Define Cynical Fan Forums

Which group is it more difficult to have a rational debate with? Both sides present their arguments with overzealous hostility, refuse to acknowledge any evidence that counters their claims while blindly buying into illogical, unverifiable statements that support their nonsensical beliefs, and are willing to threaten or engage in violent activity against those who say they're wrong. But which of the two will induce the most frustration when trying to engage in a logical discussion?

where are your nike shoe ads

where are your nike shoe ads

Beg pardon?

Apples and oranges, I say. It depends on the degree of irrationality they express in either case.

Libertarians. ;)

amen to that, brother!

That is a very unfair generalization of both groups. Also I have to agree with Aeron.

Apples and oranges, I say. It depends on the degree of irrationality they express in either case.

Quite true, quite true.

Fact is, anybody who is zealous about any belief, no matter what belief that is, is going to be very hard to convince otherwise. Atheists are going to be next to impossible to debate about the existence of a god with, for instance, and I say this as an atheist myself.

Eh, both are irrational and closed minded.

At first I thought they were two sides of the same coin, equally aggravating. But after getting into a heated discussion with some nuts who keep claiming that the 9/11 attacks were planned by Israel and/or the Bush admin and other such nonsense, I'm going to have to revise my earlier belief and say that conspiracy theorists are harder to debate with than fundies. At least fundies, or those I've encountered, will occasionally admit that they might be wrong.

I consider myself to be a conspiracy theorist in my spare time and I would say that I am pretty easy to get me to accept that your ideas may be right but at the same time extremely difficult to have a rational discussion with. I don't know where I fall in your spectrum.

Just like you couldn't make generalizations before, I wouldn't jump to any conclusion now based on your own limited experiences.

But aside from that, I originally thought you meant conspiracy theory along the lines of alien autopsies preformed at Area 51, or mind control nanobots in flu vaccines.

Now, the 9/11 being an inside job thing seems infinitely more plausible than an invisible all-powerful man in the sky that created the universe in 4000 BC and blahblahblah. Governments committing atrocities unbeknownst to their public has been a pretty common occurrence in history, and developed countries certainly haven't proven themselves to be above it. I don't believe the government did it because everyone I know who is much better informed than me on the subject that I also know to have rational views on other things think it was near impossible. If their thoughts were to the contrary, I would have no problem accepting their views until I knew more. I don't think this makes me irrational or a "sheep". I simply never bothered to seek out the details of 9/11 because knowing the "truth" about it would be inconsequential to my life (I'm not even American).

I'm not arguing anything, this is just where I stand. I also had a long question written out for you, but I realized it wasn't really consistent with what you were saying so nevermind.

Conspiracy theorists don't influence elections.

Fundies are worse.

Q.E.D.

I originally thought you meant conspiracy theory along the lines of alien autopsies preformed at Area 51, or mind control nanobots in flu vaccines.

I thought he meant that too...?
Who cares about whether 9/11 was an inside job, the non-conspiratorial fact remains that it served as a great excuse to get into Iraq. Let's change discussion to the REAL conspiracies.