Easy guide to spotting shills, trolls and debunkers.

OP is

What makes you say that?

How many arguments have you won with the BS Flag as source of evidence?

OP is so right, he's splooging rightsauce in all our hairs.

BS flag however can be used as an imaginative way of showing bullshit in intent, but only if properly used. Shills use it like they use their old copies of playboy from the eighties for reading material.

Why all the hostility, just want to share some knowledge for those who don't know about these techniques. Not so people can use them, (shame on you if you do) because it shows a lack of intelligence and these can be used for ANY subject matter, but so people can see when it's been used against them.

The GLP formula is pretty easy.

If
Poster does not agree with you.
The Poster is a shill, troll and or a debunker.

Yes. Print at least this one out and keep near your computer:

"the burden of proof lies with the person making a positive claim."

bookmarked, thx op

:shillalert:

I find the easy way to spot them is to look for those who resort to personal attacks (Name Calling) instead of debating the topic itself.

asshat

Aha!

A shill has exposed himself!

LOL

THE PRIMARY TECHNIQUE OF A SHILL, WHORE FOR THE STATE, IS TO MAKE YOU DOUBT YOURSELF OR FIND THE SLIGHTEST ERROR IN YOUR ARGUMENT.

Rules:

1. Never doubt yourself.

2. Refine your argument until it's faultless.

3. Attitude: Open then reverse defensiveness to attack mode, using more knowledge.

I resort to name calling sometimes, nothing too vulgar of course, but only when a silly little peon tries to disrupt the thread or make me look like a fool, and I still address the topic. I don't take too kindly to that kind of thing.

One of my favorite fallacies is this one:

"Contrails don't persist; 'chem-trails' do."

This is used on a regular basis as "evidence" or "proof" of "chem-trails", but just a teensy bit of critical thinking debunks it right away.

Even the most rabid "chem-trail" believer will admit that "regular' contrails are just frozen or condensed water vapor from the aircraft engines, just like normal clouds.

And since
(a) normal contrails can't persist; and
(b) normal contrails are the same makeup as normal clouds; then
(c) they will behave the same way, which means that normal clouds can't persist, either.

Except, of course, that they do!

Normal clouds can persist for hours and days on end, which means that
(a) there is something like "chem-trails" even in "normal" contrails to "allow" them to disappear, which, in turn, means that
(b) they're not normal contrails and
(c) you now can no longer discern "normal" contrails from "chem-trails"; thus
(d) the argument falls apart.

Or you could just call them out and catch them in the act of using these techniques. Which was my point -_-

There is no need to debate someone whose only sole intent is the disruption, descreditation and destructions of the information in the thread.

These techniques are not for people wanting to debate and discuss the information! They are underhanded, low and used to other purposes.

Hahaha, Duncan just used a fallacy while explaining one, funny.

The problem as I see it is that ANYONE that disagrees with the nutjobs on this site are accused of being shills.

One of my favorite posters has to be G. House. A very insightful poster who has always been able to back up exactly what he says.

But he is is one of the most maligned and hated poster here.

Very ironic.

Good point. Vincent Vegas said, earlier in this thread, "...I find the easy way to spot them [shills] is to look for those who resort to personal attacks (Name Calling) instead of debating the topic itself."

Given the insults and obloquies Mr. House receives, you'd almost think he was arguing against "shills" rather than being one himself.

Useful site for keeping a ready guide to different techniques.

"Baffling with Science"
Comes to mind everytime I read raw food vs cooked food debate.

Last Edited by himself on 04/06/2009 02:48 PM

To draw Us into Polarity...

:sc:

"And how do you determine whether someone wants to debate and push his hypothesis versus someone who simply wants to disrupt an ongoing debate?

I'd think that if you want a debate, you'd need to have conflicting views and hyptheses."

Simple, some people don't have a hypothesis and simply just want to disprove everything someone says or descredit them and their information. They're not interested in a debate or discussion. I thought I made that clear, obviously not enough.

"One of my favorite fallacies is this one:

"Contrails don't persist; 'chem-trails' do."

This is used on a regular basis as "evidence" or "proof" of "chem-trails", but just a teensy bit of critical thinking debunks it right away."

What do you call that? You're saying that just because you claim this is evidence used by people who believe in this thing is debunked by you, that chemtrails cannot exist period. Why do you have to play word games to say something as simple as "I do not believe in chemtrail and anyone who does I deem to be a nutjob and should be ridiculed"? Man up little boy.

I don't believe in these chemtrails, but I have never seen any, but it doesn't give me the right to mock and ridicule someone for believing in them. People believe what they want to, people who seem intent on stopping these beliefs are morons, it's no different trying to make an atheist out of a christian. It's not going to happen, a belief is a belief.

Why the hostility because your thread will logically attract all the shills around!

And the first thing a shill does is ridiculing a subject so that posters loose interest.

The more you answer their verbal crap the more they will put ect ect.

Look op someone who knows the truth doesn't need to be convinced a truth seeker will always sense shills and trolls from miles.

Those shills can't convince me that chemtrails aren't there to reduce the populace the more they try to the more i believe i'm right for example.

If someone came here to decide what he will believe or not then this person is already lost.

I come here almost only for entertainment purpuses and sometimes i learn something new.

Thx for trying to help us though.

Here some flowers

Five stars for this excellent thread!

He is a tard like all other shills first he will claim you are stupid and short sighted and that chemtrails are just in our imagination. Then when he sees your arguments he will stick to his absurd contrail theory and finally when you show him the proof under his nose he will claim geoengineering.

And G. house stands for government house....

The shills here are so obvious man they don't even try to give a serious link or debate they just follow their miserable little book.

First they ridicule the thread then they present weak arguments that have nothing to do with the subject.

And finally when they subtly change the subject they search for provocation with the op as final blow.

I don't/can't believe that chemtrails, if they exist, are simply for depopulation... The atmosphere is so complex and is so vital in so many processess on the planet such as our magnetic fields, our electric field and many other things. The only way chemtrails could affect anything is if they were negatively or positively charged particles of some kind. As much as I am for a depopulation of the masses chemtrails (if they exist) don't seem to be for that, and there are many more simpler ways to depopulate the masses. Cheaper too.