Quote:
Originally Posted by
Merryprankster
Actually, what you did is precisely what you have done throughout your "debate." You have evaluated a statement without the context. You have attacked a specific thing while failing to refute the arc of the story.
When someone uses a strawman argument, there's no argument there to begin with. Did that somehow escape you?
Quote:
I made the comment to which you responded to demonstrate that the sort of "logic" you are engaged in is the sort of "logic" creationists engage in.
Did you somehow miss what I was trying to explain?
Quote:
HOWEVER, in CONTEXT, it should have become clear that I was simply stating that you are embarking along the same fallacious argumentation.
A fallacious argument eh? Funny, I'm not the one creating conspiracy theories about ooky spooky "jargon", now am I?
Quote:
That is not, in fact, a strawman. You are trying to poke holes in an argument by citing instances of weakness in that argument, such as information gaps, while ignoring the story arc.
I'm sorry MP, but your precious little strawman arguments are not real arguments, they are phoney arguments that are meant to appear as a valid retort. it doesn't work like that, sorry ;)
Quote:
This is exactly how creationists argue. The fallacy committed by the creationists, and by you, is the argumentum ad logicam.
Interesting that when you use jargon it's okay, but me? Nahhhh, can't have that.
Quote:
The creationists cite specific instances where evolutionary theory has either failed to find complete evidence supporting their theory, or where evolutionary theory appears to contain impossible elements.
My step father is very active in this. He has dozens of evolution-debunking books. His entire argument is a strawman. If you're trying to claim that my argument is somehow a strawman, then you are again lying.
[quote[Similarly, you cite specific instances where the 9/11 story has failed to find complete evidence in support of that story, or where the story appears to contain impossible elements, such as:[/quote]
Typically, you only get part of this right and fill the rest with the theory that sounds best. Better luck next time!
Quote:
You successfully cite instances of gaps in our knowledge, but those instances do not negate the 9/11 story arc.
I'm sorry, but if I honestly believed that just cause I knew of gaps in the official story that you didn't that it somehow made me right and you wrong, that would be a strawman argument. I don't need them, you do. I am simply demonstrating your massive level of ignorance on this subject and how it is incredibly absurd that you tell others they are wrong on a subject you obviously know next to nothing about.
Quote:
They are not even suspicious, inherently.
Of course. Nothing in the world is wrong with Bush subsequently protecting 9/11 hijackers. Naaah. Bush is great, I think we should throw a party for every single piece of legislation he issues that attacks the Bill of Rights :rolleyes:
Quote:
On to the next part: Where you (paraphrasing here, don't want to get anybody confused) laugh at the people who throw burden of proof at you.
I have no problem backing my claims. I strongly believe that anyone who makes any claim should back it. The "burden of proof" argument, as I have seen it applied atleast, is always used as an excuse by the intellectually lazy. It's a tool used so that they can sit there and tell someone they are wrong into infinity without actually having to produce a single shred of evidence that debunks the claims or sources provided by the other person. Perhaps when you say burden of proof, you mean is should apply to anyone who makes a comment? If that is your stance, I agree. But the problem is that I have never seen this work that way.
Quote:
There is a very simple reason for this: When you suggest that the totality of the evidence DOES indicate government conspiracy, and state so, you have just made a proposition.
let me guess: the typical response of the intellectually lazy and moronically partisan: "burden of proof"?
Quote:
And what do we all remember from our days in debate and rhetoric, boys and girls? That it is the burden of the proposing side in the debate to prove its claims.
The burden of proof rests on anyone who makes a comment. I acknowledge that I have provided .01% of the massive evidence that has been collected against the Bush Administration; but you must've had your eyes closed all those times I explained why I'm not going to bother to go into it in detail. Ever debate a Liberal concerning Clinton? I have. It doesn't get very far. Yourself and Rogue are no different. I've wasted my time in the past with such people, and I care not to do it again. If you were honestly interested in truth, you would of researched this issue a long time ago.
Quote:
This is why I say it is not enough to shoot holes in the theory, but that you need to present a coherent, workable story. By advocating a particular stance, you have changed your status from "critical skeptic," of the 9/11 theory, into the proposition. And, in so doing, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate the validity of your claims. In legal terms, you have taken on the role of the prosecutor.
I never said it was enough to just shoot holes. But I won't ever put it past you to inject theory to create something that's more acceptable for you.
Quote:
Now, if you are merely limiting your commentary to "critical skeptic," then I have misunderstood your position, and offer my apologies on that count - but maintain my criticism of your arguments - and acknowledge that you can quite properly occupy the role of the "defense." That is, you can punch holes in the official story all day long with glee.
I already explained my stance a number of posts ago. Would you like me to get the exact # for you?
Quote:
But, if you are actually advocating the proposition, then you must go beyond punching holes to make your point.
I am advocating that people do their own research and throw away their very, very pathetic partisan stances.
Quote:
You must actually prove your point before anybody should be expected to take it seriously.
Don't take me seriously, I honestly couldn't care less. If you were interested in the truth more than party leanings, you wouldn't still be supporting the criminal. Same goes for all the little Clinton supporters.
Quote:
And so far, all I see are some holes that do not invalidate the story arc, and of which there are majority expert interpretations supporting the official story arc, opposed by a few rather noisy dissenters. I also see some coincidences that some might take as "evidence" that the government was involved. In legal parlance, it would be circumstancial evidence - and what I have seen is not nearly strong enough to make the case.
You can research it for yourself. There's more than enough resources out there. I'm sure you hold more alliegance to the Bill of Rights than to your preconcieved notions of what is and is not true on this subject.
Quote:
Regarding Unions, I'm not sure I was clear
Clear enough to get your theory of me wrong. You can think I am a liar/fool/crazy all you want, but I don't like it when people get totally wrong the vast majority of the 9/11 Truth movement because of their misunderstanding based on ignorance.
Quote:
It exists only to show the ease with which a good, non-falsifiable fiction can be built.
Anyone who honestly thinks that just because they can create a percievingly infallable story thus makes it true and makes the official story wrong is an idiot and obviously knows nothing about personal research.
Quote:
It is one fundamental problem with conspiracy that any evidence contradicting "their" story only shows you the depths/heights to which the conspirators go to cover up the "truth," or the depths/heights of the "stupidity/credulity of the herd." Never mind the neo-con like Argumentum ad Baculum....
Tell me MP, is it accurate when someone says that all conservatives base their arguments on bullsh!t talking points just cause that's what the discredited media pundits do? I really don't think so. In fact, I've met some very intelligent conservatives that know their facts. Why do you use such broad brush tactics? Hasn't politics taught you that it's always inacurate when used? I'm no expert on conspiracy theories as I don't read about UFOs or anything like that. But I can tell you that it's quite a gross misunderstanding for you to claim that all conspiracies follow this tactic you mention. This would then apply to real conspiracies such as the military operations I mentioned previously as well as any main-stream recognised instance of the hegelian dialectic (do I need to explain what that means again??).
Quote:
Of course, the mainstream approach of calling conspiracy theorists crazy isn't much better.
I believe in researching something and then using that to determine whether someone is right or wrong. Many are still trying to comprehend this and until then will rely on such 5th grader tactics as you mentioned.
