I found out something about my fiance and her family and I don't know what to do...

MooMoo444 · 14 Aug 2015 at 11:24

We landed on the moon? When?

D3K · 14 Aug 2015 at 11:26

They think the moon landing was fake? OMG. Next they'll be telling you the US government assassinated JFK, and that 911 was an inside job.

/sarcasm off.

Stretch · 14 Aug 2015 at 11:27

It took you 8 years to find out you partner is a catholic conspiracy theorist.

Next you'll be telling us she's actually a man.

ubersonic · 14 Aug 2015 at 11:34

[FnG]magnolia;28438555 said:
Yeah, but you're obviously fooled by THEIR lies, the LIES we READ about in the MAINSTREAM media which only SHEEPLE would fall for etc etc etc

I always find CT nut logic amazing:

Person who reads everything, assesses all the facts and forms a logical informed opinion = Sheep

Person who ignores anything "mainstream" and bases all opinions on unverified stories with no evidence to back them up = informed and knowledgable

[FnG]magnolia · 14 Aug 2015 at 11:37

ubersonic said:
I always find CT nut logic amazing:

Person who reads everything, assesses all the facts and forms a logical informed opinion = Sheep

Person who ignores anything "mainstream" and bases all opinions on unverified stories with no evidence to back them up = informed and knowledgable

Cognitive dissonance is a hell of a thing and the beauty of it is that it works for both (all) camps as an argument so you get this circular hell of argument with no resolution, ever.

ikillbears · 14 Aug 2015 at 12:03

spoffle said:
Because most people on these forums have an intelligence complex, and automatically decree someone stupid if they think something different or don't follow the official governmental story about something, whilst ignoring that they're taking such things on good faith to be true (because they can't verify it themselves with 100% certainty).

spoffle said:
You're missing the point of what's being said, which was the point of my post initially.

When you are looking at those photos, and accepting them as factual, you are, regardless of whether you want to accept it or not, taking it on good faith that they are legitimate photos, because the reality is it's so easy to make imagery now with how powerful an average computer is that it's entirely possible that they could be fabricated.

Note, I'm not saying that they are fabricated, I'm highlighting the philosophical aspect here that people with an intelligence complex struggle to understand.

Nearly all of us take facts on good faith that they are true, and as such these images don't "prove" it unless you acknowledge it as a fact based on faith.

And as above, the reality of this seems to upset people with intelligence complexes, because these people don't do philosophy, their stance is "I think x, x is a fact and if someone doesn't agree then they're an idiot and stupid".

Steady on spoffle. this is fairing into intelligent thought territory

ArnieRambo · 14 Aug 2015 at 12:14

Images + videos + document's = fact

BigDannyO · 14 Aug 2015 at 12:31

ArnieRambo said:
Images + videos + documents + science + experiments + generally accepted theory = fact, until proven otherwise

Corrected for you.

[FnG]magnolia · 14 Aug 2015 at 12:35

ArnieRambo said:
Images + videos + document's = fact

It's the apostrophe that make this the perfect wrong

it's actually quite brilliant.

ubersonic · 14 Aug 2015 at 12:41

[FnG]magnolia;28438911 said:
It's the apostrophe that make this the perfect wrong

But can you prove he's using the apostrophe wrong?

aardvark · 14 Aug 2015 at 12:59

Spacedeck said:
Defending the moon landing is no worse then those defending the hoax. IMO we don't have clear cut evidence to suggest 100% that the landing happened without casting any doubt. If we did, everyone would accept this as truth.

no, there is overwhelming evidence - its just that thick people refuse to believe that evidence because they are stupid. It wouldn't matter what evidence you had, people will still believe what they believe because they are stupid, not because the evidence isn't 100% clear cut (which it is).

StoutMeister · 14 Aug 2015 at 12:59

[FnG]magnolia;28438397 said:
Your dedication and unswerving looniness are only two of the reasons that you are a forums gold standard poster

Never change, champ.

p.s. Did you ever get a date with that Pret a Manger server who had to change branch location because you were bothering her so much?

Nice!

Spacedeck · 14 Aug 2015 at 13:14

aardvark said:
no, there is overwhelming evidence - its just that thick people refuse to believe that evidence because they are stupid. It wouldn't matter what evidence you had, people will still believe what they believe because they are stupid, not because the evidence isn't 100% clear cut (which it is).

So just because someone doesn't follow the same views as you, you insult them? Well played sir. :rolleyes:

I must be one of them "stupid" people then since I too have my doubts. Just because one doubts something doesn't make them stupid. Sure if the evidence was all 100% as you sure think it is and still didn't believe, maybe they would be a little stupid. But this isn't the case...

ICDP · 14 Aug 2015 at 13:39

spoffle said:
That's not a straw man argument.

Yes it is.

Not attacking the original argument (A) that there is irrefutable proof the moon landings happened. Instead setup another argument (B) that the US Govt lied about WMDs in Iraq. Then refute argument B, which somehow means A must also be false.

A and B are not remotely linked, ergo refuting B does not invalidate or refute A.

Straw Man
The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.

EddScott · 14 Aug 2015 at 14:33

Provides the ultimate defense, and aptly attired.

ubersonic · 14 Aug 2015 at 14:38

Spacedeck said:
Just because one doubts something doesn't make them stupid.

When they have doubts about something which has been proven well beyond all reasonable doubt, it means they are acting stupidly/idiotic/foolishly.

Granted it doesn't mean that they themselves are stupid/idiotic/a fool, just that they are acting so in this instance in regards to this subject.

dowie · 14 Aug 2015 at 14:47

Spacedeck said:
S Just because one doubts something doesn't make them stupid.

It depends what that thing is - in this instance none of the objections are very rational and there is overwhelming evidence that it did happen ergo they are a bit stupid.

Combat squirrel · 14 Aug 2015 at 14:49

ubersonic said:
Let me fix those typos for you.

All sorted, you're welcome

panthro · 14 Aug 2015 at 15:07

This has nothing to do with your wife or her family being Catholic, it has everything to do with them being morons.

ICDP · 14 Aug 2015 at 15:15

Spacedeck said:
So just because someone doesn't follow the same views as you, you insult them? Well played sir.

I must be one of them "stupid" people then since I too have my doubts. Just because one doubts something doesn't make them stupid. Sure if the evidence was all 100% as you sure think it is and still didn't believe, maybe they would be a little stupid. But this isn't the case...

Then present your evidence to prove the moon landings didn't happen.

The evidence presented to prove they happened is from multiple independent sources and has been collected over decades. If the best you can do to refute this evidence is to say "well I have my doubts", you are not helping your cause. Without any actual evidence to the contrary I will have to accept the moon landings happened.

I'm afraid your continued doubts point more to the fact you refuse to accept the truth, or are simply unable to process the evidence in a logical way. The multitude of irrefutable evidence from many independent and reputed sources trumps your "doubts" every single time. And no your opinion on this is not equally as valid as someone who actually can and does accept this irrefutable evidence.