Comment: Eh

(See in situ)


Eh

It's implied that the person on the other side of the debate can't understand or recognize the 'obvious'. That is a attack on a person's critical thinking abilities. There may be a more specific term for this kind of logical fallacy, but I place it in the ad hominem category.

This is like saying, "I don't like it, therefore it's a fallacy." Attacking the arguer, insulting the person, etc may be rude, but that doesn't make it a fallacy of any sort UNLESS it's a criteria being used to dismiss the point being made. "You're a conspiracy nut, therefore you'll believe anything" is a fallacy when used to dismiss things like 9/11, Pentagon no plane, etc. It can be uttered without being a fallacy, but you need to back it up with actual reasoning.

Sure regular posters use ad hominem & straw man arguments too, but they're the predominant arguments of cointel pro and military intelligence. I like how you used the word 'idiot' to describe me in explaining your arguments. Clever.

How do you know this? Are you a member? You've been trained in house by them? No, you just want to assume that because it would make sense to you. This makes me think you haven't been on the internet long, or ever played an online game, or had many online arguments. Humorously, even if the people in question ARE cointel-pro, by trying to argue that therefore their arguments are bunk, you're engaging in an ACTUAL ad-hominem argument, not to mention guilt by association. Calling you an idiot is blatant and unsubtle, but the fun part is it's still not an ad hominem attack. You can be a complete idiot, but still make valid and logical points. That's the fun part of logic, it is completely freed from the person who is making the arguments. You, however, are getting the fallacies obviously wrong, and that's why you're getting busted on.

Glad to see you following this thread EricHoffer. Weren't you on the BP HOAX thread? Didn't you take the time to make a video about that? I was trying to explain this whole ACTOR and HOAX theory back then. Yes ACTORS.. on TV or videos or Youtube videos. What's the latest? Oil still sinking in water? The gulf still a global disaster or people eating good ol' Gulf crawfish these days?

Oh look, subtle accusation that I'm a cointel pro guy! Awesome. Yes I entered into the BP Oil thread. The argument was that no spill happened, and I was disputing it as they were actually testing water from the spill in the laboratory complex I'm in. When the guy an office or two over has definitive proof of oil and oil testing being done, it's kinda hard for me to let it lie that the "spill never happened" as was being argued. Unfortunately for your argument, yes they're still having problems, and it looks like the Corexit used in conjunction with the oil are causing more problems. http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/04/24/corexit-bp-deepwa... as an example.

Good morning to y'all in military intelligence. It might make you feel good to get some air and plant something in the ground to grow sometime. Clean air and sunshine is good for the body and spirit. I'm trying to learn to grow food myself. Maybe you guys should try it sometime. Cheers.

If this is somehow supposed to be directed at me, I'm more into bonsai than anything else. I DO have some nice fresh basil growing, but that's the extent in my apartment. Not a whole ton of space for food, though I'd love to have some nice property someday with some acreage for food.

Bottom line: Trying to claim that all the people insulting you are using ad hominem attacks is a fail. Even trying to claim that people who majorly use ad hominem and straw men attacks is a fail. Especially using a guilt by association fallacy combined with an ad hominem (your argument being: "users of ad hominems are cointel pro agents, therefore we can disregard their arguments," a true ad hominem fallacy) is a fail.

Stop failing.

Eric Hoffer