of what they think happened, and you should read it and know it back to front before you can claim to be an expert on 911.

Only reading 911 sites doesn't cut the mustard if you want us to take you seriously.

Agreed.

[240 is Back]

I think you need to read the NIST report before you can claim to be an authority on 911 robbie...

I'm not saying you should believe a single word of it but it is out there, as an official document of what they think happened, and you should read it and know it back to front before you can claim to be an expert on 911.

Only reading 911 sites doesn't cut the mustard if you want us to take you seriously.

It's 10,000 pages, and it's put forth by the same fucking white house that changed the EPA report.

Tell me why I'd spend a month analyzing propaganda?

I have taken pieces from it.  nd I'm not trying to be an authority =

I am trying to be a proponent for a complete, independent investigation.

Bring in NIST, bring in the Skeptics.  Let them discuss.

[Al-Gebra]

240, if you weren't a dumbass when it comes to political matters, you would notice that my political sympathies don't lie where you think they do.

I respond to your posts the way i do b/c when it comes to presenting reliable information, you don't even know how to begin . . . and yet you assume everyone's just going to jump on.  You don't respect your reader w your posts, and therefore I don't respect your posts either.

Face it, you're more used car salesman than you are Bill Clinton. But you would make a great used car salesman . . . at least on the internet.

[a_joker10]

1. NIST was written by engineers and material scientists and was ptu out by the government. If the white house tried to change it both the Congress & the Senate would have a Bird.
2. ALL the Engineering professional organizations and ALL of the Major Universities in the US agree with the findings in the NIST repotr.
3. You have no proof it was doctored.

[jwb]

1. NIST was written by engineers and material scientists and was ptu out by the government. If the white house tried to change it both the Congress & the Senate would have a Bird.
2. ALL the Engineering professional organizations and ALL of the Major Universities in the US agree with the findings in the NIST repotr.
3. You have no proof it was doctored.

This is my point about the NIST report.

Lets say the US government paid scientists to falsify the report...

The problem is there is a BIG world out there besides the US with many many great scientists who would be up in arms over such a thing. These guys don't give a shit about the US either.

[jwb]

Tell me why I'd spend a month analyzing propaganda?

You've spent the past 6 months analysing propaganda anyway you wally!

[240 is Back]

At this point, I feel arguing the science of the buildings falling is pointless here.
Same with why NORAD turned all their planes to sea after being locked onto the 2 flights in the air.

This is why I've been focusing on what we knew BEFORE 911, and what our white house ALLOWED to happen.  We were warned by 12 countries about what was coming, and several of them spoke to Bush personally, who said "he knows". 

If we can realize and prove that Bush knew what woudl happen, and let it happen, then that shuld be more than enough grounds for a second investigation. 

I mean damn... the TALIBAN even warned us the attacks were coming!