 |
||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| I know what you're trying to do, and it isn't going to work by Commander Tansin A. Darcos 12/23/2013, 11:13am PST | ||||
 |
 |
|||
| Some of you just plain don't like what I have to say, or disagree with what I say, or don't want me to say some things because what I say challenges your beliefs.
But clearly, you don't know how to answer what I have to say. You don't know how to communicate. You don't know how to use rational argument. You can't give any reasons why you think I'm wrong, you just "feel" I'm wrong and you "feel" that you're right. So you think, "Hey, I'll claim he has mental illness, it's a perfect answer. If he's stupid enough to agree then I'm right, and if he claims he isn't well that's proof that he has the mental illness I claim, since someone who has a mental illness isn't going to admit it and anyone who claims they don't have it will be presumed to have it." In case you don't recognize that, it's called "circular logic," in which you make a claim then use the claim to validate itself. It's a false method of reasoning. It's just another form of "Morton's fork." And you know when they did that before? During the Witch Trials of the 16th Century. Call someone a "witch," if they agree, burn them at the stake. If they argue otherwise, it's because they don't want it known that they are one. So we'll load them with stones and throw them into the lake. If they sink and drown, oh well, we were wrong. If they float, they're a witch. So let's cut the comedy and stop the spurious claims of mental illness on my part unless you have real evidence based on objective criteria and scientific evidence. Even psychiatrists get this stuff wrong and they're trained professionals. The number of prosecution shrinks who stood up and claimed John Hinkley - the guy that shot Ronald Reagan - was sane, was laughable; even a jury could see that what he spoke about had no basis in reality and that clearly you could see he was insane. What was even more hilarious was after the jury found Hinkley not guilty by reason of insanity, these same prosecution psychiatrists who had argued that Hinkley was sane now were crawling all over each other to say that yes, he is insane and should not be released. So were they wrong when they said he wasn't insane or were they simply shilling for whichever side was paying them? And that, is why your claims are ridiculous. I have asked, over and over, what have I said that is not merely something you disagree with, but something that has no basis in reality. What have I been saying that is a statement of a factual nature that is completely contradicted by reality, i.e. batshit insane? Not opinions. I've seen people with ridiculous opinions, like those who believe the Bush Administration had people connected to 9/11, or that the whole thing was faked, or that there were explosives in the buildings. The technical people on a number of TV shows have debunked these claims and in my opinion, the total incompetence of the Bush Administration to do anything of any serious technical nature puts paid to the claim it could have been an inside job. But that's neither here nor there, it's an opinion. Facts are facts; either they are true or false, provable or disprovable, right or wrong. If I say something that contains facts and you have evidence to show that it's wrong, say so. If I say something that completely contradicts reality, that's something else. Say so. When you think someone has a ridiculous opinion means you believe the premises they have used to support the opinion are incorrect. But if the opinion is not one that relies on fact, you can't prove it right or wrong. But a claim of a mental illness is or should have a factual basis, not merely be yet another opinion. "It's too cold to go out," is an opinion. It's subjective and what you think is too cold may be different from what I think. "You have autism," is a statement of a fact, supposedly, since you can prove it or it can be disproved. If you can't prove it, it's not science, it's just bullshitting. But again, when someone makes a claim of something the onus is on them to prove the claim, not of the person denying it. Those who believe in God are required to prove her existence; those who do not are not required to prove the alternative. So go ahead. Present your evidence. If I'm autistic it should be trivial. None of you have provided evidence of where what I have said has no basis in reality. All you've done is disagreed with what I say, which is a disagreement of opinion, and then considered that difference of opinion to then represent evidence of mental illness. It doesn't work that way. Disagreement of opinion is not a factual basis to support an argument. |
||||
 |
 |
|||
|
I know what you're trying to do, and it isn't going to work by 12/23/2013, 11:13am PST  What we're trying to do? We're trying to make you post even more insane shit by 12/23/2013, 11:47am PST Re: I know what you're trying to do, and it isn't going to work by 12/23/2013, 12:03pm PST But... nooo! It doesn't work that way! You must present proof to the court! HURR NT by 12/23/2013, 1:15pm PST Re: I know what you're trying to do, and it isn't going to work by 12/23/2013, 4:04pm PST Hahah! Caltrops: The Documentary by 12/23/2013, 8:41pm PST |
