• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Their Return

King of the Americas said:
I wholly agree with you...

IF YOU ONLY LOOK AT ONE PIECE/SOURCE OF INFORMATION, AND IGNORE ALL THE REST...

You'll get a slightly different and less sensational story.

This is called the "Willful Ignorance Fallacy", aptly named for the willing ignorance of information.
Click to expand...

So now you're making up fallacies too.
 
King of the Americas said:
You mean IF, I managed to convince the Olympic Committee to add "a moment skyward" to the Opening Ceremonies...?

And they didn't 'return'...?

I'd think worse of our heavenly overlords, and consider that 'they' mean us no good. Remaining hidden, when you know someone is looking for you, demonstrates a sincere deception.
Click to expand...

No it does not. There is no deception in remaining hidden, unless something else was promised.
 
King of the Americas said:
I could create a wikipedia page, if that'll make it real?
All a fallacy needs do it become used a lot, and then named.
If you'd like we can call it something else if you'd like?
Click to expand...

I don't think 'Willful ignorance' could be described as a fallacy.
It doesn't seem to be the best way to describe it anyway.

If someone chooses to remain ignorant in order to maintain their PoV (the most common use of willful ignorance), it is a state of mind, not fallacy.

Though someone who was using willful ignorance to maintain their
PoV, would of course utilise most, if not all of the recognised fallacies in order to argue their case.
 
Stray Cat said:
I don't think 'Willful ignorance' could be described as a fallacy.
It doesn't seem to be the best way to describe it anyway.

If someone chooses to remain ignorant in order to maintain their PoV (the most common use of willful ignorance), it is a state of mind, not fallacy.

Though someone who was using willful ignorance to maintain their
PoV, would of course utilise most, if not all of the recognised fallacies in order to argue their case.
Click to expand...

Even trolls are not omniscient. Kota does not know the meaning of the word fallacy.
 
King of the Americas said:
I could create a wikipedia page, if that'll make it real?

All a fallacy needs do it become used a lot, and then named.

If you'd like we can call it something else if you'd like?
Click to expand...
Well, not quite. A fallacy has to be a fallacy. Just being wrong isn't a fallacy. Of course you could simply redefine what the word "fallacy" means, and create a new fallacy by committing an old one, which would be an awesome display of your powers.
 
King of the Americas said:
You are kidding, right?

Wikipedia is a gold mine of 'verifiable' information. I've seen it posted here dozens of times without issue. I myself was even chastised recently for suggesting it wasn't a scholarly source.

My question is, "Why would you bring this mockery here, now?"
Click to expand...

In the case of the '52 sightings, Wikipedia appears to accurately relate what people said they saw. It doesn't matter how accurately you describes anecdotes, they are still anecdotes.
 
bruto said:
Of course you could simply redefine what the word "fallacy" means, and create a new fallacy by committing an old one, which would be an awesome display of your powers.
Click to expand...
Ahhhh, the old 'redefining fallacy fallacy'... that old chestnut!.

I'd put that one in my book of fallacies, right next to the 'I'm drinking a cup of coffee whilst posting on the forum fallacy'

*Rushes off to write a Wikipedia page to make it all official and everything*
 
Stray Cat said:
I don't think 'Willful ignorance' could be described as a fallacy.
It doesn't seem to be the best way to describe it anyway.

If someone chooses to remain ignorant in order to maintain their PoV (the most common use of willful ignorance), it is a state of mind, not fallacy.

Though someone who was using willful ignorance to maintain their
PoV, would of course utilise most, if not all of the recognised fallacies in order to argue their case.
Click to expand...

Willful ignorance is a common 'false notion' or an INCORRECTNESS of reasoning...

In fact, I'd say it is the very definition of an absence of logic and reason.

After all that has been presented, to arrive at "They DON'T exist.", requires lots of it.

We can argue as to 'what' specifically 'they' are or are not, but to claim non-existence???

The ONLY way you could arrive there, is discounting, rejecting, or otherwise ignoring a lot of evidence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom