Deliberately misleading vs. misinformed/misunderstand valid evidence/logic

Critical Thinker

Senior Member.
In the forums I have seen individuals argue their case using 'evidence' that has already been shown to be a load of hooey and also using logical fallacies (ie.. ad hominem attacks: "you are a disinformation agent!"). I have even seen some people hold the belief that Alex Jones actually believes the claims that he makes (I think he intentionally misleads others). I am curious how others make the distinction between when someone is simply mistaken versus when someone is intentionally making assertions they do not even believe in in an effort to mislead. Anyone care to share their thoughts?
 

Defacto

New Member
In my experience interacting within what we call the "Truther Community", I have concluded that only a fraction is intentionally trying to deceive or mislead anyone. In fact, it is the exact opposite. Most are committed to the highest cause. They are on a mission to expose the truth on an issue that they "know" is intentionally being clouded, fudged or completely staged by a governmental, economic or even Satanic authority.

I think that the individuals that deceive intentionally are relatively easy to spot. Usually stands to prophet from the "release" of information in the form of a book or DVD, maybe even web site revenue.
These folks are like a one-shot deal. Kind of like..."HERE IT IS....BUY THE BOOK, MAKE A DONATION" and are not seen to be particularly interested in debate about their authenticity or the authenticity of the information.

The majority of the truther communtiy, (and I mean this respectfully) has a soul commitment to the cause and are very interested in debate as they are convinced of it's validity. You can see this when a major conspiracy theory contentions does get exposed or completely debunked, the focus immediately swings onto another aspect without losing a beat or a breath.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
I agree with the committment issue but it is a judgement call when evaluating that. When something does get conclusively debunked, a willingness to publicly concede the point might be another indication of sincerety. Along the same vein, those who avoid tough issues or distract away from courses of action which would threaten the CT as false give an indication of insincerety.

Take for example Alex Jones' current $100k prize. He says he will give out the prize for a video idea. Well, he is also saying that the whole world is being poisoned by unmarked planes spraying. $100k or even fifty could easily send multiple planes up to conclusively detect and document this and make him the hero who saved the whole world from a holocaust. He has a staff of reporters and hundreds of volunteers. His organization rakes in and could raise $1 million for the task in days if he called for it. There is no plea of poverty there at Infowars.

It would be a Nobel Prize moment.

Yet he has chosen instead to make another video?

And none of his people have called him out on it?

As much as his followers make of their 'research' and skill at uncovering coverups, following the money trail, etc.....


Well, maybe that tells you something about their critical thinking skills.
 
Top