Neeson's anti-debunking thoughts

neeson

New Member
I have read widely, been open to all possibility and come across much that warrants debate and independent research. I have studied the sky, vaccines, EMF, NWO, space, cancer, satanism, energy, religion, 9/11, wars, child abuse.... and one of the most horrifying things I have come across so far, is the comment by @Mick West, stating that he does not earn money for debunking theories, this is his hobby.

It may seem innocuous, a throw away comment perhaps, but I think not. People, the world over, are desperately worried and the only thing this man thinks to do about it, is to spend his time finding evidence to squash people's concerns. It is a vile waste of time that serves nobody and has nothing to do with morality and finding truth. It is his hobby.

Evidence is always available to support any argument - ask any lawyer; so for people who care about family and their planet and who truly want moral progress, it is time to ignore sites like this. Truth is not black and white and this man's hobby will no more save his skin than ours, if that is the plan.

Science, environmentalists, governments, industry and media are no longer reliable sources of information, it has become nigh on impossible to decipher, truth from lie, manipulation from concern, belief and bias from fact, puppet from puppeteer, therefore our last and permanent source of truth is conscience. If we vigorously act on that, support each other, educate ourselves in systems that work with nature and ignore the bullying and ridiculing, we can enjoy what is good and if an engineered tidal wave comes today or tomorrow we will have at least spent our lives doing what makes life worth living. And you never know, even the parasites may realise what they are missing.

Long live good people, we are the majority and Mike West, come join.


[edit Deirdre: added @ to tag member mentioned]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

deirdre

Moderator
Staff member
It is a vile waste of time
what is a vile waste of time is being concerned about things that are not true.
what is a vile waste of time is when concerning issues get dismissed by the public because too much bunk about the topic is spread around.

Metabunk examines specific claims of evidence.
https://www.metabunk.org/posting-guidelines.t2064/

If you see any debunking on this site that is not true, please debunk it. That is the point of the site, to provide people accurate information so they can make informed decisions.
 

Balance

Senior Member
People, the world over, are desperately worried and the only thing this man thinks to do about it, is to spend his time finding evidence to squash people's concerns. It is a vile waste of time that serves nobody and has nothing to do with morality and finding truth. It is his hobby.
I don't know what people you're referring to, but this person has had his fears alleviated (not squashed) by Mick & Co's evidence. That's a good thing, surely?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
and one of the most horrifying things I have come across so far, is the comment by @Mick West, stating that he does not earn money for debunking theories, this is his hobby.
Which comment are you referring to? Could you quote it?

Perhaps you misunderstand what we do here. We don't try to make it look like a particular theory is false. We look at the claims of evidence that people make, we investigate them, and we see if that individual claim of evidence is true or false (or sometimes inconclusive).

This is quite specifically laid out in the posting guidelines:
The specific form of bunk focussed on at Metabunk is claims of evidence. i.e. individual points that are used to back up a broader theory. For example, the fact that high levels of aluminum are sometimes found in rainwater is used as evidence for the "chemtrails" theory.
You can read the guidelines in full here:
https://www.metabunk.org/posting-guidelines.t2064/

If you would like to be critical of someone here then I respectfully ask that you quote what you are criticising, and first read and provide as much context as possible.
 

NoParty

Senior Member
Science, environmentalists, governments, industry and media are no longer reliable sources of information
If you aren't keen on "Science, environmentalists, governments, industry and media,"
what do you consider "reliable sources of information"?
Our "conscience"? If so, what does that mean? Are we born into the world understanding it?
YouTube? I'm kinda lost, here, neeson...
 

benthamitemetric

Senior Member
I have read widely, been open to all possibility and come across much that warrants debate and independent research. I have studied the sky, vaccines, EMF, NWO, space, cancer, satanism, energy, religion, 9/11, wars, child abuse.... and one of the most horrifying things I have come across so far, is the comment by Mick West, stating that he does not earn money for debunking theories, this is his hobby.

It may seem innocuous, a throw away comment perhaps, but I think not. People, the world over, are desperately worried and the only thing this man thinks to do about it, is to spend his time finding evidence to squash people's concerns. It is a vile waste of time that serves nobody and has nothing to do with morality and finding truth. It is his hobby. ...
Unless you are getting paid to do your research into "the sky, vaccines, EMF, NWO, space, cancer, satanism, energy, religion, 9/11, wars, child abuse," how is your research on these topics topics any less of a hobby than Mick's?

Outside of a very few people who are either experts on these subjects or who seek to profit off of the spread of misinformation about them (and it is very rare that those two groups overlap), almost anyone who researches them and discusses them is doing so as a hobby. And that's not a bad thing. What better hobby to have than trying to obtain a clearer understanding of the world through research and discourse?

It seems to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, that your problem with Mick is more that you do not agree with his research methods or conclusions, rather than that you object to him dedicating his free time towards researching and reaching conclusions. If that is correct, then you should post only about the specific conclusions or methodologies with which you disagree and state the reasons for your disagreement. We can then evaluate each of your disagreements on the merits and, if you have a superior approach to a given topic, we can adopt it. If you read these forums carefully, you will likely note that Mick and others are more than willing to acknowledge shortcomings in their knowledge and methodologies and happy to re-evaluate issues in light of new information; we just do so in a very careful and deliberate way to ensure we keep discussions on a path towards truth based on the best verifiable evidence, whatever that may be.
 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
People, the world over, are desperately worried and the only thing this man thinks to do about it, is to spend his time finding evidence to squash people's concerns. It is a vile waste of time that serves nobody and has nothing to do with morality and finding truth. It is his hobby.
So you don't think that stopping people worrying about things that aren't true is a good thing to do?

Nobody is trying to say "Everything's OK, there's nothing to worry about." There is plenty to worry about, and plenty of bad things going on that we should try to stop. Filtering out the fake concerns means people can devote more energy to real concerns. How is that "a vile waste of time"?

Debunking means removing bunk. Bunk means lies. Having fewer lies and more truth in the world is a good thing, if you ask me.
 

MikeG

Senior Member
I have read widely, been open to all possibility and come across much that warrants debate and independent research. I have studied the sky, vaccines, EMF, NWO, space, cancer, satanism, energy, religion, 9/11, wars, child abuse.... and one of the most horrifying things I have come across so far, is the comment by @Mick West, stating that he does not earn money for debunking theories, this is his hobby. [edit Deirdre: added @ to tag member mentioned]
Equal to/worse than satanism? Wars? Child abuse? Seriously?

How does that kind of hyperbole help your case?

Join a discussion. Don't just ring and run.

I doubt anything on this site absolutely allays fears people may have. It is a good place to have a rational discussion though.

Come join it.
 

EricL

Member
Evidence is always available to support any argument - ask any lawyer
I could pick any number of things that you wrote, but lets use this one as an example.

Think about that particular comment. Isn't that the main thing that so many ordinary people use as a reason to disrespect trial lawyers? And doesn't this come about because the average person actually DOES realize that there's a difference between an argument that's based on fact and one that's not? And isn't that exactly the reason that you mentioned it?

That's the crux of what this site is about, defining "evidence", not as any idea that some individual or group of people might say is true or believe to be true for reasons of their own choosing, but as something that demonstrably shows that a certain idea is, in fact, true or not true. It seems to me, this is the key point that you are missing, and it's the basis of how this website functions.

(And for the record, I don't wish to overly disparage trial lawyers with the comment I made here. As distasteful as it may be to an impartial observer, a lawyer's obfuscation in such situations actually is his/her job)
 

darrenr

Member
People, the world over, are desperately worried

And they've every right to be. There is plenty to be worried about. But maybe their concern is better focussed on genuine issues instead of spurious, unsupported nonsense. That's why this website is trying to winnow the wheat from the chaff.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Not true. What is true, if it read, "Bunk is available to support any argument".

Fantasy CTs and bunk are supported with opinions and false claims mistakenly used as evidence.
You are mistaking the general term "evidence" for "verifiable evidence".

Opinions ARE evidence.....very low grade poor evidence that is usually easy to refute, to be sure, but yes, evidence none-the-less.
 

NoParty

Senior Member
You are mistaking the general term "evidence" for "verifiable evidence".

Opinions ARE evidence.....very low grade poor evidence that is usually easy to refute, to be sure, but yes, evidence none-the-less.
I don't know.

I mean, that is an exceptionally broad definition for evidence.

If I say: "Obama is wiretapping Al Capone (who died in 1947, btw)"
is that really evidence? If I have no proof whatsoever, and my claim is obviously false on its face...
even calling it "very low grade poor evidence" seems to grant my opinion more credibility than it warrants.

I mean, I get your point, Mike...but if we commonly use the term so broadly, doesn't it water down
the word so much as to make a simple "...but he offered no evidence" sentence virtually impossible...
if we grant "merely blurting something out" evidentiary status?
 

tadaaa

Senior Member
the use of the lawyerly term "argument" in the OP

reminds me of the memorable line in the film "Thank You for Smoking"

That's the beauty of argument, if you argue correctly, you're never wrong.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
I don't know.

I mean, that is an exceptionally broad definition for evidence.

If I say: "Obama is wiretapping Al Capone (who died in 1947, btw)"
is that really evidence?....
IMO, yes, it is.

Evidence is something that requires EVALUATION, and is then rejected or accepted.

some evidence is trivial to reject...that's fine.
 
Top