NationStates Jolt Archive

Case 1:

A is in favor of racism. B is against racism.

A: The government should segregate communities by race, because most crimes are mostly done by this race of people.

B: Prejudice is never the answer. Case in point, the Holocaust was motivated by racism.

A: The Holocaust never occured, you were brainwashed by a liberal conspirators who want to make racism look bad.

B: There are numerous witnesses and physical evidence of the Holocaust.

A: They are all fabrications.

B: ...


Case 2:

A believes in the flat-world conspiracy. B does not.

A: The world is flat.

B: That is not true, sailing and astronomy proved that the world is round.

A: How do you know that, you've never travelled the circumference of the world.

B: There are numerous photos that prove the world to be a round planet.

A: They are all fabrications.

B: ...


Are there effective ways to argue with conspiracy theorists? Any opposing evidence that is presented to them is deemed a fabrication :(

You don't.

It's a waste of time and effort.
However, it can be highly amusing to get them to talk about their theories.

Are there effective ways to argue with conspiracy theorists?
Yes, but it's more interesting to argue for them.

How do you argue with the brainwashed minions of military industrial complex?

How do you argue with the brainwashed minions of military industrial complex?

Case 1:

A is a fat-cat and owner of many radio, television, and media outlets. B is a supporter of North Korean Juche ideology

A: the beggering slimeballs of the lower-classes do not deserve a provided life, given that it is only those inherent of our golds that survive.

B: family doesn't define the revolution, thought does.

A: family defines your connections.

B: how do you explain those connection's irreputability in setting up a system where millions of beggars or colonial 'subjects' under imperialism die for your gain, under their toil? And thus, the invalidity of their "inherent superiority," as it were?

A: those are fabrications by you pinko scum; never mind the deaths, I have many treasures. This defines how awesome I am. Now beat it.

One could try to show them contradictions in their own beliefs perhaps?

Some changes to how I'd deal with Case 2:


Case 2:

A believes in the flat-world conspiracy. B does not.

A: The world is flat.

B: That is not true, sailing and astronomy proved that the world is round.

A: How do you know that, you've never travelled the circumference of the world.

B: Yes I have - twice.

A: Oh.

B: I thoroughly enjoyed it, too! Two round the world trips - and since I was flying, rather than travelling at ground level, I could even see the curvature of the earth once we were at maximum altitude!

A: Oh. Did you see the giant turtles once you were on the other side of the disc? What did they look like? Does the water freeze as it falls off the edges in the vacuum of space?

B: <sigh>

Some changes to how I'd deal with Case 2:

A: How do you know that, you've never travelled the circumference of the world.

B: Yes I have - twice.

A: Amm, no you haven't, you've only flown in a circle round a flat surface, the curvature is merely an illusion due to being closest to the edge.

A: How do you know that, you've never travelled the circumference of the world.

B: Yes I have - twice.

A: Amm, no you haven't, you've only flown in a circle round a flat surface, the curvature is merely an illusion due to being closest to the edge.

B: Leaving aside for the moment the question of whether the edge of the world runs through the Pacific or the Atlantic Oceans, are two-dimensional maps of the world generally accurate in their representation of the relationship between the continents?

A: Yes, I think so.

B: Then it was impossible for me to fly the routes I did observably fly (by looking out of the window) while flying in a circle; the points I observably flew between were only reachable by flying in a series of straight lines.

One could try to show them contradictions in their own beliefs perhaps?

Doublethink>logic

B: Then it was impossible for me to fly the routes I did observably fly (by looking out of the window) while flying in a circle; the points I observably flew between were only reachable by flying in a series of straight lines.

People in deserts think they're walking a straight line, they end up going in circles, so are you,

People in deserts think they're walking a straight line, they end up going in circles, so are you,

But people walking in circles have no external reference to a map or landmarks. I could see out of the airplane window the route I followed. If we accept that a 2-dimensional map of the world is essentially accurate (though which projection would you personally use?), how could I travel between, for example, London and Melbourne via Bangkok, Delhi, Kabul, the Aral Sea, and Riga (all directly observed by myself) within a specific 24 hour time frame if I was flying in a circle rather than the series of straight lines I observed myself flying in?

But people walking in circles have no external reference to a map or landmarks. I could see out of the airplane window the route I followed. If we accept that a 2-dimensional map of the world is essentially accurate (though which projection would you personally use?), how could I travel between, for example, London and Melbourne via Bangkok, Delhi, Kabul, the Aral Sea, and Riga (all directly observed by myself) within a specific 24 hour time frame if I was flying in a circle rather than the series of straight lines I observed myself flying in?

Ammm, you don't need to fly in a circle to do that, only if you're flying around the world and back to the spot you took off from.

You can easily fly that route in straight lines from London to Riga to Delhi to Kabul to Bangkok and then Melbourne though I'd have to question the airline that flies that route, why are you popping up from Delhi to Kabul?

EDIT: If nothing else, I'm only showing that it's pointless arguing with a conspiracy theorist,

Why bother? It's like discussing the merits of rap music. It's a ridiculous conversation to be having in the first place, and can only devolve into pointless non-sequiturs. If you find yourself trapped as the witness to a monologue(they don't have conversations, they deliver lectures)given by a conspiracy nutbag, mention the Jews. A true conspiracy nutbag cannot resist the lure of The Insidious Jewish Conspiracy(especially if they're a 9/11 conspiracy nutbag) and then you can make your escape while they're distracted.

Ammm, you don't need to fly in a circle to do that, only if you're flying around the world and back to the spot you took off from.

You can easily fly that route in straight lines from London to Riga to Delhi to Kabul to Bangkok and then Melbourne though I'd have to question the airline that flies that route, why are you popping up from Delhi to Kabul?

EDIT: If nothing else, I'm only showing that it's pointless arguing with a conspiracy theorist,

My mistake for not clarifying that that was the last leg of a trip that started Melbourne -> San Francisco -> Washington -> Frankfurt -> London, though I concede that I slept on the Melbourne -> San Francisco leg and Washington -> Frankfurt leg (and I listed the London -> Melbourne steps in reverse). Perhaps the plane was going in circles while I slept?


[And I appreciate you're not seriously arguing the flat earth perspective - but you're doing a good job, and I'm interested in seeing how far you can illogically take this.]

I normally ask these people what would convince them otherwise. if they say `nothing', I reply that I do not argue with the religious about their religions.

You don't.

It's a waste of time and effort.

This.

It's especially true for Holocaust deniers. People that ineffably stupid cannot be reasoned with, no matter what. The proper response to their sort is not rebuttal, but ostracism.

You don't argue. Ignore them. Saves breath and saliva.

You don't. You insult their intelligence and insinuate that you have sexual intercourse with their mother.

Are you one of those people still convinced a bunch of arabs with box cutters hijacked airliners then destroyed 2 buildings by crashing into them, a 3rd building sponutaneously falling by a 'fire'? Then a third plane's remains scattered amongst a field which 'crashed' (Donald Rumsfeld has a freudian slip a missile hit it) and don't get me started on the pentagon.

You laugh.

Oh but you DO argue with them. The more they talk, the sillier they look. It's a self-defeating mechanism and all you really have to do is sit back and occasionally poke them with a question.

Are you one of those people still convinced a bunch of arabs with box cutters hijacked airliners then destroyed 2 buildings by crashing into them, a 3rd building sponutaneously falling by a 'fire'? Then a third plane's remains scattered amongst a field which 'crashed' (Donald Rumsfeld has a freudian slip a missile hit it) and don't get me started on the pentagon.

Who cares about the Pentagon? It's just a front for people to think the military meet there. All the real decisions are made at the tetradecahedron.

I agree with many of the posters here, it's impossible to reason with the unresonable.

best trick i found is pretend to be a convert to their beliefs and then take things very very far in conversation.

Are you one of those people still convinced a bunch of arabs with box cutters hijacked airliners then destroyed 2 buildings by crashing into them, a 3rd building sponutaneously falling by a 'fire'? Then a third plane's remains scattered amongst a field which 'crashed' (Donald Rumsfeld has a freudian slip a missile hit it) and don't get me started on the pentagon.

CONSPIRACY THEORIST !!!

*says_into_wristwatch* I've got one that can see! (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096256/)

I tried arguing with 119 people once but they just have way too much "trustworthy" sources

and its like I could dig up some stuff but I just don't care that much

You don't. You insult their intelligence and insinuate that you have sexual intercourse with their mother.

thats what I said to your momma last night

Are you one of those people still convinced a bunch of arabs with box cutters hijacked airliners then destroyed 2 buildings by crashing into them, a 3rd building sponutaneously falling by a 'fire'? Then a third plane's remains scattered amongst a field which 'crashed' (Donald Rumsfeld has a freudian slip a missile hit it) and don't get me started on the pentagon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories#Criticism

I couldn't find the archived thread where someone or other tears this conspiracy apart :(

I assumed that there was a debater's Excalibur that I could use to defeat conspiracy theorists. I guess I don't have any choices but to tolerate their smugness.

I assumed that there was a debater's Excalibur that I could use to defeat conspiracy theorists. I guess I don't have any choices but to tolerate their smugness.

I bet that an actual Excalibur could do the trick. It's hard to argue with four feet of righteous metal.

Those are some fairly absurd "conspiracies"; I generally talk to persons who believe in things not quite so weird, like "Bush planned 9/11" and "the CIA killed Kennedy". Whilst I am not a believer of these ideas, they are somewhat interesting, as they would only take intellect, money, and lack of a conscience to perform.

You don't. Its a complete waste of time.

B: Leaving aside for the moment the question of whether the edge of the world runs through the Pacific or the Atlantic Oceans
The edge of the world is a wall of ice, the supposed "Antarctica" which actually surrounds the "southern" ends of the Atlantic, Indian, and Pacific Oceans. The UN flag inadvertently shows the truth.

Those are some fairly absurd "conspiracies"; I generally talk to persons who believe in things not quite so weird, like "Bush planned 9/11" and "the CIA killed Kennedy". Whilst I am not a believer of these ideas, they are somewhat interesting, as they would only take intellect, money, and lack of a conscience to perform.

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

and listen to the entire JFK speech carefully (don't listen to 20 seconds and make an opinion) from April 27 1961, about 2 years before he was killed by a 'crazy madman' whom, by the way, exclaimed he was a 'scapegoat.'.

If i'm a conspiracy theorist, then you're a coincidence theorist.

People choose to believe in things that are more convenient. You can hide the truth, but it's still the truth. A lot of people distrust the government and tell me they always lie, but when something big happens everyone seems to listen and agree, even though it may break the laws of science and logic. (Just like how people believe in religion, if people will believe in God and Jesus, they will believe anything!)

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

We're sorry, this video is no longer available.

We're sorry, this video is no longer available.

Lies! It's working for me. I got it on mp3 format also. Anyhow, just search on youtube "The speech that got John F. Kennedy Killed "

Lies! It's working for me. I got it on mp3 format also. Anyhow, just search on youtube "The speech that got John F. Kennedy Killed "

That's quite a frame, right there.

We're sorry, this video is no longer available.

Try this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhZk8ronces