How to use the "Quotes Debunked" Forum

[Mick]

This forum is a place to collect and debunk quotes that have been used out of context, or with incorrect interpretations, to promote some kind of bunk.

To debunk a quote:

• Start a new thread in this forum.
• Use the quote (or a portion of it) as the title of the thread, in quotes, with the word "Debunked: " at the start, like
  Debunked: "Geoengineering is like free-riding on our grandkids"
• Debunk the quote in the first post using the steps from the "How to Debunk Quotes" article.

If you've got a quote you want debunking, then you can just start a new thread with whatever you've got, and we'll fill in the blanks. Or add a post to this thread as a request.

(The reason for adding "Debunked" at the start of the thread title is so that people who are searching for the quote will immediate be able to see that it's a debunking from the Google results. If the "debunked" were at the end, then it gets cut off from the longer quotes.)

Useful resources:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/#search - Search presidential speeches

[Mick]

Some similar resources:

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/quotes.html - A collection of quotes found in the creationist literature that have been taken out of context

http://web.archive.org/web/200411051...c/sc_misq.html - Bunch of quotes the were debunked back in the 90's. Now only available via archive.org

[Juror No. 8]

(The reason for adding "Debunked" at the start of the thread title is so that people who are searching for the quote will immediate be able to see that it's a debunking from the Google results. If the "debunked" were at the end, then it gets cut off from the longer quotes.)

Don't you think this is a bit misleading, though? Putting "debunked" at the start of a thread implies that a given quote has been successfully debunked, when the real truth might be the exact opposite. For instance, there are a few examples on this forum of quotes that are labeled as debunked when there's still a legitimate, ongoing debate as to what the quote really means and whether the subject matter of the quote is true or not.

I think it's rather presumptuous, if not outright intellectually dishonest, to declare something debunked when it clearly hasn't been.

[Juror No. 8]

Labeling a bunch of highly debatable quotes as "debunked" is the rough equivalent of conspiracy theorists labeling their theories as "conspiracy fact".

[Mick]

Debunking is about identifying and exposing the bunk. A lot of the quotes are actual quote, but have bunk associated with them. This is about the bunk.

[Juror No. 8]

Debunking is about identifying and exposing the bunk. A lot of the quotes are actual quote, but have bunk associated with them. This is about the bunk.

The problem is, some of what you identify as "bunk", isn't necessarily bunk. In many cases, you're speculating as to the meaning of a quote just as those who you are trying to debunk are.

It's dishonest to claim you have debunked something that you haven't. As such, if I post a quote here in the future, I'm certainly not going to label it "debunked" before it's even been debated by forum participants.

[Mick]

If there's some bunk associated with a quote, and I explain what I think is the bunk, then that's a debunking.

People disagreeing with me does not mean I'm being dishonest. Suppose I wrote a post titled "Debunked: the no-plane theory", and presented the evidence for their being a plane. Is that dishonest because it does not convince those who think the plane was a hologram?

In fact part of a good debunking should explain why people would disagree with the debunking. Like in the "CIA Owns everyone..." quote, it was somewhat true at the time, and some people still think it is true. So even though there's no evidence he ever said it, it rings true for many people, so its veracity is irrelevant.

[Juror No. 8]

If there's some bunk associated with a quote, and I explain what I think is the bunk, then that's a debunking.

Then you are debunking alleged bunk associated with certain quotes. You're not necessarily debunking the quotes themselves.

The "debunked" labels in front of factual quotes are misleading, and makes it appear as if you have an agenda. If you don't mind appearing as if you have an agenda, have at it.

[Mick]

Most conspiracy theorists think that those who chose to debunk their theories have an agenda. I don't think leaving off the word "debunked" is going to change that.

All my debunking are quite open to refutation and clarification. Obviously when I say a quote is "debunked" I'm not saying always that the quote is not true. I'm often explaining why I think some usage of it is misleading. Seems reasonably to me, but of course people are going to think I have an agenda. They are naturally suspicious (or "awake" in their parlance).

[Juror No. 8]

Most conspiracy theorists think that those who chose to debunk their theories have an agenda. I don't think leaving off the word "debunked" is going to change that.

All my debunking are quite open to refutation and clarification. Obviously when I say a quote is "debunked" I'm not saying always that the quote is not true. I'm often explaining why I think some usage of it is misleading. Seems reasonably to me, but of course people are going to think I have an agenda. They are naturally suspicious (or "awake" in their parlance).

I disagree. I actually think that just posting the quote in the thread title and then attempting to debunk the associated bunk in the body of the thread would go a long way in at least making it look like you have in interest in having an honest debate. By labeling the quotes as debunked before you even have the debate, there can be little doubt that you have an agenda that goes well beyond honest, informed debate.

It's your board, though, so you can obviously do whatever you want. I'm just throwing out some constructive criticism.