Dubstepforum.com

noticed tons of them here.

If you make any claim

YOU have to prove it.

The listener doesn't have to prove anything because they didn't make a claim!


If you went to court and the judge asked "please prove to me that you were not speeding"

You can't. They are the ones that have to have evidence that you were speeding.


Other fallacies include
Sweeping Generalization:
"Hitler was an athiest and hitler was evil, therefore all athiests are evil"

Faulty Cause:
"I helped an old lady cross the street and the next week i won the lottery, therefore helping old ladies makes you win the lottery or god awarded the money"

Burden of Proof
"Since you cant prove terrorists knocked down the twin towers it was an inside job"

"Prove god doesn't exist"



but most often its Burden of Proof
Realize that if you can't prove something, you are BELIEVING that it exists much like christians believe in god. It's a FAITH based assumption.

wouldn't it be more interesting to talk about something like Robert Anton Wilson and an 8 circuit model of intelligence than to try to mold everybody into a tiny little corner of consensus?

RAW would literally call you hopeless and dogmatic and insane with this lawyer-speak.

life is not a court of law. hiding lies gets real easy when people are as quick to dismiss as they are being trained.

it would only make sense to you if you put your complete faith in deductive reasoning and science. people that don't think that science has all the answers, will refuse to see the world in black and white, right and wrong, left or right, etc.

science can be wrong, and has been wrong over the course of history, but its been right far more frequently.

Parson wrote:wouldn't it be more interesting to talk about something like Robert Anton Wilson and an 8 circuit model of intelligence than to try to mold everybody into a tiny little corner of consensus?

RAW would literally call you hopeless and dogmatic and insane with this lawyer-speak.

life is not a court of law. hiding lies gets real easy when people are as quick to dismiss as they are being trained.

you totally and completely miss the point.

logic exists so we CAN talk about radical ideas, but you have to understand they are only ideas until they can be proven

is there a problem with ideas?

Parson wrote:is there a problem with ideas?

when people falsely present them as true, yes

see: Middle east conflict

a conflict which premise is ultimately in logical fallacies. both sunni's and shiites hold an idea to be true when neither can be proven

but in terms of believing conspiracies you run the risk of seriously damaging your perception of the world

I used to watch all those videos, zeitgeist, ancient ufos, nwo etc, but at the end of the day its not worth the emotional state it puts you in after you are finished watching or reading it

so your contention is that there his happiness in coloring inside the lines.

check out paul levy's ideas about trauma
http://www.awakeninthedream.com/artis/I ... ssing.html

it expounds a little better than blanketly calling all conflict the result of logical fallacy

Parson wrote:check out paul levy's ideas about trauma
http://www.awakeninthedream.com/artis/I ... ssing.html

it expounds a little better than blanketly calling all conflict the result of logical fallacy

right it was an example, nothing more


again you are totally missing the point, it has nothing to do with "coloring inside the lines" or "being close minded" infact I'm as open minded as you can get. I just don't believe everything I read just because someone is getting emotional about it.

there is a difference between being open minded and being easily persuaded.

if you understand logical fallacies, than you can't be easily persuaded

or in conspiracy terms

The man cant tell you what to do!

FOX news tends to cater to people who have no concept of logic and thus don't see the holes in their arguments when they spit out crazy stuff about gays or athiests or liberals etc...

there is a difference between understanding the nature of the conspiracy and being easily persuaded.

you keep spewing a lot of logical fallacies tbh

not really...

anyway

trying to argue that logic is pointless is like saying school is pointless

if there were no rules to what was true and what was false then we would have no knowledge at all, only superstitions like a tribe in the amazon

Read some Wittgenstein mate

hurlingdervish wrote: there is a difference between being open minded and being easily persuaded.

well said.

hurlingdervish wrote: logic exists so we CAN talk about radical ideas, but you have to understand they are only ideas until they can be proven

This sort of philosophy died out with witch hunting

witch hunting still exists.

but rather than calling em witches we call em nutters and rather than burning them we mock and "discredit"

hurlingdervish wrote:
Burden of Proof
"Since you cant prove terrorists knocked down the twin towers it was an inside job"

But it's in human nature to question things which just do not add up, right? Such as 7 hijackers still being alive? And a huge number of coincidences.

To me somthing such as 'no building in history made of iron/steel(can't remember which one) has ever collapsed in history due to a fire' or 'the towers could not fall at freefall speed as it is physically impossible, yet they did' is totally different than somthing such as 'we dont know what created life so it must be god'.

totally totally different

Osky wrote:

hurlingdervish wrote:
Burden of Proof
"Since you cant prove terrorists knocked down the twin towers it was an inside job"

But it's in human nature to question things which just do not add up, right? Such as 7 hijackers still being alive? And a huge number of coincidences.

To me somthing such as 'no building in history made of iron/steel(can't remember which one) has ever collapsed in history due to a fire' or 'the towers could not fall at freefall speed as it is physically impossible, yet they did' is totally different than somthing such as 'we dont know what created life so it must be god'.

totally totally different

right but thats not the example i gave.

honestly i dont think there was hijackers at all but thats just it...

i dont THINK there was hijackers...i dont KNOW

knowing and thinking are two different things.

to question that 9/11 was an inside job is natural.

to know that it was, is illogical and presumptuous.

and you might say:
"well thats just a matter of word choice"

but it's really not only words, it's a whole system of thinking

hurlingdervish wrote:

Osky wrote:

hurlingdervish wrote:
Burden of Proof
"Since you cant prove terrorists knocked down the twin towers it was an inside job"

But it's in human nature to question things which just do not add up, right? Such as 7 hijackers still being alive? And a huge number of coincidences.

To me somthing such as 'no building in history made of iron/steel(can't remember which one) has ever collapsed in history due to a fire' or 'the towers could not fall at freefall speed as it is physically impossible, yet they did' is totally different than somthing such as 'we dont know what created life so it must be god'.

totally totally different

right but thats not the example i gave.

honestly i dont think there was hijackers at all but thats just it...

i dont THINK there was hijackers...i dont KNOW

knowing and thinking are two different things.

to question that 9/11 was an inside job is natural.

to know that it was, is illogical and presumptuous.

yeh i see what u mean, ive probably read your post wrong excuse me if i have. but yeh u cant compare 9/11 with christians, because christians believe in a blind story.

anyway although there is no hard up evidence which fully proves 911 was inside job, if u think about the amount of evidence which shows the 911 story just does not add up, if it was a murder case for example and this many pieces of evidence and coincidences occured, it would still be investigated.
for example if someone was murderd in a hit and run, and the forensics proved the guy killed was hit at lets say 70mph, but the suspect caught and arrested's car could only go to 55mph (for whatever reason, excuse the bad example), this is proof that the suspect could not of commited this crime, right? and then the case would be furthur investigated at the least.

so why when it is physically impossible for the twin towers to hit the ground at free fall speed, they atcually do. yet it doesn't matter because bin laden did it?

anyway what im trying to say is, surely that is evidence that atleast proves it is impossible for the towers to fall how we have been told they did so we do definatly KNOW that the towers could not of done that by themselves.

so we think it was an inside job but we KNOW what the government has told us is physically impossible, so in theory we KNOW they are lieing. and this SHOULD be brought to attention. because this is sold proof of them lieing.

right? or am i wrong?

(i know u think the same im just speaking in general, not just at u)