Why truthers are dangerouse!

[sylvan8798]

Getting back to the topic of dangerous truthers, here is a rather disturbing collection of comments in response to this article on infowars.com (profanity warning, these are uncensored):

http://www.infowars.com/obama-will-surrender-america-to-world-government/

A typical posting:

Sure, and we can make SAMs to take out their air power.

We BUY as many as we can get, but the heat-seekers can

be made cheaper by using radio-control. A guy hidden on

the ground just guides the rocket into the exhaust of the helo.

If camel-drivers and rug merchants can KICK THEIR ASSES

WE CAN TOO.

One from "RJB" who appears to be driving the discussion:

If two of them die for every one of us, then we will win handily, and in short order.

My goal is simple, and that is to succeed in taking out more than one of them. I will consider that a victory. I do not need to be an Audy Murphy, and our cause does not need anyone like that to succeed.

If there are 3 million top globalist elites in the world, then we could wipe them all out with a sacrifice of 1.5 million of us.

I suspect that we could take out the top 300 and the **** would stop immediately. If not, then we move down the line to the top 3,000. And so on, UNTIL THE ******** STOPS, AND THEY STOP WAGING WAR AGAINST THE REST OF US.

One hopes someone is keeping an eye on these kooks.

 

[JihadJane]

A skeptic is someone who demands evidence... and then goes where that evidence leads. You on the other hand like to work backwards from a conclusion and only accept evidence that supports what you want to be true. That's a major difference.

Please provide concrete evidence for your further unsubstantiated assertions about me.

Thanks.

Getting back to the topic of dangerous truthers, here is a rather disturbing collection of comments in response to this article on infowars.com (profanity warning, these are uncensored):

http://www.infowars.com/obama-will-surrender-america-to-world-government/

A typical posting:

One from "RJB" who appears to be driving the discussion:



One hopes someone is keeping an eye on these kooks.

They sound like many other ordinary Americans who glorify violence, some of whom post their militaristic fantasies and preoccupations with military hardware on this very forum.

Putting aside the deficiencies in your sampling method (!!) , do you have any evidence that these posters are "truthers"? Can you identify who they are?

No-one with genuine intent to carry out violent acts against their own government is likely to publicize their plans in advance on the Awex Jones website!

 

[tuc0]

Please provide concrete evidence for your further unsubstantiated assertions about me.

I won't bother. You win. You are a skeptic!

 

[JihadJane]

I won't bother. You win. You are a skeptic!

Hooray!

 

[sylvan8798]

They sound like many other ordinary Americans who glorify violence, some of whom post their militaristic fantasies and preoccupations with military hardware on this very forum.

Truthers have shown time and again their inability to distinguish between fantasy and reality. And don't many of these nutcase mass shooters start out with a fantasy that they then put into action? Or doesn't that happen on your planet?

 

[Par]

Tell that to your logic teacher.

UD/DD: People.
Tx: x is a Truther.
Dx: x is dangerous.
Lxy: x is y's logic teacher.
r: Richard Poplawski.
v: James von Brunn.
p: Par.
j: JihadJane.

1. [∀x(Tx→¬Dx)→¬∃x(Tx∧Dx)]
2. [(Tr∧Dr)∧(Tv∧Dv)]
3. ∴∃x(Tx∧Dx)
4. ∴¬[∀x(Tx→¬Dx)]
5. ∴Lpj

You put logic in sneer quotes. If you think something’s logically wrong with it, then be specific about where.

Sorry, I thought I was being very specific. If we forget about defining "truther" for the moment, the premise that Sylvan8798's statement, "Tell that to the families of Richard Poplawski's victim's in Pittsburgh, and James von Brunn's victim's in Washington, JJ", supports would be something like "Two Truthers are dangerous", but certainly not the generalization "Truthers are dangerous".

I think we have our wires crossed. You sneered at my logic. I asked you to be specific about what is wrong with my logic, rather than what is wrong with Sylvan8798's remarks.

There would be nothing wrong with it if it didn't relate to Sylvan8798's remarks or the real world.

Erm. Well, that’s not all that precise. In fact, I just don't know what you mean. If I’ve made a logical mistake – which is of course possible – I’d like to know about it. So, can you be specific about what I get wrong?

I don't know how to make it more precise. There's nothing wrong with your logic in itself but it fails to recognize the collective nature of the noun "Truthers" ("Tx: x is a Truther") and therefore your very logical logic doesn’t apply to my statement or, as I understood it, to the OP’s. Perhaps "irrelevant" would be more accurate than "illogical".

I think I’m starting to see the problem. You're labouring under the misconception that the predicate “Tx: x is a Truther” means I can’t be referring to more than one. But of course I can (and do). That’s what the quantifiers are for. Perhaps this confusion stems from the fact you simply don’t understand formal logic. If not, no worries. Just say so.

I'm not interested in your "formal logic". I only want to know, in plain English...

Right, so you initially gave it large about logic and now, despite much bluffing and evasion, you’ve finally had to admit it’s a subject you know nothing about; first you were snide about other people’s logic, and now – now you’ve been caught out – logic itself is to be sneered at. This is Trutherdom in microcosm; first claim your position is supported by experts and then, when people who actually know what they’re talking about show up, start sneering at them – and at expertise itself – by insisting on a return to a layman's framework: pure anti-intellectualism.

I'm not interested in your "formal logic". I only want to know, in plain English, how it can be considered logical to claim that a sample of two people can be used to support a generalization about thousands or millions of people. If your formula demonstrates this please explain how it does so, in English.

By the way, no, it doesn’t demonstrate that. Nor does it attempt to. You would know what it means if knew anything about logic.

 

[Nosi]

Look at what Jones had in his studio 9 years ago and compare it to what he has now. Then explain to me how he managed to upgrade to all of those big HD flat screens and everything else you see in the background without making money hand over fist. Are you suggesting that he lives in poverty while sinking every extra cent into his studio? Your "Heroes" are fleecing you and you gladly let them.

It's very possible that Jones may be in cute with some company or corporate fat cat.

"I'll scratch your back you scratch mine" (hense the big HD flat screens). That line is as old if not older than time.

Does a bear in the woods or take up honey? A bear is known to do both. If I was a skeptic, I would be curious about any silent partners.

 

[johnny karate]

Please explain how you arrived at your anti-semitism analysis because, as it stands, it looks like nothing more than crude mud slinging.

Please substantiate your assertions.

Please provide concrete evidence for your further unsubstantiated assertions about me.

In your rush to demand evidence of others, you seemed to have forgotten to provide any of your own. Or is substantiating claims something that applies to everyone except you?

 

[sylvan8798]

Humans are dangerous

Truthers aren't dangerous.

Professor Par, can we conclude from this construction that Truthers aren't human?

Human -> dangerous

Truthers ~ dangerous

Ergo: Truthers not human

??

 

[jmh423]

Then you should be able to source any of your claims.



I have... EVERY SINGLE claim made by twoofs... and they always come back to a twoof who needs remedial english classes for their poor reading comprehension.

why don't you tell me what they are about... I've read them. Feel free, show us your fantastic reading comprehension skills.


Ah... nice to see the antisemitism.... da jooooooz did it. It would help if you had any facts, or even a coherent idea of what happened.

p.s. the joooooz know exactly who you are and where... they will be by with bagels and some cheese soon.

I guess that it is alright to claim that certain radical factions of Islam are responsible for all the terrorism in the world...Or to accuse protestants like Cheney, the Bush's, & the British & Dutch Royals of complicity in all the wars and disease of the last 300 years...Or the pedofilic Catholic Vatican wing and it's devotion to facism and nazism...None of those assertions will bring a charge of racism or nazism from the well rehearsed peanut galleries here on JREF or throughout the net...But make any reference to the pseudo-Jew bolchevik terrorists of Israel, like Begin, Ben Gurion, Sharon, Olmert, Netanyahu et al, or the dual citizen traitors who have oozed into US government in droves in the last 30 yrs like Kissinger, Wolfowitz, Zakheim, Chertoff and the like and they stand and scream "anti-semite"! Traitors and scum hide behind all religious factions...Also I really liked the little backhanded threat at the end of your post....And I'm shakin' all over...LOL...Now I have to fear the Jews as well as the ARABS!!! Oh No..

 

[johnny karate]

Right, so you initially gave it large about logic and now, despite much bluffing and evasion, you’ve finally had to admit it’s a subject you know nothing about; first you were snide about other people’s logic, and now – now you’ve been caught out – logic itself is to be sneered at. This is Trutherdom in microcosm; first claim your position is supported by experts and then, when people who actually know what they’re talking about show up, start sneering at them – and at expertise itself – by insisting on a return to a layman's framework: pure anti-intellectualism.

Ouch.

Nicely done, Par.

So what odds are currently being given that JihadJane will now completely evade this topic, if not flee the thread altogether?

 

[JihadJane]

Right, so you initially gave it large about logic and now, despite much bluffing and evasion,

Wrong

...you’ve finally had to admit it’s a subject you know nothing about;

I've never once claimed to know anything about formal logic

... first you were snide about other people’s logic,

true, it stank.

.. and now – now you’ve been caught out –

No, I haven't been "caught out".

..logic itself is to be sneered at. This is Trutherdom in microcosm; first claim your position is supported by experts and then, when people who actually know what they’re talking about show up, start sneering at them – and at expertise itself – by insisting on a return to a layman's framework: pure anti-intellectualism.

Once again, I've never claimed to be an expert in formal logic though, looking at your equations, it doesn't look like it would be a difficult language to learn.

I'm not interested in playing "I'm better at abstracting than you are" games.

Put down your distorting "Trutherdom" glasses and demonstrate how your logic relates to the OP.

I wasn't sneering at logic, the science, but the logic of the OP and Sylvan8798's statement and the way you apparently attempted to give it respectability with your apparently unrelated logic equations. Sorry if I hurt your logic feelings. Perhaps you aren't attempting to support the OP's decidedly unscientific project of smearing 911 skepticism. If not, then what is the relevance of your logic demonstration? Why can’t you explain what your symbols say in plain English?

By the way, no, it doesn’t demonstrate that. Nor does it attempt to. You would know what it means if knew anything about logic.

What, then, in your opinion, is it demonstrating? Educate me.

The OP (and it's not the first on JREF to play this Killer Truther game) seeks to demonstrate that truthers are dangerous. It does so by stating that they are with a rhetorical When-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife?-type question. Sylvan8798 joins in by citing two examples.

How does your logic relate to this concrete, real-world event? I want to know.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Truthers have shown time and again their inability to distinguish between fantasy and reality.

And don't many of these nutcase mass shooters start out with a fantasy that they then put into action? Or doesn't that happen on your planet?

Without actually studying the people in question your conjecture is no different from Truthers' or anyone else's fantasies that you don't like. Where is your concrete evidence? Do you know anything about the killers' psychology beyond what you are apparently guessing at? Do you know what happened to them during their formative years?

And don't you think it's about time we defined this term "Truthers"?

Are you being logical and scientific?

It looks like pure speculation to me, possibly tinged with hope.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

true, it stank.

Correct.

Why can’t you explain what your symbols say in plain English?

Lpj ? Wait for it...

What, then, in your opinion, is it demonstrating? Educate me.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Will

 

[johnny karate]

I wasn't sneering at logic, the science, but the logic of the OP and Sylvan8798's statement and the way you apparently attempted to give it respectability with your apparently unrelated logic equations. Sorry if I hurt your logic feelings. Perhaps you aren't attempting to support the OP's decidedly unscientific project of smearing 911 skepticism. If not, then what is the relevance of your logic demonstration? Why can’t you explain what your symbols say in plain English?

You were the one who brought a "logic teacher" into the discussion. Logic teachers teach formal logic. If you didn't care to discuss this topic in terms beyond your intellectual capacity, then maybe you shouldn't have made a crack implying that you have knowledge of something which you clearly don't.

But speaking for all of us laughing at you flaming out in yet another thread, I'm quite pleased that you did.

 

[NutCracker]

And don't you think it's about time we defined this term "Truthers"?

Are you being logical and scientific?

It looks like pure speculation to me, possibly tinged with hope.

Hear. hear, hear. Another ******* on ignore!

 

[triforcharity]

<snipped> One hopes someone is keeping an eye on these kooks.

NWO secret agent NozedAvenger is assigned to this preticular concern.

 

[funk de fino]

Please provide concrete evidence for your further unsubstantiated assertions about me.

What was it that first peaked your interest of 911 as an inside job? You said it was from rhetoric after the 7/7 attacks. You made a decision on 911 due to rhetoric from an unrelated attack not because of evidence. You started off thinking it was an inside job. You ignore evidence which proves your claims wrong.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Only if the Truthers were this rebellious against the head honchos of the Truth Movement:

http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1824771

<For those who love Super Mario>

 

[Lupie]

Getting back to the topic of dangerous truthers, here is a rather disturbing collection of comments in response to this article on infowars.com (profanity warning, these are uncensored):

http://www.infowars.com/obama-will-surrender-america-to-world-government/

A typical posting:

One from "RJB" who appears to be driving the discussion:



One hopes someone is keeping an eye on these kooks.

Kooks indeed,

Talking about constructing/obtaining a destructive device for the purpose of shooting down aircraft, and having that conversation in a public forum, is a very good way to attract the attention of the relevant agencies, and end up having someone keep an eye on you.

Add to that, the talk in that forum of actually contacting Al-Qaeda for assistance with such things, and you have a fairly visible red flag. Chances are, being troothers, they are just a bunch of big-talkers and morons who don't actually mean what the say, but that doesn't mean that they wouldn't be looked at.

L.

 

[sylvan8798]

Add to that, the talk in that forum of actually contacting Al-Qaeda for assistance with such things, and you have a fairly visible red flag. Chances are, being troothers, they are just a bunch of big-talkers and morons who don't actually mean what the say, but that doesn't mean that they wouldn't be looked at.

I think actually giving people detailed instructions on how to commit a crime might not fall within the confines of the first amendment. Not that they've gotten that specific, but it has to be getting into a grey area over there. Out of a group of hundreds (or thousands?) there are always a few who are on the edge, mentally, and just need a little teensy push.