Truth, strike two

[ciphergoth]

Thanks for some interesting and surprising responses to the JFK question. At the risk of creating more heat than light, let me try another example, one that I think might be a little less comfortable to be neutral about.

It seems that many people believe that on the morning of September 11, 2001, four thousand or more Israelis who were working at the World Trade Center did not show up for work.

Are those people wrong?

(Update: amended as per ajva's caveat)

Comments

[djm4]

I think all that you've proven then, is that your logical arguement isn't strong enough to stand on its own without using emotional manipulation to get your debaters to back dowm ... I disagree completely. I think what you’ve shown here is that it’s easy to kill any debate by bring up issues that people feel emotional enough about.

FX: David looks at multitude of threads above, debating the issue from many points of view.

I think you're wrong on two counts. Firstly, that the debate has been in any way killed, and secondly, that anyone's backed down.

In fact, I'm completely baffled by your post here. It bears no relation at all to the debate I've been reading and participating in.

[werenerd.livejournal.com]

Yes, you're right. I shouldn't be speaking for anyone else. I can only say that "I am uncomfortable engaging in a debate about the meaning of truth, where I'm asked to take the position of defending an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory".

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

I am not asking you to defend an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. I'm asking you to defend your position on truth in a world in which anti-Semitic conspiracy theories exist.

If you feel that your position would force you to defend an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory here, then that's an excellent reason to re-examine it, isn't it?