|
|
|||||||
| View Poll Results: she cray-cray? | |||
| yes |
   
|
27 | 45.76% |
| no |
  
|
15 | 25.42% |
| bsh/twrs |
  
|
17 | 28.81% |
| Voters: 59. You may not vote on this poll | |||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#51
08-06-2016, 06:55 AM
|
||||
|
Quote:
For it to be an ad hominem I would had to have commented on the Hillary video. I'm not saying the video has no merit (not saying it has merit either). I don't use conspiracy theorist as an insult. People theorizing about conspiracies isn't a bad thing in itself. It can actually be a good thing seeing as how there are conspiracy out there. "They come in all different forms and it's impossible to stereotype them accurately". There is no such thing as conspiracy theorist in that sense. But a subculture has come into existence and as with all subcultures people start sharing certain traits and exhibiting similar behaviour. They start following similar narratives. It's human nature. Ayn Rand showed how little she understood human nature when she replied to accusations that she and her followers were a cult by claiming you could never have a cult of individualism. Alex Jones is paranoid and he has a twisted worldview. Every person he meets falls into a certain category. It's especially apparent when he's interacting with people outside of his studio. Everything that happens around him is controlled by some higher power (not in spiritual sense) and is a conscious action with a specific purpose. People around him fulfull roles like in a board game. We have the infiltrator, the spy, the instigator, the distraction. A person tripped and bumping into him is 'a warning'. You will likely never catch him just sitting back joking around with some friends about light hearted stuff. A good fart joke would do him good. His only form of humour comes in the form of mocking people or serious situations (in a 'better to laugh than cry' manner) and agitating those he feels are evil (ie. The Young Turks encounter). It's an unhealthy and inaccurate worldview. He is overconfident in his abilities and (as is often the case) has stopped differentiating between something that's suspect and something that is a proven fact. None of this means that he is wrong about everything necessarily. He could be a paranoid schizophrenic and still get a number of things right. None of this means he's a bad person. Those who are genuinely in search of truth should start by examining themselves for false beliefs, bad thinking patterns, intellectually destructive behaviour etc. Finding the flaws in 'your' group can sometimes be more important in finding the flaws in 'their' group. The adherants of a belief don't necessarily reflect on the belief itself. You are not the theories. Criticism of you is not criticism of theories. | |||
|
Last edited by Csihar; 08-06-2016 at 06:59 AM..
|
|
|||
|
#52
08-06-2016, 07:17 AM
|
|||||
|
Quote:
Squeaky voice: "Apparently people derive a sense of control and feeling of superiority from believing in so-called conspiracy theories." You're first line, that's directed at me, and everything that follows. You were not commenting on the video just like you said right now, Well then WhoTF were you talking about then dumb ass? Exactly! It wouldn't bother me but then you come back and spit out the above BS. I said F* reading the rest but glanced onto this: Quote:
__________________
| ||||
|
|
|||||
|
#53
08-06-2016, 08:45 AM
|
|||
|
__________________
BLUE: Jarnauga Winterfell - Barbarian Shaman of The Tribunal
GREEN: Ineluki - Human Shadow Knight of Inoruuk  lulz | ||
|
|
|||
|
#54
08-06-2016, 09:56 AM
|
||||
|
Quote:
HAHAHAHA!! Is your rainbow conspiracy going to be included in Hitllary's full UFO disclosure? "I wan't to believe!" lol Oh I get it, it's only JUST a woooo "conspiracy theory" when every time it turns out true your libtard politician was up to no good again got caught. Otherwise if it's Nazi's on the dark side of the moon welll pfff of course! Must be true, amiright? So yeah it burns your butts your wall street shite politicians keep getting caught and embarrassed. But I don't care about that, I care about seeing your criminal politicians go to prison where they belong! And as far as I see it, your goddess Hitllary Clinton is criminally insane.
__________________
| |||
|
|
||||
|
#55
08-06-2016, 10:29 AM
|
|||
|
Oh and for peeps that believe in UFO's, don't take my above comment as an attack. I've spent a very very huge amount of time studying the subject, I just have a different opinion on the matter. But one thing for sure, Clinton is a liar, and any disclosure will come from a liars mouth, which is less than worthless. Many of the UFO community share the same opinion.
__________________
| ||
|
|
|||
|
#56
08-06-2016, 10:30 AM
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
BLUE: Jarnauga Winterfell - Barbarian Shaman of The Tribunal
GREEN: Ineluki - Human Shadow Knight of Inoruuk lulz | |||
|
|
||||
|
#57
08-06-2016, 10:36 AM
|
|||
|
Dude you use that like every other week. What, you don't like black people or somethin? Guess you and Hillary have something in common in that case. That and Nazi's on the dark side of the moon, amiright?? Ohh yeaaah
__________________
| ||
|
|
|||
|
#58
08-06-2016, 10:42 AM
|
||||
|
Quote:
"ad hominem" 1. (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining. "vicious ad hominem attacks" 2. relating to or associated with a particular person. "the office was created ad hominem for Fenton" Clearly we're talking about the first and not the second usage. Now you can play a game of semantics and say that by the first definition I was using an ad hominem attack because I was attacking you (a person) and not the video (a position) but you'd be wrong. Otherwise the definition would simply be 'directed against a person'. The inclusion of 'rather than the position' can't be ignored. The ad hominem fallacy is very simple. In this case it would be: "your Hillary video is wrong because [insert my post]". It's a logical fallacy because the messenger has no effect on whether or not the message is true or false. "Who are you going to trust on this issue? Some dirty Mexican or a red-blooded American?" is a logical fallacy. Being Mexican or dirty doesn't affect how true the issue is. Your personal shortcomings don't reflect on that video. The person who posted that video doesn't even reflect on it. But... I wasn't commented at all on the video. I just posted an off-topic remark about you and people like you. Therefore it can't be an ad hominem attack, just an attack. Get it? Probably not because logical fallacies is something that falls under philosophy and logic and isn't just a fancy term people have started using more and more in arguments as a tool to one-up the other person rather than understanding it as part of having a valid argument. But even if you do you'll dance around it with more bs. With a lot of question marks and smilies probably. And a couple of 'LOL!'s. Too long didn't read, LOL! Boy, you sure did spend a lot of time on writing this, LOL! Not really though because I have an IQ of 3 digits and not 2. | |||
|
Last edited by Csihar; 08-06-2016 at 10:55 AM..
|
|
|||
|
#60
08-06-2016, 11:32 AM
|
|||
|
You wrote a long inflammatory post about conspiracy theorists, a derogatory label that you (and me, and pretty much everyone else) have mentally assigned to the people who made the video, and your only defense is that because you didn't mention them explicitly that your post was somehow entirely unrelated. This would be a reasonable defense if you had been quoted out of context from a blog or even another thread, but anyone reading this thread will conclude that you were thinking about the video and Daywolf when you wrote this. It kind of reminds me of this
| ||
|
|
|||
|
|
|
Linear Mode
