4 ms·

The only answer possible to your question is 'mu' because it is based on flawed assumptions. However if I rephrase your question as 'which groups are listed in

by roel_v 16y ago

The only answer possible to your question is 'mu' because it is based on flawed assumptions. However if I rephrase your question as 'which groups are listed in the post', it's quite easy to answer: - 9/11 truthers - religious cultists - UFO abductees Are these not groups according to you? I'm not sure what obscure point you're trying to make.

Alex3917 16y ago
"Are these not groups according to you?" No, of course not. I have no reason to believe that, say, subjects who report having contact with 'entities' after receiving cranial electromagnetic stimulation in controlled laboratory settings are malicious: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nN3ggRgY7Ac http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nN3ggRgY7Ac Nor does it make any sense to claim that anyone who wants an intellectually honest investigation into 9/11 is a deceiver. That's just ridiculous 1984-style propaganda. These 'groups' are just a loose collection of people who have little or nothing in common. Are some of these folks malicious or deceivers? Of course. But putting them all in the same box is just willful intellectual dishonesty.
- ErrantX 16y ago
  My reading of it is that this is what the author was trying to express (i.e. the group to watch is "malicious deceivers", pushing a variety of ideas - rather than the reverse). It simply wasn't expressed well.
- roel_v 16y ago
  There are two claims here: 1. are these people 'groups' 2. are they 'malicious or unhinged deceivers' 1 is easy - a 'group' is a collection or subset of a larger whole of people, which all of the named categories are. This is a simple semantic issue, completely uninteresting, but I still don't understand what point you're trying to make by claiming these people are not 'groups', apart from the non sequitur in your first sentence (when I say 'are these not groups', you say 'I have no reason to believe that they are malicious'). Of course they're not 'organized' as in that they have no central authority and there is strong disagreement about many things between them, but they're still 'groups'. But again this is a wholly uninteresting question and I'm not sure why you brought it up in the first place. Then nr 2, the question was 'are they malicious or unhinged deceivers'. So that means they're either 'malicious deceivers' or 'unhinged deceivers'. Many (most?) are not 'malicious', but anyone who claims 9/11 was an inside job by the US government is 'unhinged'. (9/11 truthers are not 'anyone who wants an intellectually honest investigation into 9/11', they're whack jobs for whom nothing will ever convince them that they're wrong; much like the holocaust deniers in the OP.) They're also 'deceivers' because they all operate to convince as many people as they can about their loony ideas, using all means possible. Repeatedly and without willingness to engage in actual, rational debate repeating claims of being 'oppressed', 'repressed' or 'silenced by the majority' is just the beginning of this deceitfulness.

by roel_v 16y ago

Alex3917 16y ago

"Are these not groups according to you?" No, of course not. I have no reason to believe that, say, subjects who report having contact with 'entities' after receiving cranial electromagnetic stimulation in controlled laboratory settings are malicious: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nN3ggRgY7Ac http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nN3ggRgY7Ac Nor does it make any sense to claim that anyone who wants an intellectually honest investigation into 9/11 is a deceiver. That's just ridiculous 1984-style propaganda. These 'groups' are just a loose collection of people who have little or nothing in common. Are some of these folks malicious or deceivers? Of course. But putting them all in the same box is just willful intellectual dishonesty.

ErrantX 16y ago
My reading of it is that this is what the author was trying to express (i.e. the group to watch is "malicious deceivers", pushing a variety of ideas - rather than the reverse). It simply wasn't expressed well.
roel_v 16y ago
There are two claims here: 1. are these people 'groups' 2. are they 'malicious or unhinged deceivers' 1 is easy - a 'group' is a collection or subset of a larger whole of people, which all of the named categories are. This is a simple semantic issue, completely uninteresting, but I still don't understand what point you're trying to make by claiming these people are not 'groups', apart from the non sequitur in your first sentence (when I say 'are these not groups', you say 'I have no reason to believe that they are malicious'). Of course they're not 'organized' as in that they have no central authority and there is strong disagreement about many things between them, but they're still 'groups'. But again this is a wholly uninteresting question and I'm not sure why you brought it up in the first place. Then nr 2, the question was 'are they malicious or unhinged deceivers'. So that means they're either 'malicious deceivers' or 'unhinged deceivers'. Many (most?) are not 'malicious', but anyone who claims 9/11 was an inside job by the US government is 'unhinged'. (9/11 truthers are not 'anyone who wants an intellectually honest investigation into 9/11', they're whack jobs for whom nothing will ever convince them that they're wrong; much like the holocaust deniers in the OP.) They're also 'deceivers' because they all operate to convince as many people as they can about their loony ideas, using all means possible. Repeatedly and without willingness to engage in actual, rational debate repeating claims of being 'oppressed', 'repressed' or 'silenced by the majority' is just the beginning of this deceitfulness.