[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
I didn’t say a thing about the Trilateral Commission.
[/QUOTE]
Well then what had this to do with anything I had to say? You really need to lay off the drugs there bro.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Like the Nazis put people in. Thus the term “Naziesque”.
[/QUOTE]
So…this had nothing to do with what I was saying. Glad we cleared that up then. To bad you couldn’t be a touch more precise in your posts to avoid this kind of confusion in the first place, ehe?
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Typical of you to substitute that for an actual point. “You disagree with me, and are therefore funny ! Hurhurhur !”
[/QUOTE]
Well, different strokes for different folks I always say. I’d explain…but really, it’s more funny this way so I think I’ll leave it at that. Have a nice day.
xtisme and Der Trihs, I’m pretty sure you’ve made your points on each other (whatever they were). Knock off the hijack or take it to the Pit, please.
[ /Modding ]
[QUOTE=Mangetout]
No, that’s the point - if something is unknown (perhaps only unknown to you, but understood better by others), that’s not the same as it being as impossible or unlikely as the sky falling down. The response is a way to paint your opponent’s argument as impossibly unlikely, without addressing any of its substance at all - and as such, must surely be logically fallacious.
[/QUOTE]
Well sure. But here is the thing…it depends on the context it’s used in to see if it’s a fallacy or and an attempt to dismiss a worthy subject by fiat…or if it’s a funny way to say that it’s been done to death already. I agree with you that it IS a fallacy depending on the context it’s used in.
I use it a lot when dealing with certain of my cow-orkers who believe a number of questionable things concerning the US government which I think are pretty much off the deep end to mock their positions. This is after going over some of these things with them several times and showing them that, for example, there is no evidence that the US is colluding with Canada and Mexico to create a EU coalition in North America, or that, in fact, the US government isn’t poised to outlaw guns and create a fascist dictator state (yeah, it’s the same group), or create a US Euro type currency…etc etc. At a certain point you get tired of re-hashing the same hash over and over again…and at that point I think calling these folks ‘chicken little’ is appropriate. And it’s kind of funny to, though I concede that different strokes have different folks and all that.
[QUOTE=Mangetout]
Prompted by, yes, but not inspired by (I’m not getting at you personally, that is) - as I say, I meant to start this discussion a long time ago, but forgot until I saw your comment and it reminded me.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
xtisme and Der Trihs, I’m pretty sure you’ve made your points on each other (whatever they were). Knock off the hijack or take it to the Pit, please.
[/QUOTE]
Well, I was confused as well (and I was a semi-participant), but no worries…I’ve already moved on. I don’t think this warrants a(nother) pit thread unless Der would like to take me there.
It’s similar to the “King’s New Clothes” argument which is much abused and misused. People use it to attack things they don’t understand, as it allows them to dismiss what they don’t understand (or have knowledge about) and retain a pompous feeling of superiority that they, alone and heroic amidst the masses, see the truth as it is.
