What becomes of old 'friends'..

[onebigmonkey]

They formulate an argument that is practically guaranteed to bait an emotional response, which gives them the rhetorical upper hand:  "Look, we're scientifically analyzing these photos and the only criticism our opponents can mount is boo-hooing over made-up victims."

As well as "A-ha - we made them angry, we must be on to something"

[Zakalwe]

You can also make someone angry by walking up to them and kicking them on the shins. That doesn't make your point any more valid and any rational human being must realise that going around kicking people will lead to isolation and punishment.

[JayUtah]

Provoking an emotional response by any means is one of of the many ways the rhetoric of conspiracy debates plays out.  Many of us here have been around the block enough times to recognize them early.  But the general public, I fear, does not.  Hence the debates over conspiracy theories too often achieve nothing but rhetorical showboating.

[Count Zero]

Hence the debates over conspiracy theories too often achieve nothing but rhetorical showboating.

One of the more egregious manifestations goes something like this:

HB:  "Those shadows are impossible, therefore it was faked."
PAN:  "Nonsense!  Here's a photo showing the same  shadow pattern here on Earth."
HB:  Ha-Ha!  You just proved that the photos could have been faked on Earth!!1!

Reason, facts and truth mean nothing - only scoring rhetorical points.

[Noldi400]

It's pretty much that same old tired tactic: spin a wildly speculative fantasy with not a shred of evidence, then challenge (whomever) to disprove it.

Also, hunchy's English seems to have deteriorated... guess he's out of practice.

[Daggerstab]

I came across this today: someone's been trying to defend Jarrah White on the talk page of the article about him on Rational Wiki, making vague threats mentions of a libel suit. How likely is it that it's JW himself?

The article itself is brief and shallow. It doesn't even cover White's more notable blunders (polar orbits, etc.).

[onebigmonkey]

It's another fine example of nitpicking on the alleged JW's part. He shouts long and loud about the tiny details but neglects the overall thing. As someone points out, arguing long and hard that no-one individual could have continuously tracked Apollo to the moon conveniently neglects the argument that the Apollo craft were monitored in the vicinity of the moon, in which case: how exactly did they get there?

Likewise complaining that someone cited the incorrect Van Allen document, and he was actually focusing on a pre-Apollo Scientific American article conveniently brushes over Van Allen's own later rebuttal of the "it was instantly lethal" claim as well as JW's own incompetent maths on the subject.

Generally speaking I also get annoyed about people removing "libelous" comments on the basis of an accusation of libel.

It is not libel unless it is proven to be so. Simply waving your arms about and claiming libel does not make it so. There are many cases in the world where people have claimed they have been libeled, gone to court to try and prove their claim and it turns out that it was no such thing.

[Noldi400]

AFAIK, the old legal principle still stands that the truth is an absolute defense against libel. 

[DD Brock]

That is a lot of bandwidth just to deal with the nonsense that is Jarrah White.

[JayUtah]

The basis of the law for this tort (at least in Common Law) is the moral principle that no person is entitled to false reputation.  Libel claimants often forget the other edge to that sword, which slashes along the line that no person is entitled to a falsely positive reputation.  A person who insinuates publicly to be skilled at a certain thing and is shown by the facts not to be, is not entitled to invoke the law to protect his opinion of himself against fair comment.  This sword is especially sharp when one seeks to be a public figure, as has Jarrah.  The way Common Law works, a person who seeks to be a public figure, especially on the backs of other people he has viciously attacked, is expected to have a very thick skin indeed when public opinion of him is rendered.

[DD Brock]

The number of false DCMA claims Jarrah has filed against just Astrobrant alone is a clear indication of exactly how thin his skin is.

For his well being, I honestly hope he never attains the fame he so clearly covets. He is emotionally ill-equipped for the scrutiny that comes with such fame.

[ka9q]

For his well being, I honestly hope he never attains the fame he so clearly covets.

Indeed. Nothing, but nothing seems to set him off more than seeing the fame he thinks is rightly his going to a debunker such as Phil Plait or Adam Savage.

[onebigmonkey]

The basis of the law for this tort (at least in Common Law) is the moral principle that no person is entitled to false reputation.  Libel claimants often forget the other edge to that sword, which slashes along the line that no person is entitled to a falsely positive reputation.  A person who insinuates publicly to be skilled at a certain thing and is shown by the facts not to be, is not entitled to invoke the law to protect his opinion of himself against fair comment.  This sword is especially sharp when one seeks to be a public figure, as has Jarrah.  The way Common Law works, a person who seeks to be a public figure, especially on the backs of other people he has viciously attacked, is expected to have a very thick skin indeed when public opinion of him is rendered.

Indeed. It's also a very expensive sword, particularly if you find yourself in the end of it. It is offensive that true statements are withdrawn not because they are shown to be false, but because people can not afford to defend them.

[Luther]

I reckon that you've hit the nail on the head there.

Isn't he French? If so, he has a LOT to thank the US and the rest of the Allies for.

France was under the boot for eighteen months before the US even entered the war, so we might wonder how altruistic the actions of the latter were.  But, I think what this person says should be based on its own merit, not on his nationality and what the US may have done nearly three fourths of a century ago.  (Just to emphasise how long ago this is, the time that has passed since the Normandy invasion is longer than the entire existence of the Soviet Union.)  How long does this obligation last?  I've noticed that Americans never seem to show proper deference towards France for helping the US secure independence (suffering more casualties than the Americans) at Yorktown 234 years ago.  Maybe that's because France was about as altruistic in 1781 as the US was in 1944.

[DD Brock]

I reckon that you've hit the nail on the head there.

Isn't he French? If so, he has a LOT to thank the US and the rest of the Allies for.

France was under the boot for eighteen months before the US even entered the war, so we might wonder how altruistic the actions of the latter were.  But, I think what this person says should be based on its own merit, not on his nationality and what the US may have done nearly three fourths of a century ago.  (Just to emphasise how long ago this is, the time that has passed since the Normandy invasion is longer than the entire existence of the Soviet Union.)  How long does this obligation last?  I've noticed that Americans never seem to show proper deference towards France for helping the US secure independence (suffering more casualties than the Americans) at Yorktown 234 years ago.  Maybe that's because France was about as altruistic in 1781 as the US was in 1944.

I'd say that obligation lasts at least until the very last Alled soldier passes on. Sounds fair to me...