Fetzer/Burton Moon Landing Debate Finale

[James H. Fetzer]

JFK and even 9/11 have been far more extensively aired than the moon landing. I was very precise in setting the boundaries of the debate (or "pseudo-debate", if you like), without taking for granted that my opponent would repeatedly violate his own stipulations -- which exposes his chicanery for anyone who reads the thread in a dramatic and convincing fashion. I would be glad to debate McAdams or Bugliosi, by the way, so if you can arrange it, be my guest! I put together a team to debate NIST about 9/11, but NIST declined to engage us. We have different approaches, Charles. I am not criticizing you or drawing comparisons between us, because I think there is room for your more contemplative approach as well as my more combative. I am doing what I can to expose the opposition with respect to its beliefs, its arguments, and its tactics, where it would be difficult to deny I have succeeded. I have one style and you another. Let's agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Jim,

We're getting somewhere.

You have not been engaged in a "debate" with these people.

Would you "debate" a JFK LN?

I wouldn't.

Do you know why?

Because the JFK conspiracy debate is OVER, and anyone with reasonable access to the evidence who wishes to continue it is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.

Anyone WITHOUT said reasonable access is not to be debated, but rather educated. And said education must include a detailed presentation of the "debate is over" reality.

Again, you are not "debating" Burton (in this case). Or at least you should not debate anyone who behaves like him.

FOR WHEN YOU OSTENSIBLY DEBATE A BURTON, YOU DIGNIFY THAT PERSON'S PROFFERED POINT OF VIEW -- AND THUS, BY DEFINITION, YOU DO THE ENEMY'S SACRED WORK.

Let's not argue semantics. Of course one must engage an enemy in order to vanquish it. But "engagement" in this case must include stated recognition of the enemy's nature and objectives.

You cannot engage a Burton and have any hope of victory if you do not define the opposition.

Argument alone, within the context of engagement of this sort of enemy, is doomed to failure insofar as, absent exposure of the enemy's game, even the most powerfully persuasive argument may win a skirmish but undoubtedly will prolong, and thus by definition help lose, the war.

Charles