Posted: Nov 14, 2010 11:14 pm
by econ41
uke2se wrote:...Econ mention a particular conspiracy theorist, ergo. I don't think he's really worth defending as he has shown that he doesn't know anything about the subjects he attempts to discuss (to the point of getting fundamental grade school level physics wrong) and that he has no interest in learning. That people get on his case isn't surprising to me at all.
Fully understood there uke2se.

The point of principle I was standing on is that, no matter how discredited a "truther" person may be in general, if that person makes a genuine request two things should apply (by my standards):
  1. that genuine request warrants an answer which I or persons of similar viewpoint to me may decide to present. I have done so several times with that particular "truther". There is no obligation to respond on others who do not agree with my position; HOWEVER
  2. Those debunkers who disagree with the "truthers" general attitude and conduct should not ridicule or untruthfully dismiss the genuine request simply because a "truther" made that request. Don't lower yourself to their standards is sort of the theme allowing that not all truthers are untruthful.
.