I guess my point was there's a parallel between theorizing that it has to be aliens in theorizing that it has to be fabrication that I see is equally crazy.
I like your point about people mimicking each other. I hadn't thought about that and I do think it's a definite possibility. I guess as I've said elsewhere I simply have too much faith in people to believe there are so many morally corrupt people who fabricate this kind of stuff for some sort of attention or money or fame.
I reached a different conclusion to you and it's normal that will have different views on this topic because it's a big complex topic and none of us have any idea what it's about.
I was pretty harsh to you so I'm sorry. It's no excuse but I guess I feel hurt and angry about what I see as the normalization of abuse of people bold enough to share their stories and say maybe there's something we don't understand is going on. On closer reading of what you said and on your subsequent explanation where I think you did a much better job of explaining your points (I don't think you explained it at all clearly in the first one but you definitely explained it in the follow-up) I see that you weren't saying that. You're just critiquing Robin's particular logic. But I sensed that you delivered it with that kind of contempt for this topic that I see as so corrosive and hurtful, and I hoped to push you away from that into a more reflective and more open and respectful stance towards this topic, And the people brave enough to say what they think about it. Clearly I didn't go about that in the right way. I'm sorry please forgive me, ...but ... i do have more "lecturing" to give you ;) ;p xx if you're up for that
I read them so you shouldn't assume that i didn't and that's in the rules but apart from that it's arrogant and narrow minded because if you're assuming the only reason I disagree with you is because I didn't read what you read then your implicit assumption is that you are absolutely right because if I had read what you'd read I would have reached the same conclusion as you. it's very disrespectful to other viewpoints and so I think if you're going to lecture people on logic and implications then you do well to sharpen your own. Logic without perspective is blind and useless, it's like knowing how to drive the car but not knowing where you're going.
I wasn't lecturing you...as "lecturing" in that usage implies there was angry criticizing, I wasn't angry. But if you feel like it's lecturing and you're feeling resistance to that I guess that might be part of your problem because you're assuming that I don't have anything that I could teach you. So I'm not lecturing I'm teaching you. You taught me About the idea that people copying each other. I'd never thought of that but it's a good point.
So if you're assuming that I have nothing to teach you it's going to be hard for you to be willing to hear what I'm saying and if you're not going to be willing to hear what I'm saying you're probably going to be assuming that you're totally right and you have nothing to learn. So it's not going to be very useful for you for me to continue to talk now is it? That's got nothing to do with me of course that's just where you're at. So before you blame me for how you took what I was saying maybe you could consider how your reaction is getting in the way of you learning something here.
So I think that validates the point that you assume that I didn't read the things that you read, because I had a different view to you. Tho doesn't it seem normal that different people are going to arrive at different views even if they read or look at the same thing? And isn't that kind of diversity of viewpoints something that you're okay with?
See I think it's very arrogant and narrow minded apart from being in the rules, to not assume that people are not reading, the implication being that there's only one truth, one possible conclusion and you're in possession of it. so clearly I think this demonstrates that you're not willing to hear on this topic right now as I said before. I don't blame you specifically I think it's something about this topic that triggers people to leaping logic and going straight to certainty and I don't think you've escaped that yet. Best of luck with doing that I think you'll be able to just open your mind a bit. I'm heartened to hear that you don't have any strong opinions about people's personal experiences I'm totally with you on that.
Robin presented an argument dependent on a false syllogism: if people were lying about aliens then either (Ca) they were spontaneously coming up with the same hoax or (Cb) there was some organization coordinating the hoaxes
I pointed out this syllogism missed the most obvious, commonly argued and evidentially supported alternative explanation for lots of humans telling the same story or fabricating the same evidence - humans copy each other and adapt popular stories, as they have been doing for thousands of years. That's neither spontaneous, decentralized and unlikely nor a conspiracy: it's the essence of shared knowledge and mythology. Regardless of whether I'm biased against Robin's explanation or not, he simply overlooked this in what was supposed to be his list of only possible conclusions
At no point did I discount other possibilities (I mean, I don't think fairies, angels or "greys" are likely but my argument didn't touch on that branch of the argument). I simply pointed out Robin's enthusiasm for a couple of fantastic explanations (government conspiracies to fake aliens, or actual aliens) lead him to string together a chain of reasoning which altogether neglected one of the most mundane. Which is pretty ironic, given that trying to avoid that kind of bias is literally his specialist subject!
> More specifically, in your case, you have an actual mirror case of crank-iness: you have a conspiracy for the creation of all the evidence, rather than a conspiracy for the suppression of it.
No, I specifically attack Robin's suggestion that a conspiracy for the creation of all the evidence is likely [if the evidence isn't true]. You're welcome to argue that my "humans intentionally and unintentionally copy each others' stories" hypothesis is completely wrong or vanishingly unlikely, of course, but that's a stronger knowledge claim than I made.
Perhaps you should heed your own words about leaping logic to arrive directly at certainty...
I'm sorry, but if you're going to lecture people on nuance and not being arrogant after calling them tinfoil hat flunkies, you probably should read the arguments you're commenting on first (including Robin's). Makes meeting in the middle that bit easier (I really don't have any strong opinions either way on what individual reports did or didn't see) :D