I've moved on from that discussion. If you want to present an argument that all of this is still nothing new then you are of course free too.

This is what I mean about being disingenuous. I just explained exactly why what you're saying is utterly meaningless and your response it "I've moved on from that". How could anyone argue against your position if your position doesn't mean anything? You're talking gibberish.

It is a way for him to say later 'I made my arguments on that point already' in a disingenuous way to pretend he does have an answer and has given it and everyone just needs to agree to disagree over this and move on.

It is exactly what I said we saw happening on the Rotten Tomato's forums decades prior with the CTers'.

Every time they cornered into a position where they had no answer or worse if they did answer it would be against their clinged to position they just stopped replying to or would claim they did and then move on.

Then later in the same discussion or if it popped up later they would go back to stating that exact same position again ("everything after 2017 is different than before0 saying things like 'I have demonstrated that in discussion prior' etc.

The entire point being to create a 'both sides' choice between readers over time where he refuses to go back to the source thread ('oh this has been beaten to death many times prior and i made my points') and instead just take a stance that 'I gave my info, my data and am correct' knowing many people will not look back to see how thoroughly he was trounced on this issue and unable to defend any of the basics of his points.

CTers know they need the sounding board of a 'realist' to bounce their Cters off to reach those susceptible to CT's as few will travel into the CT dark web to hear that nonsense.

Lucky's approach here is entirely dishonest "I state it is 'different", as if factual or demonstrative shown but I then say "I have moved on and it does not matter if I can substantiate it", which means he can keep repeating it without ever proving it.

Lol Cuepee.
When are you going to learn that calling people dishonest only makes you look like an idiot?
Not even bothering to read your post but I see that's the gist there.

Do you disagree with the assessment that the December 2017 NYT story sparked all of this current wave of UFO stuff?
There is nothing disingenuous about my position. I'd say it's fair to argue that your epistemological approach has been the disingenuous one.
Do you actually believe your own arguments here? I barely even know what they are because most of what you want to do is harangue me with bullshit and semantics. Which is generally considered disingenuous.

As best as I can tell Bladesman, your position is that this is nothing new? Is this correct? And if so I'm fine agreeing to disagree with you. That's not disingenuousness on my part to be done with that aspect of this discussion.

This isn't bullshit semantics or deep epistemology. This is me saying that I don't know what "different" even means if it's not a comparison to something. All you have to do here is tell me what you think post-2017 is different to. Just saying "it's different" without some kind of comparison is gibberish. No one knows what it means.

As for being disingenuous, when you asked me what I thought your position was, you were happy that I relayed it accurately enough. When you asked me how you could substantiate your position, I gave you a list, most of them being trivial things like positing it as an explanation for something, or making some kind of prediction about what news might break next. That's not me going deep into epistemology, that's me being giving you outs.

When people said CTers were crazy or prone to believing stupid things in other areas, I made posts pointing out that this isn't true. When people asked about CT groups, I was the one who said they're pretty much like anywhere else. When someone said that all CTs lead people to dangerous ideas, it was me that pointed out that we're all CTers to some degree. Calling me disingenuous seems more than a little harsh.

All you have to do here in order to have a meaningful position is say what you think it's different to and in what respect. That's not complex epistemology, that's just what anyone means by the word "different". You want to sit here and say things like you couldn't possibly be wrong but you can't even state a position coherently.

I can't even answer this if you won't state a coherent position for me to be responding to.

Are you saying that you have no position on UFOs or what's going on with them in the news, and your only aim in this thread is to see to it that my position is expressed in stronger and more rigorous terms?
And are you furthering stating that it's my refusal to do that that makes me the disingenuous one here?

Lol so predictable and classic.


I will preserve my post for posterity and just quote the appropriate section time and time and time and time again when in this or subsequent times this topic is brought up that Luckbox is using the EXACT same template other CTers use always when they have no good reply to an argument but want to pretend they have made one.

"different" "different" "different"

He will NEVER explain it and will not even try as he cannot articulate anything that is different that holds up to the collected evidence (by CV and others) that shows it is not.

So he proclaim it IS DIFFERENT. He will make his arguments on the crux of it being different. And then he will say 'it is not important to show it to be different'.

Thus he has created the situation where his 'proclamation alone' is the proof, that he later refers to as 'him having made his arguments' and when you disagree he just calls for you 'to agree to disagree' which his BS way of suggesting you both offered up substantial competing arguments and just won't agree, despite the fact he has offered nothing to substantiate this difference.

CTers know (the good ones anyway) that defining things too tightly (timelines, words like "different") ends up being their undoing as they then can and do get pinned into logic corners that show they were wrong. The ones who endure probably made those mistakes early but later learned how to keep their 'hope' (BS) alive by not getting trapped by fact, timelines or definitions.

Well I'm not sure what you're asking me. Are you asking my response to your position? If so, you need to state a coherent one. If you mean my position on UFOs in general then it's all stuff we've seen before.

What's disingenuous is that rather than just say what you think the media coverage post-2017 is different to, you just repeat "it's different" as if that actually means something.

Finish the sentence: "I think the media coverage of UFOs since December 2017 is different to..."

Fill in the blank for us.

Take a bow on that soul read.

Different to before December of 2017 obviously.
Before December 16th, 2017 to be precise.

Skillfully dodged.

10 points for Gryffindor

Okay, I suppose we'll just leave in what aspect to the side for now, we're saying it's different to before end of 2017.

In order to determine that whatever aspect you're saying is different actually is different we're going to need to make a comparison with "before December 16th, 2017".

So why on Earth would you then say that "before December 16th, 2017" isn't relevant?

I say that because I'm only interested in the current round of media coverage, and because the current round of coverage starts with that December 2017 NYT article. As has been been made clear or should be clear at this point, I don't actually care about UFOs or the history of UFO propaganda or UFOs in media.
My concern is on what is happening now with UFOs/media/government. I don't really care about making an argument to you that things are different now than in 1975, because I'd rather just move on from that. I think your issue here is that you're 'too close' to the UFO topic from the study that you've done, and that you're unable to separate the forest from the trees some.

I think "his issue" is that if your argument is predicated on it being "different".

If we say there 'is no meaningful change' there really is no reason to continue with your arguments that follow.

So you want a 'declaration' of 'different' to be its own proof while saying 'lets move on, I have no desire to substantiate that'.

You are asking people to engage in an argument with an entirely inaccurate foundation and Blades is saying 'we need to establish whether your foundational premise here is sound or not before moving forward to address the more opinion driven points of your argument'.

Blades is correct and using proper argumentation or debate structure to get you to establish your foundation as true or accurate or defensible first, and you are failing.

I'm not asking people to do anything. I can't help that you all are the blind people groping an elephant on this topic and I'm not going to hold your hands and explain all the different parts because I'm not inclined to do that.

Like if people want to think that this is all much-ado-about-nothing then I can't stop them for thinking that, and in one sense I think that's actually a correct view.
I just think there is also more to it than that and that's where the disagreement is. But I see no reason to try to get people to see things they aren't inclined to want to see, and that might even be impossible.

If you don't care about the history of UFOs then that's fine. What you can't have is that your position is "The present is different to the past" and not think that the past is going to be evidence either for or against that proposition. That's the thing that I've been telling you is either nonsensical or disingenuous.

If I said cars made after 2017 are the same as cars before 2017 but also said "I don't care about cars before 2017, they're not relevant" that would be an insane thing to try and argue, right? But that's what you've been doing; making a comparison to the past while claiming the past isn't relevant. It's incoherent.

So if you want to just talk about the present, that's fine. I actually gave you ways you could make that argument that didn't require such comparisons. You can say what it is you think you're observing and tell us what you think it explains. Or you can make a prediction as to what you think we'll discover in the future. Instead of doing that or coming up with some other approach you've just steadfastly repeated "It's different and any possible counter-examples are irrelevant". That's the disingenuous thing.

The present is different than the past. You just hate that I'm refusing to prove that to you with some sort of rigorous methodology.
I also think your car analogy is silly.
And most of this stuff and what you're asking about in your last paragraph has been covered.
I also resent you calling me disingenuous to cover for your thickness on this topic. You literally have no actual opinion here and seem to be here to argue with me. Which is fine we can keep going.

Like even random cartoons make my argument. My advice Bladesman is for you to figure out every panel in this cartoon and why the author created it this way, and see if you can figure out what's different before 2017 and how the 2017 NYT story affects the current coverage.
But yeah I'm not going to do everyone's homework when it comes to trivially easy points on issues where there is tons of prima facie evidence that I'm correct.

Anybody who takes luckbox seriously gets what they deserve

that is such a disingenuous argument. "No one is asking you to hand hold", we are asking you to define and address what is "different" what metrics or factors do you use when YOU come to the conclusion it is 'different' as we cannot assume your arguments nor can we just fill in the blanks with our own.

I cannot argue that medicine 1 is different than medicine 2 and then say 'i have no interest in discussing or showing or holding your hand to understand the difference' but 'lets just move on and discuss why you should stop taking medicine 2'.

We cannot engage in point 2 earnestly without the defined 'difference'.

No one understands your foundational point and if it is accurate and without that the rest becomes pointless.