"Ridicule, ridicule, ridicule. It is far and away the single most chillingly effective weapon in the war against discovery and innovation. Ridicule has the unique power to make people of virtually any persuasion go completely unconscious in a twinkling. It fails to sway only those few who are of sufficiently independent mind not to buy into the kind of emotional consensus that ridicule provides."
Again the most common tactic used along with...
"
38 Become personal, insulting and rude as soon as you perceive that your opponent has the upper hand.
In becoming personal you leave the subject altogether, and turn your attack on the person by remarks of an offensive and spiteful character.
This is a very popular technique, because it takes so little skill to put it into effect."
Which you use often in this response of yours alone.
Here's the straw man insinuation again, as evidenced by your own comment:
We were talking about Dave claiming it was a straw man argument. So are you in agreement with Dave or not? Because you calling it an "insinuation" is insinuating that you do not agree with Dave, which is good because neither do I. Glad we are on the same page here
Jesus. I wasn't trying to refute the dumb pop-psych platitude. I didn't even address it, since it has nothing to do with the question of whether Bill Smith was using it as a straw man or not. I addressed whether it was true or not much later in my post where it was actually relevant. Read this part of my post again and actually make an effort to comprehend it this time. If you can't even follow the simplest of arguments, then we're obviously done here, aren't we?
That is more...
38 Become personal, insulting and rude as soon as you perceive that your opponent has the upper hand.
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.
and of course the "ridicule, ridicule, ridicule"
But let's see what exactly you said...
You will in fact be hard pressed to find any debunkers who "believe their leaders are just and fair even in the face of evidence to the contrary", much less any who use that as an argument against CTists. We do not disbelieve in your fantastical conspiracy theories because we're so convinced that no one in power might try to pull them off if they were as easily accomplished in real life as they are in the alternate reality of Truthers' minds, we disbelieve them because they're physically impossible, logically absurd, and self-contradictory, among other things. None of this depends on whether the quote is true or not (it isn't), since its presentation here is nothing more than an attempt at poisoning the well, something you're obviously very familiar with.
So this was NOT trying to refute the quote? Really? Then what exactly was it?
No, that's not the point. The point was whether Bill Smith was using it as a straw man or not, as a way to marginalize debunkers by false insinuation about their beliefs. Now, why can't you address what I've actually said rather than going off on your ridiculous tangents?
You mean like how you did not here address what I said? You see I was referring to the quote itself, as to what the point of the quote was, not what Dave lied about.
You're not going to get an apology for misrepresenting Dave's argument. Sorry, that's not how it works.
Of course not, I mean a "debunker" admit when he lied? Or when he was wrong? Maybe once in a blue moon
Either address the argument or keep screeching unconvincing nonsense. Your choice.
38 Become personal, insulting and rude as soon as you perceive that your opponent has the upper hand.
Seriously, how often are you going to use this one?
You didn't prove much of anything by avoiding the argument entirely, except that you're a lousy debater.
38 Become personal, insulting and rude as soon as you perceive that your opponent has the upper hand.
I guess you will use it as often as you feel necessary, I mean if it has worked for you in the past it will again and again and again right?
And how is my pointing out the flaws in your (and others) arguments avoiding the argument? You just would like me to stop pointing out the flaws in your arguments so you can continue to insult/smear/lie/obfuscate etc...
and again...
"Ridicule, ridicule, ridicule. It is far and away the single most chillingly effective weapon in the war against discovery and innovation. Ridicule has the unique power to make people of virtually any persuasion go completely unconscious in a twinkling. It fails to sway only those few who are of sufficiently independent mind not to buy into the kind of emotional consensus that ridicule provides."
Again the most common tactic used along with...
"
38 Become personal, insulting and rude as soon as you perceive that your opponent has the upper hand.
In becoming personal you leave the subject altogether, and turn your attack on the person by remarks of an offensive and spiteful character.
This is a very popular technique, because it takes so little skill to put it into effect."
Your claim, your burden. If the truth of the statement is so obvious, you should have no problem finding authoritative sources to back it up. It doesn't even have to be on the internet. Cite any psychology textbook or study, with page number, that supports your lame sweeping generalization.
"Always refer to unorthodox statements as "claims," which are "touted," and to your own assertions as "facts " which are "stated."
"Avoid examining the actual evidence. This allows you to say with impunity, "I have seen absolutely no evidence to support such ridiculous claims!" "
"
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.
This strategy is particularly effective if your objection makes your opponent look ridiculous or if the audience laughs.
If your opponent must make a long, winded and complicated explanation to correct you, the audience will not be disposed to listen to him."
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.
There's a huge difference between "many" and "most", especially when we're talking about the entire freaking populace.
LOL, "MANY" people in the US could mean 200 million people. "MOST" people in the US could also mean 200 million, but you did need to try and defend your ridicule attempt or else it will be seen exactly for what it is.
The claim that the majority of people will believe their leaders are just and fair in spite of proof of their corruption and dishonesty is central to the argument, especially since the cited poll completely contradicts it.
The cited polls do not contradict it, as a matter of fact they prove the point, but you are purposely ignoring the complex psychology
AGAIN.
Why is that quote so feared by debunkers, so much so that they have to do everything in their power to attempt to discredit it?
Seriously take that exact quote to a psychologist/psychiatrist and ask them their opinion on it. SERIOUSLY. Instead of playing your word/mind games to cover up the implications.
Trying to pass off your blunder as inconsequential and accusing me of nitpicking isn't going to make it go away.
So my "blunder" according to you was to equate the word "MANY" with the word "MOST" and my "attempt" to pass it off as "inconsequential" ? Funny how you snipped out what you are saying was my attempt to pass it off as inconsequential! You snipped out the part where I showed exactly what your response was, and that is simply an attempt to ridicule and insult...AGAIN
Better yet, you could explain how Dave's point was "smoke and mirrors". He's absolutely correct about the favored Truther tactic of making insinuations in place of outright accusations that will expose their ideas to criticism. We see the same tactic being played out before us in this very thread.
Yes better for you to ignore my question asking ...
So explain to me exactly what "smoke and mirrors" is then and why you believe I was wrong to say it was "smoke and mirrors"
26 A brilliant move is to turn the tables and use your opponent’s arguments against himself.
No one claimed you were using it as "proof". Why the heck you feel the need to deny that you are using this claim in favor of your conspiracy theory is really quite bizarre. Again, here is what you said:"
I've bolded the part where you yet again admit that the quote is being used "to argue in favour of US Government involvement in 9/11."
2 Use different meanings of your opponent’s words to refute his argument.
I've already explained what the quote means and why it is relevant yet you insist on misrepresenting what I and other "truthers" have said.
Obviously, if most people can be relied upon to not question the government, then that argues in favor of the likelihood that the government will use a false flag kind of attack. Why can't you grasp this simple concept?
2 Use different meanings of your opponent’s words to refute his argument.
6 Confuse the issue by changing your opponent’s words or what he or she seeks to prove.
That's not logic, that is smoke and mirrors. By that "logic" it is far more likely that Mother Theresa would commit a false flag attack because she was a true saint, kind, honest and helpful so no one would question her.
That's called "equivocation", which I trust is not too "fancy" of a word for you. Perhaps you will be so good as to show me what word I have equivocated? Thanks in advance.
That's called...
"Ridicule, ridicule, ridicule. It is far and away the single most chillingly effective weapon in the war against discovery and innovation. Ridicule has the unique power to make people of virtually any persuasion go completely unconscious in a twinkling. It fails to sway only those few who are of sufficiently independent mind not to buy into the kind of emotional consensus that ridicule provides."
and...
"
38 Become personal, insulting and rude as soon as you perceive that your opponent has the upper hand."
You know that your idiotic equivocation of "psyops" and pointless tangent had absolutely nothing to do with what Dave said. I'm sorry you had to look up a word I used, as I was honestly unaware of how "fancy" it might appear to you.
And again with the "ridicule, ridicule, ridicule" and the insults. Really how often do you need to use these tactics?
So "Truthers" is an odious category, now??
You tell me. Maybe you could ask all the "debunkers" here what they imply when they use the term.
However I was referring to when you said...
spurious pseudo-psychology made up by conspiracy theorists
But it was nice of you to ignore that so you could again try and "ridicule"
This is getting very tedious. The point is that you show no signs of actually having done any research on psychology outside the internet and conspiracy sites. You can parrot the same old, vague conspiracy rhetoric as much as you like, but don't expect any of us to be fooled by it now that we've heard it for the thousandth time.
This is more "ridicule" and "insult" as well as the fact your entire post was...
"Put on the right face. Cultivate a condescending air that suggests that your personal opinions are backed by the full faith and credit of God. Employ vague, subjective, dismissive terms such as "ridiculous" or "trivial" in a manner that suggests they have the full force of scientific authority"
"Downplay the fact that free inquiry, legitimate disagreement and respectful debate are a normal part of science."
