PDA

View Full Version : Where do you draw the line?



Tarka the Duck
4th November 2012, 14:27
Where do other Avalon members draw the line? How many times do you find someone has to lose their credibility before you stop listening to what they have to say? How much evidence of poor judgement, bias, gullibility and bigotry will you ignore before you say enough is enough?

The reason I am asking this is that I have been following two recent threads: one of which is a discussion of some material that I interpreted as being misogynistic, and the other contains elements of Holocaust denial. Both of these instances are contained within a much bigger picture: the people concerned go on to talk of much, much more...but on both occasions, I made the decision not to spend any more time on their material.

This decision was based on the facts that:
1) There was no supporting evidence for their statements, and therefore they were merely opinions - which led me to conclude that this probably applied to the rest of their material
2) We could be seen as drowning under a sea of "information": critical assessment and discernment are key these days
3) Time is precious: I've weighed up the chance of there being something of real value hidden in there, and am prepared to take the risk of missing out on that
4) Whatever we fill our minds with has a huge effect on us: we have to be careful where we directed our attention out there

Other people seemed not to be concerned in the same way, and were happy to continue listening to/reading the material, which, obviously, is fine. It's interesting how we are all so different in our choices...

...so where do you draw the line?

Kathie

Tony
4th November 2012, 14:29
We draw the line, when we are totally confident with what we know....little duck!

This confidence is our firm foundation. If someone comes along and SHOWS!!! us a better structure, then this is truly wonderful. But it has to be better!


Pie

RMorgan
4th November 2012, 15:00
1) There was no supporting evidence for their statements, and therefore they were merely opinions - which led me to conclude that this probably applied to the rest of their material


Hey Kathie,

How are you, my friend? :)

This is exactly where I draw the line.

I really have zero tolerance for people making bold statements and assertive claims without showing even a tiny piece of evidence.

Solid rational arguments would work as partial evidence for me, but most "theories" I read nowadays in the alternative media donīt make any sense either.

Another thing that discourages me is the word "sources"..."Sources" are like pets in the alternative media nowadays; everyone has at least a couple of them which always seems to be very exclusive and secretive. They come up with the craziest stories and then when theyīre proven to be wrong, they blame their "sources" and come up with that "donīt shoot the messenger" mumbo-jumbo.

I know that ethically, everyone is innocent until proven guilty, but regarding the media (alternative or not) Iīd rather think that everyone is lying until the contrary is proved.

To sum up, if anyone wants me to believe something without having a first hand direct experience, heīd better come up with outstanding arguments or compelling pieces of evidence, otherwise I just label it fiction until further verification.

Cheers,

Raf.

blufire
4th November 2012, 15:19
YES!!!! I have grown extremely weary of pompous pontification . . . .

You go girl!!

sleepy
4th November 2012, 15:28
xxxxx xxxxxx

Camilo
4th November 2012, 15:36
I think there are many factors involved in this, including level of education, culture, religious believes, maturity and last but not least, level of awareness and consciousness. When you reed or hear something, your inner knowing (BS detector) tells you right away if it is BS or not, but if you lack it, then you're in for a lot of BS rides and waste of time.

deridan
4th November 2012, 15:42
some titles are more promising than the material actually contained and discussed in those interviews,
or merely it is a symptom of skirting what cannot be actually addressed in the matrix of flow ---and what flow is that , or what matrix, the interviewan-al one

ViralSpiral
4th November 2012, 16:12
To be worn out is to be renewed.
Lao-tzu


:peace:

angelahedgehog
4th November 2012, 16:38
I think the best thing is to state your argument, reasons etc. and exactly do what you said, don't spend any more time on the material and move on.

The beauty of this forum is the way it maintains the snapshots of thoughts. The ideas that have buoyancy, tend to remain bobbing up at the top, they might sink for a while but along the causeway of time someone else nudges them back up - hopefully adding a new point of view - maintaining a good written history of any of the subjects we would like to peruse in the future.

You're right also about your last point about being cautious about what you focus on, time constraints aside, the world is already suitably confusing enough without extraneous red herrings. I need my information to relate. ;)

Snoweagle
4th November 2012, 16:43
I am of the opinion that anything presented to me whether verbally or script is believed by the speaker or author, whilst I discern the presentation given.
Nor will I believe something because "I have to" or it is expected of me or by some authoritarian regime or . . .

The lovely thing is, I am now seeing this attitude more frequently and in a small way encourages me that more people are waking up.

rgray222
4th November 2012, 17:31
I think one thing that mankind is waking up to is our intuition, it is every bit as important as our other five senses. Some people call it their BS meter others a gut check but whatever you call it you have it. Some use it more than others and it is a little more finely tuned but when you intuition tells you that something is not quite right it is time to pay attention. If something inside of you is telling you to draw the line on a certain story or on information presented here or even the mainstream media it is probably time to shut it down. Also paying attention to the source of a story is many times very revealing, yes some poor sources can occasionally hit home run and this is really where you need to let you intuition kick-in the most!

Heartsong
4th November 2012, 17:47
I view the threads here like a crowd of people all wearing coats. Each person has selected a coat to suit their purposes much like a person acquires an opinion.

There are short coats, long coats, heavy and light coats. There are coats that grab the attention and coats you hardly notice.

What's interesting is the person who wears the coat and why. That's why I keep coming back.

Fred Steeves
4th November 2012, 18:28
There seems to be a new game in town Kathie, the game of discrediting. Cross swords in the wrong way, with the wrong people, and bingo, you are now discredited. Funny how that works, being that most of us are on the same "team". Also a funny thing, is that there is always a big winner in this game of divide and conquer, and it's never the non-conformists, who tend to wind up snacking on each other like we're a bowl full of pretzels at happy hour...

Cheers,http://www.bigtenfever.com/forums/images/smilies/cheers.gif
Fred

Tarka the Duck
4th November 2012, 18:31
Thank you all for your thoughts.

We all have BS monitors - I was reading some research recently which claims that the area of the brain that determines gullibility has been identified!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The ventromedial area of the prefrontal cortex of the brain -- a softball-sized lobe in the front of your head, just above your eyes -- appears to be responsible for allowing you to pause after hearing or reading something and consider whether it's true, according to a study published recently in the journal Frontiers in Neuroscience.

http://consumer.healthday.com/Article.asp?AID=667921

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Apart from a general "feeling" about things you read or listen to or watch, are there any specific red rags that always arouse your inner bull??
And once someone has waved that particular red rag, will you forever dismiss anything that person puts forward?
Or are you more tolerant, and continue to listen to them, taking each statement on its own merit?

If I'm going to be honest, I fall into the first category: once someone has touched on what, for me is a no-go area, I tend to ignore them after that :o As Raf said, I know they should be innocent until proven guilty, but once I've seen their rap sheet...

Kathie

RMorgan
4th November 2012, 18:39
There seems to be a new game in town Kathie, the game of discrediting. Cross swords in the wrong way, with the wrong people, and bingo, you are now discredited. Funny how that works, being that most of us are on the same "team". Also a funny thing, is that there is always a big winner in this game of divide and conquer, and it's never the non-conformists, who tend to wind up snacking on each other like we're a bowl full of pretzels at happy hour...

Cheers,http://www.bigtenfever.com/forums/images/smilies/cheers.gif
Fred

Hey Fred,

Well, discrediting isnīt always a bad thing, my friend.

You see, thereīre two kinds of credibility, the first is gained after years hard work and positive contribution to a certain field; the second one is fake credibility gained by manipulative strategies (marketing).

Some characters like we see today (Kettler, Cobra, Drake, etc...) never actually had any credibility at all. They all came out of nowhere! So, discrediting them isnīt "discrediting", itīs unmasking.

Also, discrediting has an essential role in science and knowledge, after all, the best way to prove that a certain theory is correct, is trying to discredit it and failing.

Cheers,

Raf.

Tarka the Duck
4th November 2012, 18:45
Raf - I can't believe how good you are at explaining what I'm thinking...:rolleyes:

Kathie

GCS1103
4th November 2012, 18:57
There seems to be a new game in town Kathie, the game of discrediting. Cross swords in the wrong way, with the wrong people, and bingo, you are now discredited. Funny how that works, being that most of us are on the same "team". Also a funny thing, is that there is always a big winner in this game of divide and conquer, and it's never the non-conformists, who tend to wind up snacking on each other like we're a bowl full of pretzels at happy hour...

Cheers,http://www.bigtenfever.com/forums/images/smilies/cheers.gif
Fred

Very perceptive post, Fred, as usual. I can think of a few former members who have been eaten and tossed out, because they didn't conform and dared to stick to their beliefs until they were bullied away. The only loser in those cases was this forum.

Ba-ba-Ra
4th November 2012, 19:31
Polarities = one more way to divide.

I draw the line on those who "Think" their truth is the only truth.

If something isn't your Truth, perhaps you should ask yourself why it bothers you that others believe it? One of our main purposes here is to understand self - instead we spend more time trying to understand others. So much easier to fix everyone else.

Fred Steeves
4th November 2012, 19:37
Some characters like we see today (Kettler, Cobra, Drake, etc...) never actually had any credibility at all. They all came out of nowhere! So, discrediting them isnīt "discrediting", itīs unmasking.

Well Raf, as far as I was ever concerned anyway, these people discredit themselves quickly enough as it is. Anyone who needs to be hammered with what is self evident concerning them, should likely stick to messing around with a Ouiji Board by candlelight on a Saturday night. My concern is not with THAT nonsense, but when people are unmasked, who were never actually wearing a mask. I can't think of the term for that right now.

Cheers,
Fred

Matt
4th November 2012, 20:42
Hm... where to draw the line? I have never found a "source" or whisleblower who gave us information and had solid evidence - I mean pictures, documents, videos. Jullian Assange even created Wikileaks to help people reveal secrects and still nothing. Not one wistleblower gave evidence material to backup his/her informations.

"Certainty" is not something you can find and expect here in whistleblower movement. It's rather like religion - it's not about knowing it's about belief.

Mike
4th November 2012, 22:28
Some characters like we see today (Kettler, Cobra, Drake, etc...) never actually had any credibility at all. They all came out of nowhere! So, discrediting them isnīt "discrediting", itīs unmasking.

Well Raf, as far as I was ever concerned anyway, these people discredit themselves quickly enough as it is. Anyone who needs to be hammered with what is self evident concerning them, should likely stick to messing around with a Ouiji Board by candlelight on a Saturday night. My concern is not with THAT nonsense, but when people are unmasked, who were never actually wearing a mask. I can't think of the term for that right now.

Cheers,
Fred

the problem has to do with people discrediting for discrediting's sake...ie malevolence/slandering masquerading as 'truth-seeking' or 'unmasking'. or personal vendettas masquerading as same. most that exercise this strategy hide behind the mask of magniminity -- 'but i'm helping to wake people up!' -- but are really operating from ego, and become obsessed with being 'right' while simultaneously proving others wrong.

and though their tactics are obvious to most, they remain a bit slippery whilst hiding behind phony declarations of 'free speech', 'censorship', and just generally embracing victimhood. whew, how many times have we seen that here?;)

i think the terms you're looking for Fred are libel or slander. maybe straw-man posturing.

and hey, what's wrong with a Ouija board on a Sat night?;) throw in a few beers, finger-food......

mosquito
5th November 2012, 02:15
On the surface, an easy enough question, but thinking about it a bit more, maybe it isn't so easy .....

I certainly draw the line with my personal experience; If someone comes along and states something which I know from experience (how else can one know something to be true ?) not to be true, then I ignore it, regardless of their credentials.

A little less solid is my position on matters concerning any of my particlar areas of knowledge. I try to remain flexible though, as I don't know everything about any subject !

Letting go of the need to always be right helps me to decide when to just ignore the discussion and move on.

gooty64
5th November 2012, 02:56
For me the line was drawn with the NASA scientist thread (aka Dr. Sal).
That's when I realized no one has a clue about the line, discernment, who is lying, who is sincere.
The most common two phrases I hear on the forums is "use your discernment" and "listen to your heart".
These vague cliche phrases are the giveaway for "i have no idea":noidea: to be tossed in the trash heap with "all is well" imho
Sorry Tarka, there is no line.:ohwell:

Craig
5th November 2012, 03:31
I think I get too empathetic with what I am reading, especially if I am enjoying it, I like to look at new ideas, well new for me anyway and read them, then I start to see contradictions with what i have read previously so then I get a bit overloaded, more so if both contradictory points make sense. I try to remain open at all times, though it does get bit harder the further I go. And as a side note, when I am with my mother and we see something on the telly or read something I will then say something about it and without a hesitation, she looks at me over the rim of her glasses and says, did you get that off the bloody internets did you? That is my signal to shut up.

RMorgan
5th November 2012, 14:37
Some characters like we see today (Kettler, Cobra, Drake, etc...) never actually had any credibility at all. They all came out of nowhere! So, discrediting them isnīt "discrediting", itīs unmasking.

Well Raf, as far as I was ever concerned anyway, these people discredit themselves quickly enough as it is. Anyone who needs to be hammered with what is self evident concerning them, should likely stick to messing around with a Ouiji Board by candlelight on a Saturday night. My concern is not with THAT nonsense, but when people are unmasked, who were never actually wearing a mask. I can't think of the term for that right now.

Cheers,
Fred

Hey Fred,

Well, this is a very complex subject.

First, what is credibility?

Credibility is trust applied when you donīt personally know the person/source and have no way to personally verify the veracity of the information.

Credibility is trust based on statistics, not emotions.

How do a person/source earn credibility? Usually, after doing a considerable amount of solid positive contribution to a certain field.

We all know it takes years to build credibility, but itīs very simple to destroy it.

When a certain source publishes a high rate of quality information, itīs useful to the reader; When the source starts to publish bad researched or misleading articles one after another, it becomes useless. Whatīs the use of any sort of information if itīs not reasonably accurate?

This is a very cold relationship because most of us donīt know these characters personally, so thereīs no way to even know who they actually are in the first place, or what kind of "mask" they are wearing.

Some people get artificially emotionally connected to certain sources, just like a rock bandīs fan feels emotionally connected with the bandīs members. However, this connection is artificial; itīs not based on reality; itīs fantasy.

The fact is, we can only judge all these folks by the quality of the information they provide. We donīt judge them, in fact, we judge the information.

In my opinion, itīs as simple as that. Most of the times, the once considered reliable source of information manages to screw up his credibility all by himself, for several reasons; The most significant of these reasons is the constant pressure to publish constant updates and articles, to keep the fidelity of his readers, subscribers and to keep a business running; As always, quantity is contrary to quality.

For me, this stuff is like any other client/company business relationship, after all, most of the alternative media people are running businesses and profiting (at least trying) from their fans.

Using a music band as an example; Iīll buy their CDs as long as they keep making good music, because, of course, Iīm not interested in listening bad music.

To sum up, I try not to get emotionally involved with any alternative media character. I read/support them as long as they publish good info that makes sense.

To be honest, Iīve learned much more from you and other guys who are here just to share some questions and insights than from any of those prominent alternative media guys. So, honestly, I really donīt care much if these folks screw up their credibility.

I know it sounds selfish, but when the integrity of my mind is involved, Iīm quite insensitive indeed.

Iīm not naive as well. I know there are agencies specialized in discrediting whatever makes us closer to the big picture, but these actions are really not hard to spot; They usually do this with ad hominem attacks, discrediting the person, not the information.

In the end, it all doesnīt really matter anyway; When something really makes sense, itīs almost impossible to discredit it.

Cheers,

Raf.

Peace of Mind
5th November 2012, 16:37
I drew the line a long time ago; I’m surprised many still follow those that have changed their lives but slowly becoming very silent and distant lately, go figure. The brain washing is very strong, denial is apparent and there is actually nothing to talk about other than what we can do for each other and the planet. But, it seems like there’s a presence here keeping that obviously needed connection from happening, how unfortunate.

Peace

pugwash84
6th November 2012, 15:31
I don't draw a line. If I don't have a line then I don't have to worry about who or what crossed it. I listen to the information and then I use my own opinion to weather I believe it or not. I think everyone's opinion should be heard even if they are wrong or right because they will clearly believe what they say is true and respect for one another's personal beliefs is vital.
I think people should listen to what others believe but use their own judgement.

Tony
6th November 2012, 15:41
I don't draw a line. If I don't have a line then I don't have to worry about who or what crossed it. I listen to the information and then I use my own opinion to weather I believe it or not. I think everyone's opinion should be heard even if they are wrong or right because they will clearly believe what they say is true and respect for one another's personal beliefs is vital.
I think people should listen to what others believe but use their own judgement.


Bloody well said.

Zelig
7th November 2012, 14:46
I draw lines all the time and always have, but lately my line is of a continuous spiral nature and I find that the theories and writings, etc that I find unlikely or even outlandish will eventually be captured by my corkscrew and accepted as plausible to at least some extent. It wasn't too long ago for me, that most of you would have been on the other side of my line and if I were reading your posts it would only have been for amusement. I've had to relabel my mental file folders so many times that I no longer use ink.

The one trait that I find most difficult to accept though, is certainty. Whenever a theory is presented with an exclamation mark I am almost instantly in doubt of the author's credibility. When you consider that the rock making up the peak of Mount Everest was initially formed on the floor of the sea and that what we now call Africa was once parked on top of the eastern U.S., it seems more than a little arrogant to assert absolute certainty of anything.

blufire
7th November 2012, 14:51
I don't draw a line. If I don't have a line then I don't have to worry about who or what crossed it. I listen to the information and then I use my own opinion to weather I believe it or not. I think everyone's opinion should be heard even if they are wrong or right because they will clearly believe what they say is true and respect for one another's personal beliefs is vital.
I think people should listen to what others believe but use their own judgement.


I agree Pugwash84 . . . . .

I find when I personally start drawing lines I often find myself in a very confining, unpleasant little box.

Carmody
7th November 2012, 16:27
Some characters like we see today (Kettler, Cobra, Drake, etc...) never actually had any credibility at all. They all came out of nowhere! So, discrediting them isnīt "discrediting", itīs unmasking.

Well Raf, as far as I was ever concerned anyway, these people discredit themselves quickly enough as it is. Anyone who needs to be hammered with what is self evident concerning them, should likely stick to messing around with a Ouiji Board by candlelight on a Saturday night. My concern is not with THAT nonsense, but when people are unmasked, who were never actually wearing a mask. I can't think of the term for that right now.

Cheers,
Fred

the problem has to do with people discrediting for discrediting's sake...ie malevolence/slandering masquerading as 'truth-seeking' or 'unmasking'. or personal vendettas masquerading as same. most that exercise this strategy hide behind the mask of magniminity -- 'but i'm helping to wake people up!' -- but are really operating from ego, and become obsessed with being 'right' while simultaneously proving others wrong.

and though their tactics are obvious to most, they remain a bit slippery whilst hiding behind phony declarations of 'free speech', 'censorship', and just generally embracing victimhood. whew, how many times have we seen that here?;)

i think the terms you're looking for Fred are libel or slander. maybe straw-man posturing.

and hey, what's wrong with a Ouija board on a Sat night?;) throw in a few beers, finger-food......

let's toss Joseph smith into that pile.

Anyway, all of this is human rumination on internal matters. Thus it won't be projected by the likes of this one into the sphere of being projected shared idealism on the given personal desires of functionality within a socio-cultral grouping. Or whatever.

Advertizing that one is unwilling to share in projection, oddly enough, in the USA's old west..took on the exact same shape as it's mirror, which was enforced projection. Which was the open carrying of a perpetually readied sidearm. :p

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_TNrkPF2mXZs/SoLY-cK7UUI/AAAAAAAACi4/2VlR9atzcpQ/s400/once+Upon+a+Time+in+The+west.jpg