View Single Post
  #128  
Old 05-15-2019, 03:51 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,421
Quote:
Originally Posted by ITR champion View Post
You're using a textbook case of the ad hominem fallacy. I linked to a Quillette article in which twelve scientists and mental health experts use sound logic and science to show the many flaws in the APA's reasoning. You cannot find any flaws in their arguments, so you instead try to smear the publication.
...it isn't an ad hominem, let alone a "text book case." I can provide a link to 500 scientists that doubt evolution. Here are four scientists who DESTROY climate change alarmism. Here are 3000 (alleged) architects and engineers who have PROOF that the Twin Towers were bought down by a controlled demolition. Heck: give me enough money and I'll show you a scientist that doesn't believe smoking can cause cancer.

Its no surprise that Quillete managed to find 12 people to agree with their editorial stance. (By the way: who wrote that editorial anyway?) It is a bit surprising they only found 12. The Truthers could find more people to support them.

You couldn't find any flaws in the sound logic and science in the APA so you smeared them by calling it propaganda. And you used a website that does regularly post alt-right propaganda to do so. Pointing that out to you is not a fallacy.

Quote:
So in other words, you can't back up your arguments with facts or logic.
Unless there is something you aren't telling us then I have zero reason to believe that you are a psychologist, that you've actually either read or understood the cite that BPC posted, or that you could independently back up your arguments without providing a link-dump to alt-right sources. BPC provided 4 very different cites. You ignored 3 of them. You dismissed the fourth by calling it propaganda but you didn't make an argument it was propaganda: you just dumped a link. And it isn't surprising that the first (and only) mentions of the word "propaganda" in that page was in the comments.

So I suppose congratulations are in order: you agree with people in the internet comments section. But you can't back up your arguments with facts and logic.