Comment: Name that dogma?

(See in situ)


Name that dogma?

Guilt by Association.

Rather than either expose the error of the information, assuming that the dogmatist makes such a claim, there is instead a diversion by which the individuals reading the information are falsely connected to some nebulous fault.

Example:

I read information offered by people in places where I think I might find accurate information that is useful, current, and powerfully defensive. I read information here on this web site.

I found, read, and evaluated the information offered on this Topic.

Now I find out that "this equates the daily paul web page with the visitation / AREA 51 CROWD..."

So the meaning of such dogma, as far as my understanding goes (hence the question asked in the title of my comment here), is such that my choice to listen to, and evaluate, the information offered by Karen Hudes, offered by the Forum member base1aransas, is my connection to lunatics?

Again I use the question mark, since my understanding is often not accurate.

If I connect to information associated with Karen Hudges, then I am connecting to "visitation / AREA 51 CROWD" stuff, which means, I guess, some discredit of some kind.

I think that is clearly a case of guilt by association.

That is clearly a tactic used by people who are well practiced at the art of deception.

If they know it, then it is willful use of deception.

If they don't know it, then it is parroting deception.

If I am wrong, someone could spell out how I am wrong, without resort to even more deception.

1.
False discredit is being used here instead of an actual, accurate, explanation as to why the information is, in any way, worthy of discredit.

2.
The information offered on this Forum, in this Topic, by the Forum Member base1aransas, concerning current World News, from Karen Hudes, is worthy of consideration by anyone caring to connect to that information through this Web Page, and therefore there is no Discredit to this Web page, whatsoever in this case.

3.
This Topic is, in fact, the same as someone claiming to be visited by little green men from mars, so anyone reading this information is, in fact, mentally unstable, and therefore the reader of this information is as dangerous as a terrorist, and therefore it is Obama's job to find those readers of this information, and have those readers of this information either droned to death or have those readers of this information taken by Extraordinary Rendition to a place to be tortured until a confession is extracted and then those readers of this information must be burned alive until those readers of this information are no longer terrorizing the rest of us good people.

That last comment (3) is an example of hyperbole, in case someone might want to put an accurate label on it.

Joe