Greetings Myriad,
I will state my reasons why I think your post, as quoted below in segments, is wide of the mark and inappropriately misleading.
My post demonstrates the impossibility of advancing any search for clarity or any other form of discourse here. It does so by demonstrating that the philosophical principles upon which you're basing your claims are so completely invalid that you cannot even adhere to them yourself.
You claim your post demonstrates a certain "impossibility of advancing any search." The post that you are referring to is yours found at post # 2416
Link:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6156215&postcount=2416
It is essential, I think, to include the content of your post for reference here because your post also contains a partial, but misleadingly incomplete quote of a prior post of mine, (post # 2410) to which you responded and about which you are making your claim of "impossibility".
You neglected to quote and/or comment upon two essential parts of my post -- # 2410.
The first part of post # 2410 that you omitted was the part that dealt specifically with a well understood fallacy. The second part of post # 2410 that you omitted was that part dealing with specific types of NO PLANE evidence, thus the actual substance of this thread.
Here, for reference is the shortcut to post # 2410:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6156187&postcount=2410
It is inappropriate, in my view, for you to now use your prior post as a justification for claiming:
"... impossibility of advancing any search for clarity or any other form of discourse here. It does so by demonstrating that the philosophical principles upon which you're basing your claims are so completely invalid that you cannot even adhere to them yourself."
The reason for that is that you omitted to two salient portions of what I had posted.
Furthermore, the part that you did quote and comment on was not properly dealt with in your post # 2416 in any event, as I shall here attempt to show.
To do that, we need to have the content of post # 2416 in front of us in order to show that your claim of "impossibility" is not well grounded. So here is the content of # 2416, appropriately subdivided so as to distinguish what I said from what you commented upon:
Originally Posted by jammonius
One cannot assume what has not been proven.
While that declaration is simple enough to understand,
You are assuming that that declaration is valid, which has not been proven.
You are assuming that the declaration is simple, which has not been proven.
You are assuming that the declaration can be understood (that is, that it is meaningful) which has not been proven.
Quote:
it apparently cannot be understood in the context of 9/11,
You are assuming that it cannot be understood (as opposed to, for instance, having been fully understood but not believed) which has not been proven.
Quote:
which is almost certainly a result of the fact that there exists a strong emotional need to believe in the common storyline of 9/11, including, most assuredly, the belief in planes and in hijacking of them.
You are assuming the existence of such a strong emotional need, which has not been proven.
Originally Posted by jammonius
One cannot assume what has not been proven.
By "one" do you mean "people other than yourself?"
Respectfully,
Myriad
So, you took what I think can only fairly be described as a narrow, pedantic exception to my comment about the fallacy of assumption, in the context of a loaded question where, as noted, you omitted the "loaded question" part of my post.
To confirm that I knew exactly what I was talking about and had properly laid it out in this thread and in that post, all one has to do is compare the similarities between what my post -- # 2410 -- said, in its entirety, with the following discussion of the fallacy of "loaded questions" that, coincidentally, likewise uses the same "wife beating" example that I relied on and that you omitted:
Link:
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/loadques.html
Excerpt:
"Exposition:
A "loaded question", like a loaded gun, is a dangerous thing. A loaded question is a question with a false or questionable presupposition, and it is "loaded" with that presumption. The question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" presupposes that you have beaten your wife prior to its asking, as well as that you have a wife. If you are unmarried, or have never beaten your wife, then the question is loaded. Since this example is a yes/no question, there are only the following two direct answers:
"Yes, I have stopped beating my wife", which entails "I was beating my wife."
"No, I haven't stopped beating my wife", which entails "I am still beating my wife." Thus, either direct answer entails that you have beaten your wife, which is, therefore, a presupposition of the question. So, a loaded question is one which you cannot answer directly without implying a falsehood or a statement that you deny. For this reason, the proper response to such a question is not to answer it directly, but to either refuse to answer or to reject the question. Some systems of parliamentary debate provide for "dividing the question", that is, splitting a complex question up into two or more simple questions. Such a move can be used to split the example as follows:
"Have you ever beaten your wife?"
"If so, are you still doing so?" In this way, 1 can be answered directly by "no", and then the conditional question 2 does not arise."
The point here is this:
All of the "
whataboutthepassengers?" dittys that various and sundry posters have posted up, continuously, are fallaciously
loaded for precisely the reason that I have described, Myriad, as confirmed above.
This is valuable knowledge. It serves to warn others that they are wasting their time, and to warn you that you will make no progress in convincing anyone else of your claims, unless and until you replace your feckless and essentially solipsistic methodologies with sounder more productive ones. If your failure to do so impedes achievement of clear answers that is entirely your problem.
Respectfully,
Myriad
While it is not my objective to convince anyone of anything, as I have repeatedly said, it is my objective to make my claims and to support them adequately. In so doing, I don't make self-declarations that I am right and that others are wrong. Rather, I let the information stand or fall on its own merit.
Respectfully,
jammonius
