turbonium Posted October 20, 2012 #51 Share Posted October 20, 2012 What happened? Semantics happened. Popular culture, by way of the X-Files and Richard Dawkins, transformed skepticism into a belief system. Because of the context in which we're usually exposed to the term (people are, for example, more often described as 'skeptical' of the existence of UFOs than, say, the merits of the two-party political system), 'skeptic' has come to mean someone opposed to more outlandish or esoteric ideas, rather than ideas in general. The official 9/11 story is also outlandish, and many people are 'skeptical' it is legit. Certainly, a skeptic is not one who accepts the government account of 9/11, as there are so many unanswered questions. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MID Posted October 29, 2012 #52 Share Posted October 29, 2012 The official 9/11 story is also outlandish, and many people are 'skeptical' it is legit. Certainly, a skeptic is not one who accepts the government account of 9/11, as there are so many unanswered questions. Who is skeptical that the well executed, engineering analysis of the 9-11 occurrances are "legit"? And what is so outlandish about a sterile, systematic engineering evaluation...save that it's not understood by non-engineering people, like those who tend to put forth nonsensical ideas? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FurthurBB Posted October 30, 2012 #53 Share Posted October 30, 2012 According to the dictionary a sceptic (skeptic) is: 1. a person who habitually doubts the authenticity of accepted beliefs 2. a person who mistrusts people, ideas, etc, in general What the hell happened?!!! Now days a skeptic is a *snip* who parrots the mainstream of media and closed-minded science. And the person who doubts authority is now a "Conspiracy Theorist". What's going on? "close-minded science" is a ridiculous statement and if it made more contextual sense it would be an oxymoron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simbi Laveau Posted October 30, 2012 #54 Share Posted October 30, 2012 It all basically boils down to this.....it really does . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MID Posted October 30, 2012 #55 Share Posted October 30, 2012 A true 'skeptic' questions the 'accepted' account, the mainstream viewpoint. A skeptic challenges the status quo. This is a classic construct. A "true skeptic". I'm afraid that means, "A habitual skeptic". ]A false skeptic supports the 'accepted' account without question, and then challenges the true skeptics. It's a deliberate, planned hijacking of the term. imo. They are disinfo/misinfo agents, feeding government propaganda. An amazing, but weak effort. By "false Skeptic", you're actually referring to intelligent, knowledgeable people who can see the validity of the "accepted" account (i.e., a real, engineering analysis, conducted by panels ). Your "true sleptic" refers to one person: The person filled with a lack of knowledge, with a mistrust of any official authority, and with a complete lack of anything to back up their declarations. The CT, or HB, in otherwords...a person like you, turb. It's just rather amazing an effort, although it had to fail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JGirl Posted October 30, 2012 #56 Share Posted October 30, 2012 i wouldn't refer to myself as a skeptic, but i am skeptical. it's not that i negate the idea of ghosts or psychics or ufo abductions - or what have you - i have not made my mind up on any of those things. it's the tales i hear and hoaxed pics and videos i see that i'm skeptical of. if these things exist, and in some cases i hope they do, bring it. stop with all the lies and bullcrap. that's where my skepticism lies. i have been asked why i bother to come to these forums, and my anwer is simply this: at some point through all the lies and crap i hope to learn of something truly extra ordinary or truly extra terrestrial or truly paranormal or truly miraculous. and while i'm here i can learn other useful things along the way, such as information about pyramids, stonehenge, and other ancient places Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MID Posted October 30, 2012 #57 Share Posted October 30, 2012 i wouldn't refer to myself as a skeptic, but i am skeptical. it's not that i negate the idea of ghosts or psychics or ufo abductions - or what have you - i have not made my mind up on any of those things. it's the tales i hear and hoaxed pics and videos i see that i'm skeptical of. if these things exist, and in some cases i hope they do, bring it. stop with all the lies and bullcrap. that's where my skepticism lies. i have been asked why i bother to come to these forums, and my anwer is simply this: at some point through all the lies and crap i hope to learn of something truly extra ordinary or truly extra terrestrial or truly paranormal or truly miraculous. and while i'm here i can learn other useful things along the way, such as information about pyramids, stonehenge, and other ancient places Fair enough, JGirl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turbonium Posted November 25, 2012 #58 Share Posted November 25, 2012 This is a classic construct. A "true skeptic". I'm afraid that means, "A habitual skeptic". An amazing, but weak effort. By "false Skeptic", you're actually referring to intelligent, knowledgeable people who can see the validity of the "accepted" account (i.e., a real, engineering analysis, conducted by panels ). Your "true sleptic" refers to one person: The person filled with a lack of knowledge, with a mistrust of any official authority, and with a complete lack of anything to back up their declarations. The CT, or HB, in otherwords...a person like you, turb. It's just rather amazing an effort, although it had to fail. The official 9/11 story is built on "a lack of knowledge", with a complete trust of any official authority, and especially a lack of anything to back it up!! There are so many examples, such as.. - no Pentagon videos ever shown. Do you think a true skeptic would simply accept this? Not a chance. So who do you think has a "lack of knowledge" here? Who do you think lacks evidence for their claims? No true skeptic would believe this nonsense. - all the Ground Zero evidence that they quickly shipped off to Asia. You think a skeptic happily accepts such a farce? No way. A skeptic wants to see the evidence. A skeptic wants to know why it was shipped away without a care. - a true skeptic wants to know why Bush claimed - on two separate occasions - that he saw the first tower being hit by a plane on TV when it was never seen live. Those who blindly accept all that sort of bs are simply not true skeptics, They are just a bunch of phonies who call themselves 'skeptics'. As if that alone makes it so. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C235 Posted November 25, 2012 #59 Share Posted November 25, 2012 Its always about the majority. :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: > Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingswan Posted November 25, 2012 #60 Share Posted November 25, 2012 - all the Ground Zero evidence that they quickly shipped off to Asia. You think a skeptic happily accepts such a farce? No way. A skeptic wants to see the evidence. A skeptic wants to know why it was shipped away without a care. If the debris contained any incriminating evidence, what would be the advantage of giving it to a foreign power? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babe Ruth Posted November 26, 2012 #61 Share Posted November 26, 2012 If the debris contained any incriminating evidence, what would be the advantage of giving it to a foreign power? Good heavens man, the advantage would be the removal and destruction of evidence. That's a no brainer, and that is precisely what happened, both at WTC, the Pentagon and Shanksville. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted November 27, 2012 #62 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Good heavens man, the advantage would be the removal and destruction of evidence. That's a no brainer, and that is precisely what happened, both at WTC, the Pentagon and Shanksville. The 9/11 conspiracist were responsible for distorting the facts on evidence, not the U.S. government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babe Ruth Posted November 27, 2012 #63 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Destruction of evidence is what the government is all about. That is not a profound statement, and even the movie Argo shows that dynamic in action, as the employees at the US Embassy in Tehran were busy beavers destroying evidence as the hordes came over the fence. I understand the process, and consider it good under certain conditions. The point is that claiming the government does not destroy evidence is an absurd claim. And the destruction of evidence and utter compromise of the crime scene at WTC was blatant and observed and commented on by many. No evidence, no crime, is the operative philosophy. That's how the government works, I'm sad to report, and it's been demonstrated many times over many years. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingswan Posted November 27, 2012 #64 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Good heavens man, the advantage would be the removal and destruction of evidence. Destruction of evidence is one thing, giving the evidence to a foreign power is another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted November 27, 2012 #65 Share Posted November 27, 2012 And the destruction of evidence and utter compromise of the crime scene at WTC was blatant and observed and commented on by many. No evidence, no crime, is the operative philosophy. That's how the government works, I'm sad to report, and it's been demonstrated many times over many years. To back up your claim, where's your evidence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WoIverine Posted November 27, 2012 #66 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Usually skeptics can't see the forest for the trees when it comes to politics. They've been so heavily propagandized, they believe anything they hear. Of course, you could make the same argument against believers as well. Have to find the middle ground and consider all sources, eventually the truth will be realized. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Likely Guy Posted November 27, 2012 #67 Share Posted November 27, 2012 (edited) Usually skeptics can't see the forest for the trees when it comes to politics. They've been so heavily propagandized, they believe anything they hear. Of course, you could make the same argument against believers as well. Have to find the middle ground and consider all sources, eventually the truth will be realized. So then, you have to skeptical of the skeptics on both sides of the issue? *my head hurts* Edited November 27, 2012 by Likely Guy 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Liquid Gardens Posted November 27, 2012 #68 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Usually skeptics can't see the forest for the trees when it comes to politics. They've been so heavily propagandized, they believe anything they hear. Your second sentence contradicts your first, a skeptic by definition does not 'believe anything they hear'. I think we need to judge who and who isn't a 'skeptic' not just by how they refer to themselves, but by whether we actually see them put skepticism into practice. Which is not to say the skepticism is perfect, you can go too far of course, just like as you acknowledged 'believers' can. But skepticism has an extra benefit in that it purposely attempts to account for biases, fallacies, and critical thinking failures to which everyone is naturally prone (which is not to be confused with 'to which everyone is prone to the same extent'). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babe Ruth Posted November 27, 2012 #69 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Destruction of evidence is one thing, giving the evidence to a foreign power is another. Taking evidence away from the scene of the crime is itself a crime, and as many times the context is lost thereby, can be tantamount to destruction of the evidence. You're trying to back pedal from an obviously INCORRECT earlier statement. It's very tough indeed to even attempt to defend a lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JGirl Posted November 27, 2012 #70 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Is that Sandra Bullock lol? no just some internet chick wearing a cat for a hat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JGirl Posted November 27, 2012 #71 Share Posted November 27, 2012 i think it goes like this the gullible the heartfelt believers the fence sitters the skeptical the debunkers at UM we have an abundance of all of these types, but the debunkers are often mistaken for skeptics and the heartfelt believers are often accused of being gullible (usually by the debunkers) i sit between fence sitter and skeptic usually. ok if none of that made sense, sorry. it did when i typed it lol 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted November 27, 2012 #72 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Taking evidence away from the scene of the crime is itself a crime, and as many times the context is lost thereby, can be tantamount to destruction of the evidence. You're trying to back pedal from an obviously INCORRECT earlier statement. It's very tough indeed to even attempt to defend a lie. The website references you have been using are well known for spreading lies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingswan Posted November 28, 2012 #73 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Taking evidence away from the scene of the crime is itself a crime, and as many times the context is lost thereby, can be tantamount to destruction of the evidence. You're trying to back pedal from an obviously INCORRECT earlier statement. It's very tough indeed to even attempt to defend a lie. I am not back-pedalling from a statement, or defending anything. I asked a question of Turbs. I have not had an answer from either him or you. This is my last try at getting you to understand my point: Given that the steel from ground zero contained incriminating evidence, why should it be shipped to a foreign country rather than melted down in the US? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted November 28, 2012 #74 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Given that the steel from ground zero contained incriminating evidence, why should it be shipped to a foreign country rather than melted down in the US? Very good point! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insaniac Posted November 28, 2012 #75 Share Posted November 28, 2012 The website references you have been using are well known for spreading lies. No wonder you're familiar with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now