How to cope with "neutral" persons?

[240-185]

I met several people on some skeptical boards who claim to be neutral: they don't trust twoofers' theories but they don't trust debunkers' explanations too.

But these people don't hesitate to bring their personal point of view on geopolitics that they think they are universal. That may lead to some errors of fact.

Personally, I find them very tedious, almost more tedious than twoofers, because I don't know what are their points, and what are their reasons to not trust both sides, or putting them on the same level of confidence. At least with twoofers, we know that they are full of wrongness.


So, how to discuss friendly with these people?

[T.A.M.]

1. Suspect anyone who is at all versed in the 9/11 CT's who claims to be neutral.
2. Present them with the evidence, ask them to apply logic, rational thought, and to put aside their dislike of govt and paranoia. If this does not settle things, go to #1.

TAM:)

[Algebra34]

I met several people on some skeptical boards who claim to be neutral: they don't trust twoofers' theories but they don't trust debunkers' explanations too.

But these people don't hesitate to bring their personal point of view on geopolitics that they think they are universal. That may lead to some errors of fact.

Personally, I find them very tedious, almost more tedious than twoofers, because I don't know what are their points, and what are their reasons to not trust both sides, or putting them on the same level of confidence. At least with twoofers, we know that they are full of wrongness.

So, how to discuss friendly with these people?

Validate what you believe by means other than trying to invalidate what someone else believes. It's that simple.

[kookbreaker]

T.A.M. is right in that many alleged 'neutrals' are merely truthers playing games. It has happened all to often on this forum at least.

However, given the sheer amount of evidence against the conspiracist claims, many 'neutrals' may merely be playing a self-satisfying game where they get to pretend to themselves that they are somehow superior because they don't join either side.

Invariably, the 'neutrals' are merely the conspiracy-prone who have just seen something too distasteful in the CT camp and don't want to be part of it. But they hate the idea of the 'other side' being right, so they disparage the work and evidence of debunkers, often with even flimsier excuses than the truthers use.

I saw this in the paranormal arguments all the time: you would have proponents with poor evidence, skeptics with devastating counter-arguments, and then some 'neutrals' (usually Forteans) would come in, claiming to be on the fence but most often disparaging the skeptics for the most part.

You can tell when you have struck a nerve when one of them tries to taunt you with a 'Gee, you put a lot of effort into this, huh'-style of barb.

[Thunder]

i don't trust anyone who claims to be neutral on 9-11 conspiracy theories.

"it may have been an inside job..or it may not have been" means:

I am a Truther who is here to play games.

only a Truther could claim to be on the fence, in regards to 9-11.

[apathoid]

1. Suspect anyone who is at all versed in the 9/11 CT's who claims to be neutral.
2. Present them with the evidence, ask them to apply logic, rational thought, and to put aside their dislike of govt and paranoia. If this does not settle things, go to #1.

TAM:)


^^ What he said. Anyone calling themselves neutral at this point is undoubtedly a truther...and probably one of those annoying "but why did (this or that) happen like that...its too strange. Anyone seen a realistice explanation?" JAQ-offs.

[MrQhuest]

"What makes a good man go neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?" - Zapp Brannigan - Futurama

Sorry, could not resist.
:D

-MrQ

[Myriad]

My car once insisted on remaining completely neutral.

This was due to a faulty transmission.

I suspect a similar conclusion can be drawn in the cases discussed above.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Juniversal]

If they are truly neutral they shouldn't ignore or have a disdain for facts. That alone should expose how truly "neutral" they are.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

As they say in Star Trek: The Next Generation in "The Neutral Zone" episode:

L. Q. 'Sonny' Clemonds: What's this 'Neutral Zone'?

Lt. Commander Data: It is a buffer between the Romulan Empire and the Federation.

L. Q. 'Sonny' Clemonds: Why does that make me nervous?

Lt. Commander Data: I do not know.

L. Q. 'Sonny' Clemonds: Well, we won't be invitin' these Romulans to our party, will we?

Lt. Commander Data: No, that would not be... appropriate.

[240-185]

Thanks for all your replies, I'll take care of your advices ;)

Kookbreaker and apathoid, your descriptions matched perfectly with the latest "neutral" I've seen. So, I'll do what TAM wrote :)

[TruthersLie]

240-185

I do think there is also a brand of neutral individuals who have never really paid attention to 9/11.

These folks have accepted the common narrative and until some twoof shows them something like Loose Change, or Zero, or some other twoof crap.

Once that happens, it is easy to be NEW to the converstation and to wonder about the claims of the twoofs.

I can see that type of neutral individauals, but within a few weeks of basic research they should see the truth. Unless of course they need new meds.

[Bosozoku]

I think dismissing people who claim they are neutral because you think they are Truthers in disguise is a mistake. It's not that different from Truthers dismissing debunkers as government operatives.

I understand there are people who have come here who you think were pretending to be neutral and who would never really accept your claims, but it's also possible that they really were neutral and they weren't convinced. That said, I'm sure there have been sock puppets who pretended to be neutral and proceeded to "side" with the Truthers.

What I'm saying is that if you really take debunking this nonsense seriously, it's a serious mistake to dismiss someone who says they are neutral because of what has occurred in the past. Present your argument as effectively as you can, and if they don't agree with what you're saying, move on.

[gambling_cruiser]

On what planet have the "neutrals" been for the last eight years?
They are either ignoramuses or ct-prone.

[T.A.M.]

I think dismissing people who claim they are neutral because you think they are Truthers in disguise is a mistake. It's not that different from Truthers dismissing debunkers as government operatives.

I understand there are people who have come here who you think were pretending to be neutral and who would never really accept your claims, but it's also possible that they really were neutral and they weren't convinced. That said, I'm sure there have been sock puppets who pretended to be neutral and proceeded to "side" with the Truthers.

What I'm saying is that if you really take debunking this nonsense seriously, it's a serious mistake to dismiss someone who says they are neutral because of what has occurred in the past. Present your argument as effectively as you can, and if they don't agree with what you're saying, move on.

Who said dismiss them? If you read my original quote I said regard them with suspicion. I said so, because in my experience since 2006, there are very few TRULY neutral people out there who are sufficiently versed in the issue to have read both sides, AND NOT COME TO AN OPINION that sides with one or the other. However, if you also note my original comment, I said present them with the evidence and have them apply logic and rational thought to it. If they then still claim to be neutral, then BE EVEN MORE SUSPICIOUS of their alleged "neutrality".

TAM:)

[bill smith]

I met several people on some skeptical boards who claim to be neutral: they don't trust twoofers' theories but they don't trust debunkers' explanations too.

But these people don't hesitate to bring their personal point of view on geopolitics that they think they are universal. That may lead to some errors of fact.

Personally, I find them very tedious, almost more tedious than twoofers, because I don't know what are their points, and what are their reasons to not trust both sides, or putting them on the same level of confidence. At least with twoofers, we know that they are full of wrongness.


So, how to discuss friendly with these people?

I think those people are Truthers are heart. At least they know that 9/11 was an inside job in their bones. It's so obvious. But that is not to say that they want to believe it. It's like they are fighting agaist their own moral cowardice. I suggest that you post Mike Rivero's famous statement on the issue and see if any of them recognise themselves. Force them to acknowledge their own basic honesty.

"Most people prefer to believe their leaders are just and fair even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which they live is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of a corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one's self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all."--Mike Rivero

[Miragememories]

"But they hate the idea of the 'other side' being right, so they disparage the work and evidence of debunkers..."

Why?

Who in Hell would ever want, to be a 9/11 Truther???

Believing the Official Story is the best stuff you can toke.

I am a 9/11 truth seeker.

It's all about choices.

MM

[TheBigKahuna]

I think those people are Truthers are heart. At least they know that 9/11 was an inside job in their bones. It's so obvious. But that is not to say that they want to believe it. It's like they are fighting agaist their own moral cowardice. I suggest that you post Mike Rivero's famous statement on the issue and see if any of them recognise themselves. Force them to acknowledge their own basic honesty.

"Most people prefer to believe their leaders are just and fair even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which they live is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of a corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one's self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all."--Mike Rivero

Yes, because it's impossible to see the 19 Arabs were the perpetrators of 9/11 and still not trust the government-NOT! The biggest problem I see that 'truthers' have with debunkers is the destruction of the 'truther' fantasy that they are 'heros' standing up to 'the evil gooberment.' Anything that interferes with that must be derided and those people are obviously shills of 'the evil gooberment.' Get over it. Mike's statement is sheer stupidity. :cool:

[Thunder]

i actually wanna change what I said before.

if someone has NEVER heard of 9-11 truth theories before, which is indeed possible, sudden exposure to these ideas might make someone scared and confused. and they could possibly come here to get some clarification as to what really happened that day.

how does one tell the difference between a legit. new fence sitter...and a Truther-Troll?

I guess it really depends on the questions they ask, if these are leading or rhetorical questions, and if they seem to know a bit too much about truther theories to be a true newbie.

but in all honesty, all of the debunker guides that have been put together really should be able to relieve the fears and doubts of any true fence sitter.

[Thunder]

I do think there is also a brand of neutral individuals who have never really paid attention to 9/11.

These folks have accepted the common narrative and until some twoof shows them something like Loose Change, or Zero, or some other twoof crap.

Once that happens, it is easy to be NEW to the conversation and to wonder about the claims of the twoofs.

I can see that type of neutral individuals, but within a few weeks of basic research they should see the truth.

yup. see my post above.

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by bill smith http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5357439#post5357439)
"I think those people are Truthers are heart. At least they know that 9/11 was an inside job in their bones. It's so obvious."

it is also incredibly obvious, to all that have eyes, that the Sun, Moon, and stars, clearly revolve around the Earth.

it is also incredibly obvious, to all that can read, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. I mean, its in the damn Bible!! Thousands of people saw Christ rise from the grave...right?

[kookbreaker]

Why?

Who in Hell would ever want, to be a 9/11 Truther???


Same reason that anyone believes in any conspiracy theory: Ego gratification. You get to pretend that you are special, superior, and 'know' more than the 'sheeple'. You also get to pretend to be oppressed without any real oppression, play martyr, etc.


Believing the Official Story is the best stuff you can toke.

I am a 9/11 truth seeker.

It's all about choices.

MM

Q.E.D.

[Bosozoku]

Who said dismiss them? If you read my original quote I said regard them with suspicion. I said so, because in my experience since 2006, there are very few TRULY neutral people out there who are sufficiently versed in the issue to have read both sides, AND NOT COME TO AN OPINION that sides with one or the other. However, if you also note my original comment, I said present them with the evidence and have them apply logic and rational thought to it. If they then still claim to be neutral, then BE EVEN MORE SUSPICIOUS of their alleged "neutrality".

TAM:)

In your original quote you also said the first thing to do is to be suspicious of anyone who says they are neutral. I can only imagine people at 9-11 blogger and the like feel the same way about anyone who goes to their boards and says 9-11 was not an inside job.

I think the "dogpile on the Truther" mentality that pervades around here only feeds the Truthers' disdain for what little debunking goes on around here anymore. And the fact that we are encouraging suspicion of people who may have legitimate questions is genuinely troubling.

[Bosozoku]

I think those people are Truthers are heart. At least they know that 9/11 was an inside job in their bones.

Just to be fair, I present this as an equally insane viewpoint to those who believe people who are say they are neutral are automatically Truthers. How about we just assume they are actually neutral and save ourselves the aggravation?

[T.A.M.]

In your original quote you also said the first thing to do is to be suspicious of anyone who says they are neutral. I can only imagine people at 9-11 blogger and the like feel the same way about anyone who goes to their boards and says 9-11 was not an inside job.

I think the "dogpile on the Truther" mentality that pervades around here only feeds the Truthers' disdain for what little debunking goes on around here anymore. And the fact that we are encouraging suspicion of people who may have legitimate questions is genuinely troubling.

1. I could care less personally how the truthers feel about debunkers in general, or me in particular. If I annoy them, then I actually feel gratified.
2. I would expect no less then for them to be suspicious if someone went over there and claimed to "believe that 9/11 was an inside, but still had some doubts".
3. You are encouraging nothing of the sort (suspicion), are you? Others here are, perhaps. I am. It comes from an incredibly long list of so called "neutrals" who have posted here, and have turned out to be, in almost EVERY SINGLE CASE, truthers in hiding.
4. I created a separate thread on here some months ago for what people here consider "legitimate" questions. What was the role of Saudi Intelligence? for example. However, "Why didn't NIST search for Thermite in the rubble of GZ?" is not, In my opinion, a LEGITIMATE QUESTION.

I am sorry you are troubled by it.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

Just to be fair, I present this as an equally insane viewpoint to those who believe people who are say they are neutral are automatically Truthers. How about we just assume they are actually neutral and save ourselves the aggravation?

No one said that those who claim to be neutral are AUTOMATICALLY truthers. Stop misrepresenting what was said. I said to be SUSPICIOUS (ie. hold ones acceptance of such until further behavior or evidence provides you with confirmation that they are as they say, or are not) of such.

TAM:)

[Bosozoku]

Fair enough. That's not what you said, it was poor wording on my part and I apologize for that.

I still don't see this suspicion of people who are neutral as being any different from the suspicion the Truthers have of debunkers. I think neutral people if anything deserve more of our attention. People who are pretending to be neutral shouldn't force us to treat people who actually are neutral with suspicion. I can't imagine it creates a very welcoming environment for people who have legitimate questions.

[bill smith]

No one said that those who claim to be neutral are AUTOMATICALLY truthers. Stop misrepresenting what was said. I said to be SUSPICIOUS (ie. hold ones acceptance of such until further behavior or evidence provides you with confirmation that they are as they say, or are not) of such.

TAM:)

TAM. There is every reason to believe that the goverment is lying about 9/11. See John Farner's statement (Chief council to the 9/11 commission) in he attached hyperlink where he admits to the extensive lying- (he uses the word ,'misleading', but we all know what he means) of the government . So like it or not, we hold the high ground. Unless pu want to say that John Farmer is a Truther ?

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5356845&postcount=45 Hyperlink tp CBC destructor piece

[DGM]

Fair enough. That's not what you said, it was poor wording on my part and I apologize for that.

I still don't see this suspicion of people who are neutral as being any different from the suspicion the Truthers have of debunkers. I think neutral people if anything deserve more of our attention. People who are pretending to be neutral shouldn't force us to treat people who actually are neutral with suspicion. I can't imagine it creates a very welcoming environment for people who have legitimate questions.
I think the point is, after 3 years (to be generous) of the same arguments over and over with nothing new on the table, who can really be "neutral"? Let's face it the "truth" movement has gone really stale in the last year or so.

ETA see post #28 as a case in point.

[bill smith]

Just to be fair, I present this as an equally insane viewpoint to those who believe people who are say they are neutral are automatically Truthers. How about we just assume they are actually neutral and save ourselves the aggravation?

Well I tend to feel that if somebody does not believe the government and the media and the intelligentsia etc. etc.....I leave it to you to decide what they DO believe. There are not all that many other choices.

[Algebra34]

Debunkers. Just prove your story instead of trying to disprove something else. That's why some people are neutral. You supposedly have all the evidence on your side but instead of presenting it you would rather obsess on trying to debunk someone else's theory.

What's with all the theory? If you all know for a fact what really happened then what the hell have you all been doing here for all these years?

[bill smith]

i actually wanna change what I said before.

if someone has NEVER heard of 9-11 truth theories before, which is indeed possible, sudden exposure to these ideas might make someone scared and confused. and they could possibly come here to get some clarification as to what really happened that day.

how does one tell the difference between a legit. new fence sitter...and a Truther-Troll?

I guess it really depends on the questions they ask, if these are leading or rhetorical questions, and if they seem to know a bit too much about truther theories to be a true newbie.

but in all honesty, all of the debunker guides that have been put together really should be able to relieve the fears and doubts of any true fence sitter.

Let's define a Troll Parky. What do you think it means, and is trolling a legitimate tactic thaat mods cannot touch ?

[Bosozoku]

I think the point is, after 3 years (to be generous) of the same arguments over and over with nothing new on the table, who can really be "neutral"? Let's face it the "truth" movement has gone really stale in the last year or so.

ETA see post #28 as a case in point.

I agree with this in reference to people who have been following the debate for 3 years. I think 3 years is sufficient time to form some sort of opinion.

I am worried about the way we treat people who may have just found out about 9/11 Truth and may have only seen the argument from the Truthers' side. The Truthers have a really complicated (bordering on incomprehensible) argument, and people are justified in being neutral after initial exposure to their side. I worry that we are pushing neutral people with legitimate concerns over to their camp with our presumption of suspicion.

[Thunder]

I am worried about the way we treat people who may have just found out about 9/11 Truth and may have only seen the argument from the Truthers' side.

true skeptics, would take in what the Truthers say, but be open minded enough to come here and listen to the opposing side...with an open mind.

yes...i said it twice. i know. :p

[T.A.M.]

Fair enough. That's not what you said, it was poor wording on my part and I apologize for that.

I still don't see this suspicion of people who are neutral as being any different from the suspicion the Truthers have of debunkers. I think neutral people if anything deserve more of our attention. People who are pretending to be neutral shouldn't force us to treat people who actually are neutral with suspicion. I can't imagine it creates a very welcoming environment for people who have legitimate questions.

in 2006 there were A LOT of real "neutrals" people were tired of BUSH, it was around the 5th anniversary of the attacks, and the internet was in complete full swing. All those things led a lot of people to question. Many came here...most who did, went away satisfied.

It is now 2009, and few people give it much thought. Those who do, from my experience, are those already convinced, EITHER WAY.

All of us here try to be considerate when we can, and I often will hold back and not say anything when a so called "neutral" arrives "just asking questions". Within about 10-20 posts it usually becomes quite clear if they are truly neutral, or truthers in hiding.

TAM:)

[bill smith]

true skeptics, would take in what the Truthers say, but be open minded enough to come here and listen to the opposing side...with an open mind.

yes...i said it twice. i know. :p

Did you mean here on the open-minded jref skeptics forum .Lol

[bill smith]

in 2006 there were A LOT of real "neutrals" people were tired of BUSH, it was around the 5th anniversary of the attacks, and the internet was in complete full swing. All those things led a lot of people to question. Many came here...most who did, went away satisfied.

It is now 2009, and few people give it much thought. Those who do, from my experience, are those already convinced, EITHER WAY.

All of us here try to be considerate when we can, and I often will hold back and not say anything when a so called "neutral" arrives "just asking questions". Within about 10-20 posts it usually becomes quite clear if they are truly neutral, or truthers in hiding.

TAM:)

Yeah TAM. It's almost over. There is little interest in 9/11 any more. lol

[T.A.M.]

TAM. There is every reason to believe that the goverment is lying about 9/11. See John Farner's statement (Chief council to the 9/11 commission) in he attached hyperlink where he admits to the extensive lying- (he uses the word ,'misleading', but we all know what he means) of the government . So like it or not, we hold the high ground. Unless pu want to say that John Farmer is a Truther ?

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5356845&postcount=45 Hyperlink tp CBC destructor piece

Have you read his book? I am about half way through. I suppose you only pick what you want from his words, and use it to claim "inside job". HE BELIEVES AL-QAEDA CARRIED OUT THE 9/11 ATTACKS bill. He believes 19 hijackers working for Al-Qaeda, under the orders of OBL carried out the attacks, just as we all know.

I have NO DOUBT that members of the BUSH administration, and many others in the various organizations misrepresented certain things, TO COVER THEIR ASSES. What I see REAL PROOF for I will take into consideration. So far the truth movement have shown me not an ounce of LEGITIMATE proof that 9/11 was an inside job.

I only wish FARMER were in front of you when you mis use his words to further your lying, paranoid agenda.

TAM

[T.A.M.]

Yeah TAM. It's almost over. There is little interest in 9/11 any more. lol

Glad to see you are agreeing with me Bill. Don't let a little sham piece by the CBC fool you. Interest up north is just as dead as it is south of the border. Ask CHF how many truthers show up at the Toronto Truth Rallies.

TAM:)

[bill smith]

Glad to see you are agreeing with me Bill. Don't let a little sham piece by the CBC fool you. Interest up north is just as dead as it is south of the border. Ask CHF how many truthers show up at the Toronto Truth Rallies.

TAM:)

We 9/11 people are only there in 'quoted form' you might say. Not to worry.

[240-185]

Oh, another thread trashed by bill smith :(

[dtugg]

Debunkers. Just prove your story instead of trying to disprove something else. That's why some people are neutral. You supposedly have all the evidence on your side but instead of presenting it you would rather obsess on trying to debunk someone else's theory.

It's been proven. It's not our fault that twoofer morons ignore evidence.


What's with all the theory? If you all know for a fact what really happened then what the hell have you all been doing here for all these years?

Personally, I am here to amuse myself at the expense of twoofer morons.

[Arus808]

It's been proven. It's not our fault that twoofer morons ignore evidence.


Yup : NIST, FEMA, ASCE, 911 Commission report and countless other independent research


Personally, I am here to amuse myself at the expense of twoofer morons.
same here