Perfect Example of logic's power: Person destroys themseleves without any effort. Rebirth in processSubmitted by Bhynes919 on Wed, 04/10/2013 - 10:44
Living in a society where critical thinking is phenomena; it can be discouraging to run into opposition who refuses to accept a deductively valid & sound argument with complete disposition. Well, in the most difficult of place; you CAN make find a proof to discredit someones deeply held disposition:
Even on YouTube comment page:
I comment on a cenk TYT video about Monsanto. knowing that apologists used to defend monsanto calling anyone who questioned the practice to be anti-science. This is how it went:
SvenBenson (Me) 4 days ago
"EUGENICS IS SCIENCE. STOP BEING ANTI SCIENCE. I DECLARE AGENT ORANGE IS NUTRITIOUS"
Quickly, a light jab most people would overlook responded:
QueenChocky: that was a poor effort
Me: Right; it's satire.
Queenjocky: im not suggesting its your real opinion, its just not that funny. you need to test these jokes on family members or something because they're pretty weak
Me: It's curious that you believe I was attempting to be 'funny'. That's quite interesting. What I said is essentially the stance of Monsanto and the psuedoscience apologists. Why would you believe I am attempting humor? Do yo believe satire is synonymous with pleasant comedy? It's simply condensing their stance with their pathos
Me:Satire is a literary tool that makes use of irony, exaggeration, humor OR ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary condensed devices
I corrected a simple invalid premise, pretty harmless, right?
No, apparently, any brushing near or anywhere near their own thought process is going to be perceived as a threat. NEVER return the insults. Abstain from even using, You're an idiot. as the brain will then emotionally give credibility that you were just fighting with him the whole time.
Going back to the illustration; Queenhook denies that erroneous critique:
Queenhook: I know what satire is, but yours was an amateur attempt
Me: Funny, You just illustrated you didn't know. Now your new assertion, appears to be missing an argument. More likely,instead of admitting your initial criticism rested on an incorrect assumption and granting a simple intellectually honest "Oh, I misunderstood" (Or thanks for for teaching me something), You now elected on a pathos, or an appeal to emotion to shift relevance back to my credibility on the issue. A fallacy, ad-hominemQueenhook:Just because you've identified a type of humour you want to recreate doesn't mean you have wit or intellect just as using a thesaurus to identify words you think make you sound educated, doesn't mean you are. Perhaps that was funny to you, I'm glad one of us is.
ME:..So, now you're submitting another assertion? What is your goal here, exactly? So far post 1. said I was not funny. Next, I told you it was satire and you repeated that "it wasn't funny". P3. After I illustrated it, was never supposed to be funny, and enlightened your ignorance. Now, it's clear you know this,then asserted 4.My satire is now "Amateur". and said you knew it the whole time. If yo knew it the whole time, your P1 and P.2 contradicts this.
Everything in here has is a baseless appeal that you would have to deceive YOURSELF to think you remotely sound rational. You can either deceive yourself, or not.
Do you really believe what your 8 assertions are saying?, I'm serious, do you want me to illustrate how discrediting it is? It only makes me smile, because people who are never exposed to a logician are so eager to do ANYTHING but admit "oops, I misunderstood". What's next, a post of simply expletives?
Queenhook (since removed): any idiot can tell you used one to sound educated; stop using one, young one. w
ME: Assertion: "using a thesuarus to identify words you think make you sound educated" the "thesaurus" accusation is claiming big words, I see no words above a 5th grade vocabulary other than. "pathos" . Now although the burden of such an accusation would usually require something like, not making it up. But your emotional deception with oneself can convince you that if I don't disprove, you'll believe it. Guess what?
I can: Pathos:where I can use an English thesaurus finds Latin Logical Concept. There is no English equivalent.
Now, will you simply attempt some honesty with yourself?
Now, this is the WORST place to succeed in forcing intellectual growth: howeer, Wherever the platform, or in person-- whatever happens from this point forward is ultimately on the ignorant. Either he can discredit himself, further, to the point where former supporters and cheerleaders of underlying concept (be it gun control, FDA is good) question their former blind loyalty to this person's messages. So the guy has one chance: Begin to honestly look at his underlyung core principle, or force his friends to reconsider theirs.
Unlocking minds, one at a time.
"bhynes" or "hayek_hynes"(twitter) or "logicalreason"(paltalk,mises.org)