Keep It Simple, Stupid: Using Logic to Look at Tragedy

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
strawmen

That's the second time you've used that word - i don't think that word means what you think it means...

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by LogicGrind

 

You just asked a bunch of conspiracy theorist to use logic

I agree with you...but it's like asking an elephant to fly.

Op deliberately used strawmen arguments, and called it "Logic"

And YOU just deliberately used an attempt to ridicule to imply that Conspiracy theorists are not capable of logic.

Both of these are logical fallacies, and are proof of not being able to use logic to argue.

And you use conspiracy theories to debunk the OP, but yet you call it logic.

reply to post by redtic

That's the second time you've used that word - i don't think that word means what you think it means...

It does.... Nice retort by the way, no information, no attempt at a rebuttal... just a big juicy Ad Homenim.

reply to post by BubbaJoe

And you use conspiracy theories to debunk the OP, but yet you call it logic.

______beforeitsnews/terrorism/2013/04/proof-that-craft-or-blackwater-agents-did-the-boston-marathon-bombing-2445882.html

Go read about it, and then cry.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by BubbaJoe

 

And you use conspiracy theories to debunk the OP, but yet you call it logic.

______beforeitsnews/terrorism/2013/04/proof-that-craft-or-blackwater-agents-did-the-boston-marathon-bombing-2445882.html

Go read about it, and then cry.

The only thing I am crying about is the ignorance of a percentage of the American public. Your so called source holds about as much water as WND. It is nothing more than another neo con/fear mongering news source. Please find a better source. Blackwater/Cheney/Haliburton, gee no connection there.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by redtic

 

That's the second time you've used that word - i don't think that word means what you think it means...

It does.... Nice retort by the way, no information, no attempt at a rebuttal... just a big juicy Ad Homenim.

Wow, you're just one big ball of logic, aren't you? What, did you just take a debate course or something?

Oh, and here's your "culprits" with their backpacks *on* *after* the bombing...

willyloman.files.wordpress.com...

reply to post by redtic

Oh, and here's your "culprits" with their backpacks *on* *after* the bombing...

Were those my culprits?

And where are all of the OTHER craft Guys?

And wasn't there a second bomb?

And why did the exploded backpack look nothing like the backpacks that the two "Suspects" had on, but look EXACTLY like the backpacks that the Craft guys had on?

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by redtic

 

Oh, and here's your "culprits" with their backpacks *on* *after* the bombing...

Were those my culprits?

And where are all of the OTHER craft Guys?

And wasn't there a second bomb?

And why did the exploded backpack look nothing like the backpacks that the two "Suspects" had on, but look EXACTLY like the backpacks that the Craft guys had on?

edit on 23-4-2013 by ErtaiNaGia because: (no reason given)

Really, it is not to pick and choose who you respond to, if you want to spread fear mongering and insane ideas, you need to respond to everyone. You attacked the OP as a strawman, yet you have provided nothing here to prove your points, or to refute his/hers. You attack logic, yet you provide none.

reply to post by smyleegrl


You used complete speculation and hypotheticals to prove logic and fact. How does that make sense? That may be simple but far from relevant.

#1- You implied that photos of a man who supposedly just got his legs blown off had a perfectly cylindrical object attached below the knee doesn't exist. Can you name one bone that grows in this manner? Not to mention there is another photo of the same man with strings of who knows what that magically appears to have grown to this cylindrical object once in a wheelchair.

Then you have the woman in red, which i'm sure you're aware of, who appears in two completely different scenes in nearly indentical positions.

#2- You totally ignore the fact that the Boston Globe announced that bomb drills were taking place and tweeted that a controlled explosion would be going off and people were on megaphones announcing this to competitors. When the Chief of Police was directly asked about wether federal officials were doing this he said, and I quote, "We increased our posture". Is that a yes or no?

Then there is a picture of what appears to be a federal agent or privately contracted security with a backpack matching the one used in the explosion and then another with the guy running without the backpack.

#3- As far as you speculation as to why actors would be used. Why do movie producers use real actors? Why is everything on TV 10% information and 90% sensationalism? It's to get an effect to influence your thinking by being overly emotional rather than critically analyzing the story they're telling you and the information contained within.(and that's just my hypothetical to answer your original)

reply to post by BubbaJoe

Really, it is not to pick and choose who you respond to

Oh, I'm sorry, am I leaving you out?

if you want to spread fear mongering

Are you calling me a terrorist?

yet you have provided nothing here to prove your points

What point did I make?

or to refute his/hers.

There was nothing to Refute.... I stated that OP was using a strawman when referring to 9/11 "Holographic planes" and the Boston marathon bombing "Fake Injured"

What EXACTLY do you want me to refute?

To the contrary. Mentioning the issue of holographic planes is fair dinkum IMO - as a group of people making exactly that assertion, quite viciously and loudly, actually led to the 9/11 forum being closed for a protracted period. In the context of the OP, mentioning what might well have been previous gaslighting episodes is, indeed, very germane to conversation and for context.

There are many here who fear that some of the theories being pushed might well have agenda behind them and might well fall into the category of disinformation. Holographic planes included.

reply to post by Hefficide

To the contrary. Mentioning the issue of holographic planes is fair

You don't think it misrepresents the entire 9/11 debate?

Honestly?

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


I don't think it was offered as a summary of the entire debate at all. To the contrary, I think it was offered as an example of how logical debates can be derailed by absurd arguments being introduced as a means of muddying the waters.

reply to post by Hefficide

I don't think it was offered as a summary of the entire debate at all. To the contrary, I think it was offered as an example of how logical debates can be derailed by absurd arguments being introduced as a means of muddying the waters.

I suppose that is fair to say....

However it still seems somewhat disingenuous to me to typify the 9/11 argument with the holographic planes scenario.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by BubbaJoe

 

Really, it is not to pick and choose who you respond to

Oh, I'm sorry, am I leaving you out?

if you want to spread fear mongering

Are you calling me a terrorist?

yet you have provided nothing here to prove your points

What point did I make?

or to refute his/hers.

There was nothing to Refute.... I stated that OP was using a strawman when referring to 9/11 "Holographic planes" and the Boston marathon bombing "Fake Injured"

What EXACTLY do you want me to refute?

Please refute for me the fake "Dead" and "Injured", some one please refute that for me. Also while you are in your zone, refute the fake "Dead" at Newtown, and Aurora, might as well include Virginia Tech, and Columbine too.

reply to post by BubbaJoe

Please refute for me the fake "Dead" and "Injured"

I'm not sure I'm following you...

Did you want me to refute that there WERE "Fake Injured" at boston, or that there were NOT "Fake Injured" at boston?

Also while you are in your zone, refute the fake "Dead" at Newtown, and Aurora, might as well include Virginia Tech, and Columbine too.

Okay, yeah... I'm not entirely sure where you are going with this one.... care to clarify?

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia

 

I don't think it was offered as a summary of the entire debate at all. To the contrary, I think it was offered as an example of how logical debates can be derailed by absurd arguments being introduced as a means of muddying the waters.

Not sure how many on here remember 9/11, but I turned on the TV just in time to see the second plane hit the tower, lots of conspiracies have been discussed about the overall deal, but I am pretty sure I saw an airliner hit the second tower. Of course I am an old guy, also watched the Space Shuttle Columbia blow up on live TV, mans first steps on the moon, and I am sure their is a conspiracy their somewhere as well. Sometimes things just happen, we can't explain them, but coming up with outrageous explanations helps no one either.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by BubbaJoe

 

Please refute for me the fake "Dead" and "Injured"

I'm not sure I'm following you...

Did you want me to refute that there WERE "Fake Injured" at boston, or that there were NOT "Fake Injured" at boston?

Also while you are in your zone, refute the fake "Dead" at Newtown, and Aurora, might as well include Virginia Tech, and Columbine too.

Okay, yeah... I'm not entirely sure where you are going with this one.... care to clarify?

Please show me fake injured, please show me people pretending they are missing limbs, I have somehow in my ignorance missed these videos.

reply to post by BubbaJoe

Please show me fake injured, please show me people pretending they are missing limbs, I have somehow in my ignorance missed these videos.

I haven't seen them either.

Which is why I thought using them as an example was straw-manning.

Originally posted by smyleegrl


Whenever I read arguments that the victims are actors, or the injuries were faked, or the planes were holograms (911)….I think of KISS.

Keep It Simple, Stupid. Which is easier….setting off a real bomb, or hiring actors and faking everything...with the very real possibility you will be caught?

Here is the part of the OP that you were discussing. So apparently this, along with the first link you posted, made me think you thought the injuried and dead were fake.