It has a LOT to do with conspiracy theories, but I will admit that much of this forum uses them.
The main reason I posted it is because Geggy's and Ranxer's arguments tend to irritate me, and I couldn't really figure out why. After seeing this little gem:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ranxer
what's the latest? 14 seconds? no not free fall, uniform but yes there was some resistance to being pulled into its footprint, you're correct.
|
I got extremely pissed off, because it was pure doubletalk (as I stated), but I couldn't think of any technical terms for it, therefore I couldn't aptly criticize it.
So, I poured through my college writing text and found what I was looking for. Ranxer was equivocating to try and dodge the fact that he had previously been proven wrong (or so I assume. The "why am I going over this again?" bit seemed rather telling).
As I went through the logical fallacies, it struck me that they composed almost all of the 9/11 conspiracy "facts" that I've heard on this board. Every argument given is long, deceptive, and deliberately convoluted (far more than any arguments on other subjects, even more so than other political arguments).
Hell, we could have a freaking "Geggy Scavenger Hunt" forum event. The first to find five examples of each logical fallacy wins.
As I've said before, I'm a conspiracy theorist myself (JFK), so bullshit like this gets under my skin. That's how I managed to get myself into that dumb "validity of opinions in arguments" debate.
Hybrid Mode
