by Pie Guervara
Because of a tweet from some numb nuts conspiracy theorist I just wasted 8 minutes and 5 seconds of my life watching this creepy nonsense –
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=axQtAFtmtVA
Yep, I watched it all the way through expecting “The Onion” to pop up. My recommendation is that all Post Script readers/contributors should not waste their lives too in order to get a better understanding of some of the abject lunacy that takes itself seriously out there. I once thought InfoWars actually had some valid points to make on the few times I encountered them. Not any more. I don’t know what or who they think are reaching with this pathetic drivel that attempts to be manipulative but fails on so many levels it is impossible to enumerate.
Editors note: I found this link to be so absurd, so incredibly twisted, as to be comical…
Pie, he was hoping to rope you and Jack.
It’s nice to know there is a limit … but it would have been nicer if that limit had been reached back there with his obscene Sandy Hook pronouncements.
Still, we’ll take what we can get in the way of a sensible electorate.
I have to agree with Libby. Pie, the two of us warned you about InfoWars a long time ago.
Dear Libby and Chris,
*Sigh* The usual snot from the two silly snots.
I don’t even remember what the one or two things it was that I thought InfoWars had a valid point on. I haven’t encountered anything from InfoWars for a year(years?) and do not follow them.
You know, even a blind squirrel can occasionally get a nut. Heck, even InfoWars or DailyKos. Nevertheless I know I can count on the two left wing clowns, who frequent these environs and who never seem to get a single nut, to play condescending role of “I told ya so”.
Anything else you two fools would like to tell me about myself?
Here’s your chance, chumps.
By the way, Chris can you identify and enumerate the classical fallacies (explicit and implied) in your and Libby’s short statements above? (Libby is excused, she is a complete idiot where Chris is, evidently, a partially educated one.)
Think of it as a simple and possibly productive exercise. I commit (and use for comedic and satirical effect) fallacies with full self awareness of my grotesque transgressions. Perhaps you might give that a try there, spud. You know, the awareness, self examination thing.
“The unexamined life is not worth living” — Socrates
Ooops, my bad!
“The unexamined life is not worth living” — Dianne Chambers, fictional character on the American TV show “Cheers” played by Shelly Long, quoting Socrates
Pie: “By the way, Chris can you identify and enumerate the classical fallacies (explicit and implied) in your and Libby’s short statements above?”
I give up. I can’t find a single logical fallacy in either of our comments.
Illuminate me.
Pie Guevara: “I haven’t encountered anything from InfoWars for a year(years?)”
The funny thing about the Internet, Pie, is that it’s really easy to find out when people are not telling the truth.
You linked to Info Wars on this site no less than ten days ago:
http://www.norcalblogs.com/postscripts/2013/04/10/gun-compromise-proposed-wont-stop-nutcase-shootings-emotionally-gratifying/
See comment #7, in which you linked to an Info Wars article and falsely claimed “Democrat admits Obama’s agenda is for a total gun ban.” As I explained, this is obvious nonsense, because 1) The democrat in question said nothing about Obama, 2) If Obama has a secret agenda to ban all guns (even though he has expanded gun rights in national parks and trains), I doubt he would share this super-secret plan with an Austin City Council member, and 3) We don’t even know if the two have ever met. So he has literally no ability to “admit” anything about Obama’s agenda, unless you believe all progressives are psychically connected via hivemind.
And here is you linking to Info Wars back in October:
http://www.norcalblogs.com/postscripts/2012/10/23/usa-giving-arms-to-al-qae/
See comment #7 on this one as well.
Chris, why on earth should I waste my time trying to illuminate you when you have not even been illuminated with the classes you have, supposedly, taken?
Heck, I wouldn’t cross the street to piss on you if you were on fire much less try to teach you anything. I might as well try to teach a jackass integral calculus or a dog how to tie a bowline.
Think about it, they may dawn on you yet.
Pie,
I have learned all about logical fallacies. There aren’t any in my comments on this article. If you think otherwise, then you actually need to point out which ones.
But as usual, you seem content to simply make assertions without bothering to back them up with actual arguments. You spend a lot of time constructing uncivil, ad hominem attacks, and no time writing anything intelligible or valuable. Your comments are completely unconstructive, and contribute only to the further erosion of civil discourse in this country.
Again, poor Chris, who is the model of civility, fails. Sorry Chris, maybe I am just stupid, but what is your argument?
I have no comment on infowars or the link, however…
Pie one thing we know is that members of the Black Caucus had a (secret) plan to “take over” the oil companies if Obama was elected. We know it was a secret plan because one member of the Black Caucus let it slip. Now we can’t be sure what exactly the woman meant by her remark but we do know she said what she said. We also know that since Obama took office in 2008 he has done a lot to damage the oil industry, and energy companies in general, while pushing the alternative leftist green agenda. I’d say they have indeed exercised “control” over oil companies in the last four years. (If they can get away with it they punish oil even more.)
We also know that the same group of progressive radicals want universal healthcare. They designed the law to undermine the private sector healthcare industry and force single payer into existence. We know they wrote and passed the legislation in secret meetings and with coercion and bribes. We know the law gives extraordinary powers to an unelected board and the HHS secretary. These are the fruits of former “secrets plans”.
In short we have quite a bit of evidence to suggest that suspicion of motive is smart move when evaluating this bunch.
I don’t have a problem with wondering if a black city council member, who could very well be connected to Black Caucus members in Congress that also have the president’s ear, might have some sort of secret plan to ultimately ban guns. It is not outside the realm of possibilities. Saying that this is a lie, especially without knowing one way or the other what this man actually knows, is a bit silly.
Overall Americans have very little trust in this government and a lot of good reasons for their distrust.
Tina,
The InfoWars link speaks for itself. I make note of the absolute absurdity of it and then am fallaciously chastised by the two demented, witless left wing cretins who frequent these pages.
So it goes.
How about a little Flamenca Nuevo? Try this on for size —
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6ClmSMV6Wc
This fellow is pretty good — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQoTVwQQ-dg
Re Chris: You linked to Info Wars on this site no less than ten days ago:
http://www.norcalblogs.com/postscripts/2013/04/10/gun-compromise-proposed-wont-stop-nutcase-shootings-emotionally-gratifying/
Whoops! You got me there spud!!! I completely forgot that was from InfoWars!
I put up a link to a video of Democrats expressing their anti gun views. This time InfoWars got the story right simply by recording and reporting them.
So (by contrast) if the New York Times gets stories wrong — which they likely do more often than InfoWars — should I fallaciously attack anyone for linking to them? (That was an implied part of the quiz I proposed for you above.)
This does not change the fact that InfoWars was absolutely ridiculous on the screed I found fault with. They were not on the other video which was really quite tidy and informational about anti-gun Democrats.
No?
Your homework is still not done, Chris.
Pie: “I put up a link to a video of Democrats expressing their anti gun views. This time InfoWars got the story right simply by recording and reporting them.”
No, Info Wars did not get this story right. They falsely claimed that Mike Martinez was “admitting” Obama’s agenda, even though he never said anything about Obama, and there’s no evidence that the two have ever met or that he knows any kind of secret knowledge about the president that the rest of us don’t have.
So they got the story wrong, as any critical reader can see. The article was written to appeal to people who do not think critically. It doesn’t make any sense to believe that this city-level Democrat is speaking for the president.
“So (by contrast) if the New York Times gets stories wrong — which they likely do more often than InfoWars — should I fallaciously attack anyone for linking to them? (That was an implied part of the quiz I proposed for you above.)”
Ridiculous. Info Wars is a conspiracy theory site that promotes 9/11 trutherism. Alex Jones, the owner of the site, has said that Sandy Hook was a hoax. The New York Times has no comparable record of misinformation.
It is not a fallacy to argue that a source is not reliable.
Tina: “I don’t have a problem with wondering if a black city council member, who could very well be connected to Black Caucus members in Congress that also have the president’s ear, might have some sort of secret plan to ultimately ban guns.”
So, this would be really f*cking crazy even if the city council member in question was black. But…since he’s not…it’s even f*cking crazier.
“It is not outside the realm of possibilities. Saying that this is a lie, especially without knowing one way or the other what this man actually knows, is a bit silly.”
Your standards are ridiculous. I don’t know for certain whether or not you are a child molester. I have no way of knowing that. So, if I were to accuse you of being a child molestor–with no evidence whatsoever–would it be “silly” of you to accuse me of lying?
You see, when someone makes a claim with no evidence, it doesn’t matter whether or not the claim *might* be true. It doesn’t even matter if the person really, really *wants* it to be true. Unless that person has a valid reason to believe what they are saying is fact, that person is still lying.