Difference between revisions of "Talk:9-11 conspiracy theories"

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (Robot: Substituting template: Unsigned)
Line 9: Line 9:
 
Why are lunacies such as creationism and conservatism treated so harshly by this wiki, while the 9/11 conspiracy theories are given what looks like a legitimate debate?  We should be harsher on people who pedal this bollocks.  Each of them is exactly as stupid as Andrew Schlafly. <sup>&mdash; Unsigned, by: [[User:86.147.173.223|86.147.173.223]] / [[User talk:86.147.173.223|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/86.147.173.223|contribs]] </sup>
 
Why are lunacies such as creationism and conservatism treated so harshly by this wiki, while the 9/11 conspiracy theories are given what looks like a legitimate debate?  We should be harsher on people who pedal this bollocks.  Each of them is exactly as stupid as Andrew Schlafly. <sup>&mdash; Unsigned, by: [[User:86.147.173.223|86.147.173.223]] / [[User talk:86.147.173.223|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/86.147.173.223|contribs]] </sup>
 
:Not biased enough? the page takes each point and rebuts it. What did you want? Legitimate debate is the best way of undoing conspiracy theorising. Conspiracy theory theorists love supposedly unanswerable "evidence" that they present - all it needs is someone to answer it in a coherent manner, with counter-argument and evidence against their claims and rhetoric. I'd prefer that to saying "they're all wrong and stupid LOL" another reason we haven't given this page the snarky treatment is that whoever wrote it didn't want to write jokes about 3000 people dying. [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] ([[User talk:Totnesmartin|talk]]) 20:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 
:Not biased enough? the page takes each point and rebuts it. What did you want? Legitimate debate is the best way of undoing conspiracy theorising. Conspiracy theory theorists love supposedly unanswerable "evidence" that they present - all it needs is someone to answer it in a coherent manner, with counter-argument and evidence against their claims and rhetoric. I'd prefer that to saying "they're all wrong and stupid LOL" another reason we haven't given this page the snarky treatment is that whoever wrote it didn't want to write jokes about 3000 people dying. [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] ([[User talk:Totnesmartin|talk]]) 20:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 +
 +
no one is right here 3000 people died and they heard the thud when they hit the ground and if u think the goverment or anyone could of made that up then u should find out if u were dropped on ur headwen u were little i know there is freedom of speech but people died do nu think they said sure ill let the government kill me even though i have family so i dont care wat u say u should shut the fuck up

Revision as of 21:59, 10 September 2010

I know that many of the people who know how to do this are busy whitewashing, but making the claims side-by-side seems like the best organization. I might try to figure it out eventually, so anyone who wants something funny should watch for the first wave of failures.--MountainTiger 16:54, 23 August 2007 (CDT)

Time for a re-do

I think that this page should be thoroughly expanded as currently is it somewhat incoherent. I would get to work on it but I have two 4000 word essays due in soon! check out 9/11 Myths wiki JAStewart 22:18, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

Not biased enough

Why are lunacies such as creationism and conservatism treated so harshly by this wiki, while the 9/11 conspiracy theories are given what looks like a legitimate debate? We should be harsher on people who pedal this bollocks. Each of them is exactly as stupid as Andrew Schlafly. — Unsigned, by: 86.147.173.223 / talk / contribs

Not biased enough? the page takes each point and rebuts it. What did you want? Legitimate debate is the best way of undoing conspiracy theorising. Conspiracy theory theorists love supposedly unanswerable "evidence" that they present - all it needs is someone to answer it in a coherent manner, with counter-argument and evidence against their claims and rhetoric. I'd prefer that to saying "they're all wrong and stupid LOL" another reason we haven't given this page the snarky treatment is that whoever wrote it didn't want to write jokes about 3000 people dying. Totnesmartin (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
no one is right here 3000 people died and they heard the thud when they hit the ground and if u think the goverment or anyone could of made that up then u should find out if u were dropped on ur headwen u were little i know there is freedom of speech but people died do nu think they said sure ill let the government kill me even though i have family so i dont care wat u say u should shut the fuck up