I repeat the use of the word 'obvious' in the following statement IS a fallacy:
"Right, referring to a group who thinks no one died in 9/11 as 'childish' is 'ad hominem'...Then I'm the reincarnation of Charlemagne. You can't prove I'm not!! And pointing out the obvious is 'ad hominem' so you better not do that!"
The debate is whether Veritas Aequitas's response to the theory that 'No one died on 9-11' is a logical fallacy. I say YES it is a fallacy.
I'm not making any arguments that you, EricHoffer or Veritas Aequitas are cointel pro even if I might ABSOLUTELY believe it. I'm not even arguing for or against the theory that no one died in the 9-11 WTC attacks, even though I might ABSOLUTELY believe that theory. I'm just making a statement that Veritas Aequitas made a logical fallacy by using the word 'obvious' in the above statement. I further categorize his argument as an ad hominem argument for the reasons I stated.
BTW It's interesting how the conversation diverts to all these topics like 9-11 media fakery theories and logical fallacy interpretations when Veritas Aequitas (formerly Straight Sativa) originally boldly proclaimed with a bold attention grabbing title "To All Who Believe there Were No Injuries in Boston" that he had not one, but TWO links to people who had injuries and went on to describe some graphic details. Even with the lack of interest or belief of his statement by members on the DP I would think Veritas Aequitas/Straight Sativa would defend his bold and BOLDED proclamations about knowing the injured rather than responding to these various other side issues. Is that how someone is supposed to respond when a tragedy supposedly hits so close to home? I think not.
9-11 Media Fakery: Did anyone die on 9-11?
Pysops.. media.. actors.. propagandists... disinfo agents.. fake videos.. fake photos
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: