All great reasons. I was reminded recently in another discussion that Aristotle states in his Rhetoric that there have to be minimal common assumptions or it’s better just to walk away.
Thank you for the rational and compassionate refusal to debate conspiracies. This is kinda why I left Facebook and most social media. Cannot discuss or debate any meaningful topics with anyone entrenched in their own views; and, to also be fed clickbait which further discourages discourse by reinforcing existing beliefs. Sigh. Sure miss seeing friends there, too!
The Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT) is a conspiracy theory about 19 (15 Saudis) and Osama Bin Laden conspiring in a conspiracy to hijack 4 planes on 9/11/2001. The topic is meaningful to thousands of families who lost loved ones in the WTC towers, and resulting wars. Debate Dodging discourages discourse. Right?
There is no debate to be had about whether 9/11 was the result of a conspiracy. No one can dispute that it involved a conspiracy unless they believe that it was all planned and carried out by one person. The term 'conspiracy theory' is an imprecise overused shorthand label that people use basically to describe alternative theories about events that they don't believe are credible. When people use the term in relation to 9/11 they are not denying that 9/11 involved a conspiracy. It obviously involved a conspiracy. Therefore statements like 'The Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT) is a conspiracy theory about 19 (15 Saudis) and Osama Bin Laden conspiring in a conspiracy to hijack 4 planes on 9/11/2001' are meaningless. It is basically saying 'The official theory about 9/11 is an alternative theory to the official theory about 9/11'. I wish people would stop saying it.
Dear D.J., You posted a quote by Bertrand Russell about being liberal minded, and not thinking that a long contested topic is "absolutely unquestionable, and that no argument must be allowed to be heard."
So you surely would not be hypocritical, by not allowing an argument to be heard, especially about an important topic that impacts world peace. Please show me how I am wrong, and save me from possible retaliation by the perpetrators of 9/11.
The Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT) is a conspiracy theory - about 19 hijackers (15 Saudis) and Osama Bin Laden conspiring in a conspiracy.
The ad hominem photo above is not a logical argument. The Hillary utterance is a Straw Man and Gish Galloping. I don't believe she killed anyone. She has nothing to do with 9/11.
It is good to read that D.J. loves debates, not Debate Dodging, nor Fake Skepticism (mocking anyone who is skeptical of government stories).
Your above response forgot to mention the debate topics for us subscribers to consider, posted at www.911Debate.org
We both agree on many aspects of 9/11. There WERE planes. Please explain:
1. How can you distinguish a remote controlled plane from a jet taken over by hijackers? Boeing had Remote Control Take Over (RCTO) technology in 1984, 17 years before 9/11/2001. Boeing continued to develop RC (while classified) to make it uninterruptible, then publicly patented it just 1.4 years after 9/11. An "anti-hijack system" can also hijack a jet and steer it into the WTC or Pentagon.
"Disabling onboard flight-commands to render the airliner's guidance-system irretrievably placed into total reliance upon its existing autopilot-system in RF-communication with encrypted remote ground/air-intercept personnel... ATI (automatic/tranquil-infusion) which introduces tranquilizing-gas into the airliner's entire interior. "
Airline Irreversible-control Anti-hijack System, Patent 6845302, Filed January 27, 2003
"Engagement may be automatic or manual from inside the vehicle or remotely via a communication link. Any onboard capability to supersede the automatic control system may then be disabled by disconnecting the onboard controls and/or providing uninterruptible power to the ACS" (autopilot).
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Boeing, Patent 7142971, Filed February 10, 2003
2. Why did ACE Elevator Company with few if any previous clients, get the world's biggest service contract at the WTC away from Otis Elevator in 1994? They worked in the shafts for 7 years, the perfect place to plant explosives. Ace disappeared into bankruptcy after 9/11. Larry Silverstein got paid $4.1 billion by insurance so he could pay his vendors. www.ANETA.org/ACE
3. What were James Randi's views about 9/11, and "Truthers" being blocked by the JREF Forum Moderators?
4. As an expert in critical thinking and skepticism, what would you need to see in order to debate 9/11? There are studies published in independent (non-Truther) journals, such as the International Journal of Structural Engineering. Richard Gage and I presented the Collected Articles On Nine Eleven to Dr. Noam Chomsky at MIT. www.CAONE.org
We look forward to your response to these 4 questions, either here, by phone, or via Zoom. Your time is valuable, so ANETA still offers $60/hour at your convenience.
I will give you just a bit of food for thought, if upon an iron-clad guarantee that there will be NO "gish gallop" no sleezoid/nefarious dealings, all of the data will come straight out of applied physics . .
will you debate the point that airliners were not used as weapons on 9/11/2001?
All great reasons. I was reminded recently in another discussion that Aristotle states in his Rhetoric that there have to be minimal common assumptions or it’s better just to walk away.
Thank you for the rational and compassionate refusal to debate conspiracies. This is kinda why I left Facebook and most social media. Cannot discuss or debate any meaningful topics with anyone entrenched in their own views; and, to also be fed clickbait which further discourages discourse by reinforcing existing beliefs. Sigh. Sure miss seeing friends there, too!
The Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT) is a conspiracy theory about 19 (15 Saudis) and Osama Bin Laden conspiring in a conspiracy to hijack 4 planes on 9/11/2001. The topic is meaningful to thousands of families who lost loved ones in the WTC towers, and resulting wars. Debate Dodging discourages discourse. Right?
There is no debate to be had about whether 9/11 was the result of a conspiracy. No one can dispute that it involved a conspiracy unless they believe that it was all planned and carried out by one person. The term 'conspiracy theory' is an imprecise overused shorthand label that people use basically to describe alternative theories about events that they don't believe are credible. When people use the term in relation to 9/11 they are not denying that 9/11 involved a conspiracy. It obviously involved a conspiracy. Therefore statements like 'The Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT) is a conspiracy theory about 19 (15 Saudis) and Osama Bin Laden conspiring in a conspiracy to hijack 4 planes on 9/11/2001' are meaningless. It is basically saying 'The official theory about 9/11 is an alternative theory to the official theory about 9/11'. I wish people would stop saying it.
Exactly the same considerations apply to invitations to debate evolution with creationists
Dear D.J., You posted a quote by Bertrand Russell about being liberal minded, and not thinking that a long contested topic is "absolutely unquestionable, and that no argument must be allowed to be heard."
So you surely would not be hypocritical, by not allowing an argument to be heard, especially about an important topic that impacts world peace. Please show me how I am wrong, and save me from possible retaliation by the perpetrators of 9/11.
The Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT) is a conspiracy theory - about 19 hijackers (15 Saudis) and Osama Bin Laden conspiring in a conspiracy.
The ad hominem photo above is not a logical argument. The Hillary utterance is a Straw Man and Gish Galloping. I don't believe she killed anyone. She has nothing to do with 9/11.
It is good to read that D.J. loves debates, not Debate Dodging, nor Fake Skepticism (mocking anyone who is skeptical of government stories).
Your above response forgot to mention the debate topics for us subscribers to consider, posted at www.911Debate.org
We both agree on many aspects of 9/11. There WERE planes. Please explain:
1. How can you distinguish a remote controlled plane from a jet taken over by hijackers? Boeing had Remote Control Take Over (RCTO) technology in 1984, 17 years before 9/11/2001. Boeing continued to develop RC (while classified) to make it uninterruptible, then publicly patented it just 1.4 years after 9/11. An "anti-hijack system" can also hijack a jet and steer it into the WTC or Pentagon.
"Disabling onboard flight-commands to render the airliner's guidance-system irretrievably placed into total reliance upon its existing autopilot-system in RF-communication with encrypted remote ground/air-intercept personnel... ATI (automatic/tranquil-infusion) which introduces tranquilizing-gas into the airliner's entire interior. "
Airline Irreversible-control Anti-hijack System, Patent 6845302, Filed January 27, 2003
https://ppubs.uspto.gov/dirsearch-public/print/downloadPdf/6845302
"Engagement may be automatic or manual from inside the vehicle or remotely via a communication link. Any onboard capability to supersede the automatic control system may then be disabled by disconnecting the onboard controls and/or providing uninterruptible power to the ACS" (autopilot).
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Boeing, Patent 7142971, Filed February 10, 2003
https://ppubs.USPTO.gov/dirsearch-public/print/downloadPdf/7142971
www.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Impact_Demonstration
www.ANETA.org/RCTO
2. Why did ACE Elevator Company with few if any previous clients, get the world's biggest service contract at the WTC away from Otis Elevator in 1994? They worked in the shafts for 7 years, the perfect place to plant explosives. Ace disappeared into bankruptcy after 9/11. Larry Silverstein got paid $4.1 billion by insurance so he could pay his vendors. www.ANETA.org/ACE
3. What were James Randi's views about 9/11, and "Truthers" being blocked by the JREF Forum Moderators?
4. As an expert in critical thinking and skepticism, what would you need to see in order to debate 9/11? There are studies published in independent (non-Truther) journals, such as the International Journal of Structural Engineering. Richard Gage and I presented the Collected Articles On Nine Eleven to Dr. Noam Chomsky at MIT. www.CAONE.org
We look forward to your response to these 4 questions, either here, by phone, or via Zoom. Your time is valuable, so ANETA still offers $60/hour at your convenience.
I will give you just a bit of food for thought, if upon an iron-clad guarantee that there will be NO "gish gallop" no sleezoid/nefarious dealings, all of the data will come straight out of applied physics . .
will you debate the point that airliners were not used as weapons on 9/11/2001?
Excellent reasons, great piece, D.J.
Portions of this reminded me of Aikin's and Talisse's "Why We Argue and How We Should" book. Some of your debates sound interesting.
Well put. Tho I confess that I would not participate in ‘debates’…which, generally are not…in/on most of the topics that you have.
Good job.