WOW Dave, you have backtracked all the way to “it’s pop psychology”.
Let’s deconstruct your “argument” Dave, shall we?
Bill smith's presentation of this quote in a forum dedicated to the discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories is a textbook example of one of the standard 9/11 truther strawman arguments.
It’s not a straw man argument. It is a simple fact of psychology. It is a simple fact of how people think, act and react. This has been known in psychology for a very very long time. It is not disputed.
A straw man argument is a false argument created with falsehoods so it can then be torn down by pointing out those falsehoods and then say “look, they were wrong” (which by coincidence is just exactly what you are doing here Dave)
Tell me where Bill or anyone has done this, or even attempted to do this with this quote?
But you needed to try and prevent people from really understanding that quote because it is dangerous for people to have any introspection into their actions, reactions, motives and beliefs. That is why you knowingly mislabelled it as a “straw man argument”
It rests on the assumption that there is no difference between rejecting the specific allegation that the 9/11 attacks were planned and executed by elements within the US Government, and rejecting the general assertion that some governments at some times are corrupt.
Now who is building a straw man argument. Let’s see how this straw man argument is further built up…
The aim is to portray as naive and self-deluded those who question the truther account of events with the same level of skepticism that they question the vastly more widely understood account of events, and find that the former is contradicted by, where the latter is supported by, any and all the available evidence.
Dave
And that is what a real straw man argument looks like. Nicely done Dave
And here is the next level of deceit. Bill smith has attempted to defend a quote by role reversal. In fact, the "impregnable tightly-written axiom" to which he refers is itself a piece of pop psychology, in that it describes the beliefs of "most people" without reasoning or evidence to support its position, whereas the "piece of pop psychology" is in fact an analysis of the fallacious nature of the argument and is therefore an exercise in logic rather than psychology. One wonders who is likely to be fooled by this rather obvious misrepresentation.
Dave
Even if it were, it's irrelevant to the specific question of whether the US Government was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, and hence posting it on this forum is an attempt at misdirection.
Dave
No. The quote was a sweeping generalisation about psychology uttered by a conspiracist website owner and radio show host. It'd be hard to imagine a better description than "pop psychology".
So you are still trying to imply that the psychology is wrong without saying it is wrong? And hence by implication with the use of your straw man argument that Bill and I are wrong.
Assuming that you meant "disingenuous", the use of the quote itself was disingenuous. The false syllogism, "Some governments are corrupt, therefore anyone disbelieving the 9/11 truth movement has been deceived by a corrupt government" is a commonly used piece of misdirection on this forum.
Dave
Nice misdirection there Dave, but no truther I know has ever tried to claim this. I have however seen many “debunkers” use this straw man argument.
1 Carry your opponent’s proposition beyond its natural limits; exaggerate it.
It rests on the assumption that there is no difference between rejecting the specific allegation that the 9/11 attack…
6 Confuse the issue by changing your opponent’s words or what he or she seeks to prove.
24 State a false syllogism
The aim is to portray as naive and self-deluded…
25 If your opponent is making a generalization, find an instance to the contrary.
… and rejecting the general assertion that some governments at some times are corrupt.
28 When the audience consists of individuals (or a person) who is not an expert on a subject, you make an invalid objection to your opponent who seems to be defeated in the eyes of the audience.
32 A quick way of getting rid of an opponent’s assertion, or of throwing suspicion on it, is by putting it into some odious category.
It'd be hard to imagine a better description than "pop psychology"
sweeping generalisation about psychology uttered by a conspiracist website
35 Instead of working on an opponent’s intellect or the rigor of his arguments, work on his motive.
Psychologically speaking, and “debunking tactics” wise this paragraph of yours is a real doozy…
No. The quote was a sweeping generalisation about psychology uttered by a conspiracist website owner and radio show host. It'd be hard to imagine a better description than "pop psychology"
Bottom line is the Mike Rivero quote is accurate...
"Most people prefer to believe their leaders are just and fair even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which they live is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of a corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one's self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all."
and quoting it here in this forum is valid. It goes to show the psychology behind many JREF'ers actions and reactions and comments. The psychology behind 9/11 is an important part of 9/11, since 9/11 was after all the biggest psyop in history.
