Wednesday, December 11, 2013

Metabunk 12/11

I always almost forget how Mick is. It's too bad that a smart guy is willing to make himself into the material of satire, for whatever reason.  My theory on that is that he's so used to dealing with "conspiracy theorists" that are wrong or silly that he'd try to debunk a conspiracy that actually existed out of habit.  So even is something actually was a conspiracy that the "official sources just took a leak on me" corporate media couldn't get right, he'd never know it.  Too busy going into debunking mode out of habit.  That's my theory, anyway...  too bad he basically doesn't allow any theories but his own on his site. 

 The reason I insist points be individual addressed is that otherwise we just get arguments based on the length of lists of points. And one can always add another point to the list.

Given your own big picture or theoretical thinking, it probably wouldn't even matter if a number of the individual points were verified.

In this case, if the passport was linked to a report of an Urban Moving Systems van driving by and an Israeli reportedly dressed as an Arab, getting out and doing a little dance and then dropping something on the ground the "debunking" mentality would probably go into effect in this way.

"They weren't really dancing. Define dancing. They were probably just waving their arms. People wave their arms all the time, nothing to see... move along."

"They weren't really dressed as an Arab, even if that's what the police report says. Define Arab. Define dressing. Everyone wears clothes and they were just wearing clothes."

"They may not have really dropped anything on the ground and no one saw that it was a passport. People drop stuff on the ground all the time. They probably dropped their wallet. People do that all the time. It's just a wallet. Here's a picture of a wallet."

Points and facts need a theoretical framework to exist in.

Isn't it all?  

No comments: