ugh
I would like to show everyone for a moment the stupidity of people on the fucking interenet. Here we have a moron that I have been (very stupidly) arguing with all night over political issues. I apologize for ranting here, but, I gotta get this out of my system because I am really pissed right now.
When I told the dipshit in question that global warming is not real (you can see my resources on the page I linked to. It's a phoney scheme used to condition people to accept more taxation, population reduction, and globalism), I was countered not with actual information that proved me wrong (which I am more than open for), no, I was instead given a logic fallacy. This being that since 29000 agree that global warming is real, then it's real and since my links disagree with that, then it's "nazi propaganda" by "paid off scientists" because the oil companies pay off scientists to say global warming isn't real (which is true, but it goes both ways).
The first one is a logical fallacy called argumentum ad verecundiam and also argumentum ad populum.
argumentum ad verecundiam is also known as an "appeal to authority" and is very common. Just because a statement supposedly comes from a credible source, doesn't mean it's true.
Most of us rely on this one more often than we probably should. We're unlikely to investigate too thoroughly whether what a doctor says about our health is true, for example. He's a doctor, so we just assume he's right.
Because this is such a powerful form of poor argument, it's often used to trick people into believing something that may be false. Advertisers use scientific terms to sell their products, for example.
You can usually spot someone who's using this to cover up a weak position by pushing them to provide some evidence other than the authority to back up their claims.
Example: "My friend is a top programmer at Google, and this is the way he builds his systems, so it must be the best way".
yeah, certainly a failure of logic. The next one, argumentum ad populum, is the appeal to the majority argument.
If enough people believe something to be true, then it must be, in other words. The problem is, history is full of examples of sincere majority beliefs eventually being proven false. Just because a lot of people think something, doesn't make it right.
Example: "Everyone thinks this is the best time to buy a house, so you should do it as soon as possible."
So in effect, this dipshit has not only failed to produce a real argument, he's also refused to look at any information I've provided (I really hate it when people do that. Usually it's super Bushites, but staunch global warming activists do the same. Either way, it's always the tactic of a brownshirt), all the while calling me a nazi and saying that my sources that discredit his claims are nazi propaganda (see How to Win Any Argument On the Internet)... So now, he's making excuses for why it's ok that he doesn't look at my resources; basically saying it's ok to be ignorant. Someone could tell me that they have papers that prove my father isn't my father (which is pretty absurd if anyone's seen how much me and my father look alike) and I'd still look at it. Then again, I place the truth far above my preconceived ideals.
Now the idiocy doesn't stop there. Brownshirt, as I've named him, engaged in another no no logical fallacy: affirming the consequent. See, He's trying to say that since scientists that take pay offs from oil companies say that global warming isn't real, then all scientists that say that all scientists that say global warming isn't real are paid off. Affirming the consequent is when you say an assumption works in both directions, even if there's no reason to believe so.
Just because X means Y, doesn't mean Y means X, in other words. This can be a very subtle argument to catch out.
Example: "If my business partner was stealing from me, he'd probably buy himself a fancy car. He just bought a Mercedes, so he's probably stealing from me."
Clearly, a logical fallacy. But no, then this moron continues to tell me that eliminating the Federal Reserve wouldn't get rid of the national debt. This is where we enter the twilight zone.. The US buys its money at face value from the Federal Reserve, this creates the national debt, because then we owe that money to the Federal Reserve. This is very basic stuff, but nope, apparently I'm a "moron" for thinking that.
Of course, it goes on. I get called a nazi numerous times (again, see How to Win Any Argument On the Internet), called a liar, two faced, phoney, a sneak.. the list just goes on and on.. I had to stop eventually. It's time for bed, and I'm just really wound up. This idiot will not listen to reason (of course), and refuses to discuss things in an remotely mature way (and yet his profile says he's 40??). This is why I stopped debating almost entirely because people don't want to deal in facts, they want bullshit. People will smear you, call you names, ridicule you, twist your words, deal out every disinformation argument in the book, invoke logical fallacies, and of course follow all the rules on how to win an argument on the internet; they will do everything but deal in facts, and keeping to the subject at hand.
conclusion:
John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory is irrefutable!
When I told the dipshit in question that global warming is not real (you can see my resources on the page I linked to. It's a phoney scheme used to condition people to accept more taxation, population reduction, and globalism), I was countered not with actual information that proved me wrong (which I am more than open for), no, I was instead given a logic fallacy. This being that since 29000 agree that global warming is real, then it's real and since my links disagree with that, then it's "nazi propaganda" by "paid off scientists" because the oil companies pay off scientists to say global warming isn't real (which is true, but it goes both ways).
The first one is a logical fallacy called argumentum ad verecundiam and also argumentum ad populum.
argumentum ad verecundiam is also known as an "appeal to authority" and is very common. Just because a statement supposedly comes from a credible source, doesn't mean it's true.
Most of us rely on this one more often than we probably should. We're unlikely to investigate too thoroughly whether what a doctor says about our health is true, for example. He's a doctor, so we just assume he's right.
Because this is such a powerful form of poor argument, it's often used to trick people into believing something that may be false. Advertisers use scientific terms to sell their products, for example.
You can usually spot someone who's using this to cover up a weak position by pushing them to provide some evidence other than the authority to back up their claims.
Example: "My friend is a top programmer at Google, and this is the way he builds his systems, so it must be the best way".
yeah, certainly a failure of logic. The next one, argumentum ad populum, is the appeal to the majority argument.
If enough people believe something to be true, then it must be, in other words. The problem is, history is full of examples of sincere majority beliefs eventually being proven false. Just because a lot of people think something, doesn't make it right.
Example: "Everyone thinks this is the best time to buy a house, so you should do it as soon as possible."
So in effect, this dipshit has not only failed to produce a real argument, he's also refused to look at any information I've provided (I really hate it when people do that. Usually it's super Bushites, but staunch global warming activists do the same. Either way, it's always the tactic of a brownshirt), all the while calling me a nazi and saying that my sources that discredit his claims are nazi propaganda (see How to Win Any Argument On the Internet)... So now, he's making excuses for why it's ok that he doesn't look at my resources; basically saying it's ok to be ignorant. Someone could tell me that they have papers that prove my father isn't my father (which is pretty absurd if anyone's seen how much me and my father look alike) and I'd still look at it. Then again, I place the truth far above my preconceived ideals.
Now the idiocy doesn't stop there. Brownshirt, as I've named him, engaged in another no no logical fallacy: affirming the consequent. See, He's trying to say that since scientists that take pay offs from oil companies say that global warming isn't real, then all scientists that say that all scientists that say global warming isn't real are paid off. Affirming the consequent is when you say an assumption works in both directions, even if there's no reason to believe so.
Just because X means Y, doesn't mean Y means X, in other words. This can be a very subtle argument to catch out.
Example: "If my business partner was stealing from me, he'd probably buy himself a fancy car. He just bought a Mercedes, so he's probably stealing from me."
Clearly, a logical fallacy. But no, then this moron continues to tell me that eliminating the Federal Reserve wouldn't get rid of the national debt. This is where we enter the twilight zone.. The US buys its money at face value from the Federal Reserve, this creates the national debt, because then we owe that money to the Federal Reserve. This is very basic stuff, but nope, apparently I'm a "moron" for thinking that.
Of course, it goes on. I get called a nazi numerous times (again, see How to Win Any Argument On the Internet), called a liar, two faced, phoney, a sneak.. the list just goes on and on.. I had to stop eventually. It's time for bed, and I'm just really wound up. This idiot will not listen to reason (of course), and refuses to discuss things in an remotely mature way (and yet his profile says he's 40??). This is why I stopped debating almost entirely because people don't want to deal in facts, they want bullshit. People will smear you, call you names, ridicule you, twist your words, deal out every disinformation argument in the book, invoke logical fallacies, and of course follow all the rules on how to win an argument on the internet; they will do everything but deal in facts, and keeping to the subject at hand.
conclusion:
John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory is irrefutable!