Why bother debunking when... [believers won't change their minds]

[Bruno D.]

why would i wan t to change my mind though?

I don't know if you tried to say something else with this question, but seeking the truth is wanting to change your mind. So you would want to change your mind if you want to know the truth.

Please note that I'm not even discussing which of the truths is the correct one. ;-)

 

[Pete Tar]

Can I ask what exactly prompted this ranty outburst of righteous derision?
What *exactly* did you read that made you respond this way - or was it just the fact that this site exists that offended you so?


ETA. And what exactly of yours was deleted? Nothing under your current user name seems deleted, was it under another name?

 

[MickeyS]

Wow....this was an interesting, albeit old, thread...I've been having these thoughts as well...why bother? But of course it is about the fence sitters, those who are uncertain, because, if presented properly, anything could look "legit". I've been looking at it all wrong. I've been drawn to these theories because of one specific event that happened, I know it happened, and I've been made aware of the devastation these theories are exacerbating within innocent families. I've personally been emotionally caught up in a sense of justice, for the families involved, expecting eventual accountability for those who are intentionally making their lives hell...so I can get a little excitable. But I see, that's truly not going to happen. The originators of the CT's I've seen can never see the truth...they just can't, they won't, no matter what, will they?

This put things in perspective. Again, you guys are doing great work and I have enormous respect for the level-headed way in which you handle these claims. Just wanted to put that out there, not looking to open anything up within this thread, just an acknowledgement of realizing your purpose. Hope that's ok

 

[Ron J]

"The originators of the CT's I've seen can never see the truth...they just can't, they won't, no matter what, will they?"

The originators are not interested in the truth, they are interested in promoting their propaganda. They see the truth but refuse to acknowledge it.

Columns were bowed in along the east wall of Two World Trade at about the 81st floor. I don't recall a CT ever mentioning that fact. The fire burned intensely there for a period of time and at the start of the collapse, debris fell down from the floor directly above the bowed in columns.

Jim Marrs wrote Crossfire, well after the JFK assassination. He wrote a segment about the man in the doorway seen in the Altgens photo. He was identified as Billy Lovelady, not Lee Oswald. Lovelady said it was himself, as well as other people who were standing with him. Yet Marrs wrote he had his doubts that Lovelady was the person in the doorway.
How could Marrs possibly doubt Lovelady was the person in the doorway?

The same debunked claims get repeated over and over again. Respond to them with actual facts and they will continue to repeat the same falsehoods to someone else in the future. They are simply not interested in the truth, despite the fact that they say they are.

Gary Mack, curator of the 6th floor museum, who died in 2015, was a believer in a conspiracy to kill JFK. He came to see that the evidence against Oswald was legitimate and participated in a series of Discovery Channel programs which set out to prove the viability of the evidence against Oswald.

A believer's mind can be changed, an originator's mind is bent on their self promoted conspiracy, not truth. They will vociferously argue against the truth. I can't recount the number of times i have been called a troll, by those who can't refute my argument against their claim.

 

[Gary Cook]

I will try and debunk something that is bunk sometimes just so they know they can turn to me if they change their mind.

For me it is not about winning a debate of course but to try and help people. Both the person I am debating with and society as a whole.

 

[MikeG]

A believer's mind can be changed, an originator's mind is bent on their self promoted conspiracy, not truth.

That is a nice distinction. Well said.

 

[Gary Cook]

A believer's mind can be changed, an originator's mind is bent on their self promoted conspiracy, not truth. They will vociferously argue against the truth.

Not sure why you think that. I have debated with people and changed their minds on things. Whether they originated the theory or just believed somebody elses. Of course the originators are usually more vehement than a simple believer but not always.

I have spoken to many people who thought 911 was Muslims whose leader was essentially living in a cave in Afghanistan and that the government wouldn't even consider hurting its own people for selfish political ends. And then I showed them details of Operation Northwoods etc. Once they saw that they were asking me if 911 was an inside job. I didn't even have to show them why I thought it may be.

Also, I showed people things on this forum that showed that not all contrails are chemtrails. It has been a useful forum for me like that. =)

 

[deirdre]

I have spoken to many people who thought 911 was Muslims whose leader was essentially living in a cave in Afghanistan and that the government wouldn't even consider hurting its own people for selfish political ends. And then I showed them details of Operation Northwoods etc. Once they saw that they were asking me if 911 was an inside job. I didn't even have to show them why I thought it may be

But that's not debunking. That's just sharing your speculations with people. Let's try to stay on topic.

 

[JRBids]

I have spoken to many people who thought 911 was Muslims whose leader was essentially living in a cave in Afghanistan and that the government wouldn't even consider hurting its own people for selfish political ends. And then I showed them details of Operation Northwoods etc. Once they saw that they were asking me if 911 was an inside job. I didn't even have to show them why I thought it may be.

So you are saying you instilled doubt in someone's mind by presenting them with an operation that was proposed but did not actually take place. You did not present them with proof of anything, in other words.

 

[Slackerjack]

I'm a newbie. I think CT'ers are an interesting group. I recently went to down the rabbit hole on youtube regarding flat earthers. Some of their opinions are interesting if not outright delusional. Many are obviously very bright and intelligent and have done a great deal of, (somewhat misguided), research. When I counter with proven scientific observation I am dismissed as a rube, sheeple, a dupe and a lackey. I find it interesting to ask these posters if, in the future, they were presented with definitive scientific evidence that the world was indeed round would that change their mind? All answer in the negative. Yet, as CTers, they constantly maintain that they are open minded and interested in uncovering the "truth".

 

[Hierophant]

I kind of tell myself that even if I cant convince hardcore "truthers", maybe someone who reads the info I give will sway, or rather not sway, to the propaganda machinery on youtube. The pattern for the CTers I talked is always this: They make a claim of "undeniable proof" (usually building 7), and when I show them that their "proof" is neither proof nor a physically accurate description of what the evidence shows, they say "then explain this..." and they give 5 more issues, and completely ignore that I just refuted their entire argument. When I do the same for their 5 points, they call me "shill" or "cognitive dissonance case" and ask how much the government pays me, and copy paste 7 more truther points they found via google, and when I explain those, they call me an agent of evil, how people like me will be tried when the world wakes up, etc etc. Some of the more aggressive types will then go to other threads I posted in and warn people of my evil nature. Then generally another "truther" comes along, says he agrees that I'm an agent of evil, and all the explanation I gave are completely forgotten, and interpreted as even more proof that I'm a "government shill". The pattern is always the same, it's like they are robots programmed by youtube videos. Completely brainwashed if you will.

So what this teaches me is that the problem is purely one of psychology. Nothing rational or physical will ever convince these guys. So I'm wondering... is there any psychological way to get to these guys again? I confess to being a somewhat autistic and definitely better in "physical logic" than in psychology, but maybe someone else has some advice how to get to these sort of people?

 

[Bill Statler]

...The pattern for the CTers I talked is always this: They make a claim of "undeniable proof" (usually building 7), and when I show them that their "proof" is neither proof nor a physically accurate description of what the evidence shows, they say "then explain this..." and they give 5 more issues, and completely ignore that I just refuted their entire argument. When I do the same for their 5 points...

You have a lot more patience than I do. I can't last much past the first few undeniable proofs.

It's frustrating -- sometimes the undeniable is so obviously wrong that it can be pointed out in seconds, but doing so is ineffective. Or sometimes the undeniable can be shown to be faulty by careful and detailed explanation, and... well, one time I did that, and the guy replied, "Okay, I see your point, but what if it WERE true? How would you explain it?"

I do think the main reason to pursue debunking is for the benefit of the spectators, who may not yet be locked into any specific theory.

 

[zootalaws]

It does make a certain amount of sense, however I don't believe it

It doesn't make any sort of sense, whatever.

Why on earth do you think the government would be testing virii at a dog show? How would they collate the results? How are they going to keep tabs on the spread?

This sort of thinking is the slippery slope to stupid conspiracy theories 'it does make a certain amount of sense' - no, it doesn't. It's completely based on delusional thinking.

If the government wants to test the effects of a virus, it does it in an environment where they can control all aspects of the experiment, just the same as any science experiment.

 

[zootalaws]

My other site http://contrailscience.com is a bit more focussed on providing concise chemtrail debunkings.

You will probably need to play it slow with your friend. Butting heads does not work, it's best to at least acknowledge that she thinks that way, but clearly explain why you think that she might be wrong. People have pride, and insecurity, and they also have love for others that can make it feel like a terrible betrayal to doubt that other person. In extreme examples this is known as folie à deux, but it can also simply be standing by your man. It's something you can't just talk through, it takes time so don't expect immediate results. Plant seeds.

For a start, we need to stop calling them chemtrails and call them what they actually are - contrails.

By using [that] terminology, you are buying into their narrative. Refuse to use the term - correct them every time they use it.

 

[zootalaws]

i think that it actually could require even less people involved than a relatively successful large conspiracy like LIBOR rate fixing was, or UK's 'hackgate' with the leveson inquiry, involving at-least 100 individuals high and low on the pleb-scale.

A conspiracy is literally just more than one person deliberately acting to break the law or to cover up a truth.

Your stock broker is told that tomorrow a big corp is going to buy out a smaller company and so he buys up as much stock as he can afford - he just became a member of a conspiracy.

A policeman agrees to let the rape charges slide on the teenage son of a local politician - a conspiracy.

They aren't hard, or special, or rare, or noteworthy. As long as there has been human society there have been conspiracies.

 

[NoParty]

For a start, we need to stop calling them chemtrails and call them what they actually are - contrails.

By using [..] terminology, you are buying into their narrative. Refuse to use the term - correct them every time they use it.

It's a nice idea, but overly simple. Sometimes one can't discuss the contrail vs. "chemtrail" nonsense
clearly without multiple terms, since we're talking about multiple concepts: one real, one a fiction.
My personal approach is to always put "chemtrails" in quotes...my way of saying that I don't accept
that they exist any more than "unicorns." (but I still sometimes type "unicorns"...and trust people to get it)


mod edit: just edited out impolite words from reply quote

 

[Inti]

I'm a newbie. I think CT'ers are an interesting group. I recently went to down the rabbit hole on youtube regarding flat earthers. Some of their opinions are interesting if not outright delusional. Many are obviously very bright and intelligent and have done a great deal of, (somewhat misguided), research. When I counter with proven scientific observation I am dismissed as a rube, sheeple, a dupe and a lackey. I find it interesting to ask these posters if, in the future, they were presented with definitive scientific evidence that the world was indeed round would that change their mind? All answer in the negative. Yet, as CTers, they constantly maintain that they are open minded and interested in uncovering the "truth".

Yes, I've had the same experience. I have been posting on Eric Dubay's 200 Proofs the Earth is not a Sinning Ball video, to the extent that I've collated replies to every point on a blog of my own. I've occasionally been told this is because of the small size of my sexual organ, but not a single Flat Earther has actually addressed a factual argument. I'd say they are the least rational of all conspiracy believers that I have come across.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

I kind of tell myself that even if I cant convince hardcore "truthers", maybe someone who reads the info I give will sway, or rather not sway, to the propaganda machinery on youtube. The pattern for the CTers I talked is always this: They make a claim of "undeniable proof" (usually building 7), and when I show them that their "proof" is neither proof nor a physically accurate description of what the evidence shows, they say "then explain this..." and they give 5 more issues, and completely ignore that I just refuted their entire argument. When I do the same for their 5 points, they call me "shill" or "cognitive dissonance case"...

The syndrome you describe has a name.

Classic UFOdom is a thing of the past; it's a mere shell of its former self. In the 50's to late 70's was the golden age and you Sprouts might not appreciate how big the UFO thing was. Debunkers solved case after case; but even when believers acknowledged that the case had been solved, it became meaningless. Then another sighting would pop up... and be solved, and it would become meaningless. This phenomenon was named the postcard rack syndrome. Debunkers pulled a solved case out of the rack on one side and believers put one new case in the revolving rack on the other side. So the rack was always full. But believers never acknowledged that there was a message in that pile of solved, discarded cases.

 

[Dan Wilson]

I kind of tell myself that even if I cant convince hardcore "truthers", maybe someone who reads the info I give will sway, or rather not sway, to the propaganda machinery on youtube.

I think we have to accept that bunk and conspiracy theories will never go away but it is still necessary to create a voice against them (or at least challenging them). Patience, persistence, and driving the conversation towards encouraging them to think critically is normally the best you can do. I used to be a hardcore believer in 9/11 conspiracy theories as well as a variety of wholistic healing junk but I've changed pretty dramatically over the past ~6 years or so. Don't be discouraged, I'm sure your conversations with those people made an impact.

 

[DesuMaiden]

I am mostly a lurker. I lurk these forums for more interesting info. I think people taking the time to debunk implausible conspiracy theories are doing justice, since they help fence-sitters decide what to believe. Fence-sitters as in referring to the people that just encountered a certain theory, and are not yet sure whether or not they should believe in it.

Not all conspiracy theories are false. Some are more credible than others. Best to have someone rationally analysis the validity of any said theory.

 

[I am only asking]

I am new to this group; my experience with debunkers and ct'ers is that neither one budges. Just by definition one has cubby holed that person into a label. debunkers, many times but not totally, have a gang mentality and avoid addressing a question they find difficult to refute. ct'ers, on the other hand, not always but enough to drive me nuts address something with a flash bang revelation that has been tossed around for some time and cannot go very deep into the discussion until the wall is hit. ct'ers will historically talk until they say something that is refutable (enter the debunker gang mentality) and then the debunkers will ride that pony until it can't be rode any more. I am anxious to see that this site is not like that... on either side.

If a person is only a debunker, watch out and if someone is a ct'er on everything... that person is in the same boat as the debunker...

 

[Landru]

I am new to this group; my experience with debunkers and ct'ers is that neither one budges. Just by definition one has cubby holed that person into a label. debunkers, many times but not totally, have a gang mentality and avoid addressing a question they find difficult to refute. ct'ers, on the other hand, not always but enough to drive me nuts address something with a flash bang revelation that has been tossed around for some time and cannot go very deep into the discussion until the wall is hit. ct'ers will historically talk until they say something that is refutable (enter the debunker gang mentality) and then the debunkers will ride that pony until it can't be rode any more. I am anxious to see that this site is not like that... on either side.

If a person is only a debunker, watch out and if someone is a ct'er on everything... that person is in the same boat as the debunker...

To say all CTers are all the same as are all debunkers is an oversimplification and really not useful to a discussion.

 

[Ray Von Geezer]

I am new to this group; my experience with debunkers and ct'ers is that neither one budges. Just by definition one has cubby holed that person into a label. debunkers, many times but not totally, have a gang mentality and avoid addressing a question they find difficult to refute. ct'ers, on the other hand, not always but enough to drive me nuts address something with a flash bang revelation that has been tossed around for some time and cannot go very deep into the discussion until the wall is hit. ct'ers will historically talk until they say something that is refutable (enter the debunker gang mentality) and then the debunkers will ride that pony until it can't be rode any more. I am anxious to see that this site is not like that... on either side.

If a person is only a debunker, watch out and if someone is a ct'er on everything... that person is in the same boat as the debunker...

That's why one of the great things about Metabunk is the aim to address one topic per thread - "debunkers" can't avoid a point if that is the point of the discussion, and helps prevent the "Gish Gallop" that's a common trait of conspiracy theorists to avoid having to address a failed point.

Doesn't always work, but they certainly try.

Ray Von

 

[NoParty]

I am new to this group; my experience with debunkers and ct'ers is that neither one budges. Just by definition one has cubby holed that person into a label. debunkers, many times but not totally, have a gang mentality and avoid addressing a question they find difficult to refute. ct'ers, on the other hand, not always but enough to drive me nuts address something with a flash bang revelation that has been tossed around for some time and cannot go very deep into the discussion until the wall is hit. ct'ers will historically talk until they say something that is refutable (enter the debunker gang mentality) and then the debunkers will ride that pony until it can't be rode any more. I am anxious to see that this site is not like that... on either side.

If a person is only a debunker, watch out and if someone is a ct'er on everything... that person is in the same boat as the debunker...

When I hear (or read) stupid stuff, that makes society dumber, I enjoy seeing it debunked.

Sometimes my own particular skill set is adequate...though often--on this site--I'll defer to those with
more of a formal science background (like when posters are discussing how fast a particular building would be expected to fall).

Can't say as I've ever even considered never "budging" or having "a gang mentality" (& I almost never wear blue or red!)

So I'm trying to wrap my head around your post. Perhaps you could explain the "Just by definition..." remark
for starters...I sincerely do not understand where you're going there...but willing to listen...

 

[Hama Neggs]

have a gang mentality and avoid addressing a question they find difficult to refute.

I have rarely, if ever, seen debunkers avoid a question(unless it is part of a Gish Gallop). Do you have an example?

 

[Whitebeard]

debunkers, many times but not totally, have a gang mentality and avoid addressing a question they find difficult to refute

Not something I've really come across here. What you call 'gang mentality', I call consensus. Most of us here use rationalist, deductive and skeptical reasoning when evaluating claims, and therefore do tend to reach similar conclusions when reviewing evidence. It's the way science and reason works. A good read around these boards will show that progress in action. eg, There are some very interesting threads around the physics of the twin tower collapses, there is plenty of informed discussion and disagreement in those. No gang mentality here.

Also I think you have missed the main point about the whole rationalist / debunker point of view. If 100% surefire proof ever arose that any given conspiracy theory was in fact true, I'm pretty sure that, having triple checked the evidence, everyone of us here would put our hands admit we were wrong and move on.

 

[tinkertailor]

I am new to this group; my experience with debunkers and ct'ers is that neither one budges. Just by definition one has cubby holed that person into a label. debunkers, many times but not totally, have a gang mentality and avoid addressing a question they find difficult to refute. ct'ers, on the other hand, not always but enough to drive me nuts address something with a flash bang revelation that has been tossed around for some time and cannot go very deep into the discussion until the wall is hit. ct'ers will historically talk until they say something that is refutable (enter the debunker gang mentality) and then the debunkers will ride that pony until it can't be rode any more. I am anxious to see that this site is not like that... on either side.

If a person is only a debunker, watch out and if someone is a ct'er on everything... that person is in the same boat as the debunker...

Welcome to Metabunk!
I think if you peruse around a bit you'll find some interesting information regarding your claim about 'all' debunkers and 'all' believers. The "Out of the Rabbit Hole" forum is particularly good for this. I think you'll find that quite a few debunkers used to be believers in the bunk they focus on today.
For many of us, we got in to debunking because we were fascinated by bunk in the past. Horror movies, comics and stories seem to be a popular starting point as do works of science fiction.
Suppose today you asked the more active members on this site if they believed extraterrestrial life has ever visited Earth in the past. There's a good chance the vast majority of us would say "no," citing natural and/or terrestrial explanations for such supposed phenomena as abduction and UFOs. Now, if we all woke up tomorrow morning and there were extraterrestrials politely taking over, these same Metabunk members would admit they were wrong before and beg to be allowed an interview with the aliens. The same goes for ghosts. If scientists in a controlled environment were able to scientifically communicate with the ghost of the janitor who cleaned the lab for twenty years, people here would be ecstatic once we knew it was legitimate.
The truth is, people do change. There are extremes on both sides of the spectrum, but the vast vast vast vaaaast majority of skeptical debunker-type people are pretty reasonable and open-minded, if the empirical evidence turns out.

(edit: grammar)

 

[deirdre]

Suppose today you asked the more active members on this site if they believed extraterrestrial life has ever visited Earth in the past. There's a good chance the vast majority of us would say "no," citing natural and/or terrestrial explanations for such supposed phenomena as abduction and UFOs. Now, if we all woke up tomorrow morning and there were extraterrestrials politely taking over, these same Metabunk members would admit they were wrong before

i wouldn't. admit i was wrong. although, i've never said "no abductions ever happened" or "aliens have never visited the earth and that's a FACT".
I've never seen any evidence of abductions or exterrestial visits to date.

I knew what you meant, but i'm only pointing this out because quite a few "believers" i've run across dont seem to understand what the term "debunker" means. If someone disagrees with a 'theory' or statement, that is not a debunker.

That is just someone who disagrees. Perhaps you can call them skeptics, as in "i'm skeptical that alien abductions are real". But just saying you are skeptical or you disagree does not a debunker make.

 

[tinkertailor]

i wouldn't. admit i was wrong. although, i've never said "no abductions ever happened" or "aliens have never visited the earth and that's a FACT".
I've never seen any evidence of abductions or exterrestial visits to date.

I knew what you meant, but i'm only pointing this out because quite a few "believers" i've run across dont seem to understand what the term "debunker" means. If someone disagrees with a 'theory' or statement, that is not a debunker.

That is just someone who disagrees. Perhaps you can call them skeptics, as in "i'm skeptical that alien abductions are real". But just saying you are skeptical or you disagree does not a debunker make.

Exactly, should have made that a touch clearer!

 

[Jazzy]

I kind of tell myself that even if I cant convince hardcore "truthers", maybe someone who reads the info I give will sway, or rather not sway, to the propaganda machinery on youtube. The pattern for the CTers I talked is always this: They make a claim of "undeniable proof" (usually building 7), and when I show them that their "proof" is neither proof nor a physically accurate description of what the evidence shows, they say "then explain this..." and they give 5 more issues, and completely ignore that I just refuted their entire argument. When I do the same for their 5 points, they call me "shill" or "cognitive dissonance case" and ask how much the government pays me, and copy paste 7 more truther points they found via google, and when I explain those, they call me an agent of evil, how people like me will be tried when the world wakes up, etc etc. Some of the more aggressive types will then go to other threads I posted in and warn people of my evil nature. Then generally another "truther" comes along, says he agrees that I'm an agent of evil, and all the explanation I gave are completely forgotten, and interpreted as even more proof that I'm a "government shill". The pattern is always the same, it's like they are robots programmed by youtube videos. Completely brainwashed if you will.
So what this teaches me is that the problem is purely one of psychology. Nothing rational or physical will ever convince these guys. So I'm wondering... is there any psychological way to get to these guys again? I confess to being a somewhat autistic and definitely better in "physical logic" than in psychology, but maybe someone else has some advice how to get to these sort of people?

You have stated most concisely my own YouTube experience, and arrived at my exact same conclusion. Wonderful!
Of course you deserve what you receive, just as I do.
I just hope that you're younger than I am. You may have my sword and lance when my time's up.

 

[Jeremy]

I've found that it's hopeless trying to convince anti-vaccine people (the only thing that would probably change their minds is one of their children getting pertussis).
I've had a little luck with some Sandy Hook truthers, however.

 

[Gary Cook]

I find both CT's and debunkers can be irrationaly stubborn and not open to new evidence that would mean them accepting they have been mistaken about things.

 

[Mick West]

I find both CT's and debunkers can be irrationaly stubborn and not open to new evidence that would mean them accepting they have been mistaken about things.

We all know lots of examples of conspiracy theorists doing that - like insisting contrails can't persist, or that high bypass engines don't make contrails, or that aluminum should not be in rain water, or that a tall stable structure cannot collapse from the top down, or that planes should only fly in straight lines.

But can you give some examples of debunkers doing this? Please be specific.

 

[Gary Cook]

We all know lots of examples of conspiracy theorists doing that - like insisting contrails can't persist, or that high bypass engines don't make contrails, or that aluminum should not be in rain water, or that a tall stable structure cannot collapse from the top down, or that planes should only fly in straight lines.

But can you give some examples of debunkers doing this? Please be specific.

The most topical example I have experienced recently would be people saying a semi-auto AR-15 is an Assault Rifle when it isn't. Even after getting them to look on Wikipedia themselves they still deny it. Was in a private convo though and I have not asked the person permission to share. But propaganda like that is as bad as spreading CT misinfo, to me.

Just making convo im relation to the subject at hand. =)

 

[Landru]

The most topical example I have experienced recently would be people saying a semi-auto AR-15 is an Assault Rifle when it isn't. Even after getting them to look on Wikipedia themselves they still deny it. Was in a private convo though and I have not asked the person permission to share. But propaganda like that is as bad as spreading CT misinfo, to me.

Just making convo im relation to the subject at hand. =)

The only reason the AR-15 is not an assault rifle is that it does not have selective fire. I don't see that as a big deal. It's a nomenclature thing. The rifle still killed a lot of people.

 

[deirdre]

The most topical example I have experienced recently would be people saying a semi-auto AR-15 is an Assault Rifle when it isn't. Even after getting them to look on Wikipedia themselves they still deny it.

and what exactly are those people 'debunking'? you specifically said "debunkers"

can be irrationaly stubborn and not open to new evidence that would mean them accepting they have been mistaken about things

 

[deirdre]

The only reason the AR-15 is not an assault rifle is that it does not have selective fire.

we're very off topic but just fyi, people (and law enforcement in the USA) call them assault rifles because they are defined as such under US law (and UK law actually-according to his ar-15 wiki link).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

 

[Gary Cook]

The only reason the AR-15 is not an assault rifle is that it does not have selective fire. I don't see that as a big deal. It's a nomenclature thing. The rifle still killed a lot of people.

It is the difference between semi-auto and full auto. But like our friend, says. Going off topic and I dont want to go to the sin bin again. I was being genuine. =)

 

[deirdre]

It is the difference between semi-auto and full auto. But like our friend, says. Going off topic and I dont want to go to the sin bin again. I was being genuine. =)

you still havent given an example of a debunker refusing facts. Someone disagreeing with you about semantics is not 'debunking'. @Mick asked you for an example involving a debunker.

 

[trevor]

I am mostly a lurker. I lurk these forums for more interesting info. I think people taking the time to debunk implausible conspiracy theories are doing justice, since they help fence-sitters decide what to believe. Fence-sitters as in referring to the people that just encountered a certain theory, and are not yet sure whether or not they should believe in it.

Not all conspiracy theories are false. Some are more credible than others. Best to have someone rationally analysis the validity of any said theory.

Which conspiracy theory isn't false? if it's a "Conspiracy THEORY", it's just a theory, and isn't proven true.