December Stundie nominations

[haibut]

Okay, this isn't a conspiracy theory thing...it comes from a debate in the Social Issues and Current Events forum about the Vietnam war, and American war crimes there. But the argument is so very much like that of conspiracy theory nuts that I'd like to submit it for consideration here...Travis, would you consider this acceptable?

First, the claim was made that only someone who was "brainwashed" would think that America committed human rights violations during the Vietnam War. In response, I cited official American records that confirmed more than 320 incidences of rape, torture, and murder by American military forces (and hundreds more that were alleged, but couldn't be proven).

The response...that's a mere 320 examples! It's nothing!

But here's the best part, and the one for which I'd like to make a Stundie nomination: in trying to justify their claim that 320 specific, verified cases of human rights abuses over 10 years is insigificant, OnlyTellsTruth makes the following argument:
Essentially, the argument is, "I'll make up an entirely fictitious and massively overinflated number, and then demonstrate that by comparison to this entirely fictitious number, the actual number of abuses was almost non-existent...a fraction of a percent!"

I haven't read that thread and probably won't, so I don't know who's right here, but isn't this just saying that 300*3650=1,095,000, therefore 300/1095000=1/3650? Well, yeah but all that the poster is saying is that a*b=c therefore a/c = 1/b?. I think we knew that. Maybe stundable.

 

[SpitfireIX]

I think that OTT was trying (awkwardly) to say that the number of human-rights abuses that actually occurred is small in comparison with the number of opportunites for human-rights abuses to have occurred. This is undoubtedly true, and frankly I don't think your September 11 example is quite on point. I suggest that attacking OTT's implied premise that that small fraction is acceptable would probably be more productive.

As for Stundie consideration, as I understand it a nomination doesn't necessarily have to be for a CT claim. It's just that most of them are, for obvious reasons.

 

[LashL]

Okay, this isn't a conspiracy theory thing...it comes from a debate in the Social Issues and Current Events forum about the Vietnam war, and American war crimes there. But the argument is so very much like that of conspiracy theory nuts that I'd like to submit it for consideration here...Travis, would you consider this acceptable?

...

Ack, sorry, Wolfman, I merged this with the Stundie nomination thread but it appears that the re-direct I tried to add didn't take.

Anyway, the answer to your question is in the OP:

What is a Stundie? It's a humorous statement that is very wrong. I mean really wrong. Usually these are related to conspiracy theories but could also be about general science and logic.

 

[Robrob]

I think that OTT was trying (awkwardly) to say that the number of human-rights abuses that actually occurred is small in comparison with the number of opportunites for human-rights abuses to have occurred. This is undoubtedly true, and frankly I don't think your September 11 example is quite on point. I suggest that attacking OTT's implied premise that that small fraction is acceptable would probably be more productive.

So if he passes hundreds of women a day on the street but only assaults one a week, that's good right?

 

[Wolfman]

I think that OTT was trying (awkwardly) to say that the number of human-rights abuses that actually occurred is small in comparison with the number of opportunites for human-rights abuses to have occurred. This is undoubtedly true, and frankly I don't think your September 11 example is quite on point. I suggest that attacking OTT's implied premise that that small fraction is acceptable would probably be more productive.

Thanks...but the point is that the figure of "300 abuses per day" is based on absolutely nothing, it is an entirely arbitrary figure, chosen simply because using that number makes the comparison a fraction of one percent. You could just as easily say 1 per day, 30 per day, or 3000 per day.

I'm citing plain facts; OnlyTellsTruth uses entirely made-up figures with no foundation whatsoever to 'refute' me. As to the rest...I've pointed out that if it was foreign troops that were committing "only 320 instances of rape, torture, and murder" against Americans, I suspect OnlyTellsTruth wouldn't be anywhere near as eager or willing to dismiss it as insignificant or unimportant. But with 'logic' like that demonstrated above, I don't expect much in the way of a coherent answer.

 

[Travis]

Sorry the new threads are late.

See here for more on why that happened.