The Plague of Denying Ignorance - Rant in a Mirror

Typically, the rant section reflects the attitude of the person writing the thread. Not today. Today, I will give you a chance to rant. Here is the scenario.

The idea of ATS is to deny the ignorance of those who conspire against truth. For instance, if a politician tells a load of lies to get elected, then does the opposite, ATS will be there to point out the hypocrisy. There is a problem with this. People ignore truth. This is basically how ignorance is defined. The question then becomes, "What is truth?" How many opinions are there to answer this question?

My question is this: How much space is wasted on ATS answering the fallacy in the video below? I say that the main ignorance we can deny is attainable by all who invest their time here on ATS. It is a simple matter of educating yourself to the topic. If we all learn the lessons contained in this short video, the quality of our discussions will improve greatly.

Educate yourself, then bookmark this video. Keep it handy for a simple response to anyone founding their thought process on this level of childish reasoning.

Now it's your turn. Rant away. Tell me what you think.

reply to post by EnochWasRight


but....but...but....but...that means I have to use my brain.......


I'll come back later to watch your vid, when I have some free watching a youtube video time. I gave you a flag in anticipation the vid is good...

Des

This usually happens to me when people claim that fluoride is a poison and used to medicate the masses to better fall in line with the NWO or whatever other claim anti-fluoride people make. You just can't seem to show them anything with logic or sources or papers or science. If you do happen to get one of them to read about it, then they move on to the pineal gland and how it causes a stain on your soul or some other unprovable argument.

But yes. I have dealt with this, and have done this to others. I try not to, but I sometimes do, and sometimes I actually feel bad about it.

superman2012
This usually happens to me when people claim that fluoride is a poison and used to medicate the masses to better fall in line with the NWO or whatever other claim anti-fluoride people make. You just can't seem to show them anything with logic or sources or papers or science. If you do happen to get one of them to read about it, then they move on to the pineal gland and how it causes a stain on your soul or some other unprovable argument.

But yes. I have dealt with this, and have done this to others. I try not to, but I sometimes do, and sometimes I actually feel bad about it.

Repentance is always the answer. I am guilty as well. As solid as I am in most conversations, there are a few that shake me up off my calm and assertive position. It's easy to react at the object instead of keeping to the subject. It's a good lesson to practice.

But...straw men are so much fun to build, and tear down. Party pooper!

Well done EWR. We would all do well to remember this. I like the presentation too. Simple, and to the point. S&F.

EnochWasRight
My question is this: How much space is wasted on ATS answering the fallacy in the video below?

Your question does not have a finite measurement ,,space can be wrapped ,therefore relative to each individual user ,,that and their Hd,ram & screen size....

reply to post by superman2012

Sounds like one of the anti-anti-flouride camp followers, one who may not read the linked to papers, who may not read the reports from scientists who do the work that proves the flaw in thinking Flouride is GOOD to ingest.

Or is it simply that you are correct and everyone else who opposes your perception is therefore incorrect, or stupid if they have not learned how to hold a logical conversation according to the rules.

Oldie
reply to post by superman2012

 

Sounds like one of the anti-anti-flouride camp followers, one who may not read the linked to papers, who may not read the reports from scientists who do the work that proves the flaw in thinking Flouride is GOOD to ingest.

Or is it simply that you are correct and everyone else who opposes your perception is therefore incorrect, or stupid if they have not learned how to hold a logical conversation according to the rules.

lol
Nope. They aren't all stupid some are misinformed and some have valid points (no forced medication).

I work in water treatment so I do read both sides (was even on the other side for many years, before being in the industry). Nothing has been proven at all by the anti-fluoride people but that is for any other thread I have been on (just click on my name and look at the posts...we can argue there ).

Edit:
You realize that you did what the OP was talking about with this right?

Or is it simply that you are correct and everyone else who opposes your perception is therefore incorrect, or stupid if they have not learned how to hold a logical conversation according to the rules.

Okay, so Enoch redirected me here to discuss something brought up in a separate thread.

Would anyone like to give some input on the issue?

Romans 13
3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

Would it be a bad argument to claim that these two verses from the bible are untrue?

Are these two verses true or untrue put in the context of today's world or at any time in the past 2,000 years?

Would it be a bad argument to claim that rulers and governments are God's agents of good who only bear the sword against wrongdoers?

You asked me to bring it here Enoch, not sure why though.

3NL1GHT3N3D1
Okay, so Enoch redirected me here to discuss something brought up in a separate thread.

Would anyone like to give some input on the issue?

Romans 13
3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

Would it be a bad argument to claim that these two verses from the bible are untrue?

Are these two verses true or untrue put in the context of today's world or at any time in the past 2,000 years?

Would it be a bad argument to claim that rulers and governments are God's agents of good who only bear the sword against wrongdoers?

You asked me to bring it here Enoch, not sure why though.

edit on 3-11-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

Romans 8, a few chapters before this conclusion, has your answer.

AUDIO of Romans 8 (Listen)

Present suffering is future glory. At present, the darkness is placed in a position of authority. God is still in charge of this, but only to allow the darkness to be revealed by the light.

Keeping to the thread topic here, I invited you here to allow you to rant about me. Feel free.

3NL1GHT3N3D1
Okay, so Enoch redirected me here to discuss something brought up in a separate thread.

Would anyone like to give some input on the issue?

Romans 13
3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

Would it be a bad argument to claim that these two verses from the bible are untrue?

Are these two verses true or untrue put in the context of today's world or at any time in the past 2,000 years?

Would it be a bad argument to claim that rulers and governments are God's agents of good who only bear the sword against wrongdoers?

You asked me to bring it here Enoch, not sure why though.

edit on 3-11-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

Of course, this is the same answer I gave in the other thread. There is a reason the Saints will rule after suffering the tyranny of the wicked. In all of this, God is still in charge and in authority.

18 I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. 19 For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. 20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that[h] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.

22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have? 25 But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.

Remember, you can rant about me here all you want.

superman2012
lol
Nope. They aren't all stupid some are misinformed and some have valid points (no forced medication).

I work in water treatment so I do read both sides (was even on the other side for many years, before being in the industry). Nothing has been proven at all by the anti-fluoride people but that is for any other thread I have been on (just click on my name and look at the posts...we can argue there

).

Edit:
You realize that you did what the OP was talking about with this right?

Or is it simply that you are correct and everyone else who opposes your perception is therefore incorrect, or stupid if they have not learned how to hold a logical conversation according to the rules.

Much has been proven over the past 50 years. The information is all out there.

No need to argue. The facts are in the public domain, your perception is proven incorrect. No need to argue.

And Yes, I know I did that. Because you pushed your disinformation in this thread too.

reply to post by EnochWasRight


I saw the word "plague" and went. . .



Truth is a bitch that never returns your calls.

The Sun circles the Earth.
Burn witches to stop spoiling milk.
Vote democrat to reduce taxes.

All three are examples of supposed "truths" that were later regarded as just foolish superstition or the simple outlook of a simple time when critical thinking wasn't really used that much.

Yeah... This video is nice and all. But people on here are not really interested in the truth. They are interested in being right. They are interested in propagating their own beliefs and forcing them unto others. Discussions are not possible when you're being shoved into pre-determined boxes, be it creationist, conspiracy theorist, evolutionist or whatever other label you want to use. But that's all that I see happening here. It's the main reason I rarely post here anymore. I see more fallacies than logical arguments. People try to bypass you with premises that they keep hidden. It's always the same BS over and over, and nothing changes. This place has become (or maybe always was) about emotional fulfillment, not finding truth.

I believe the Red Herring fallacy made its way into your thread early on. Just wanted to point that out. Secondly I would like to say that is has always been my belief that "deny ignorance" stands for many things not just one thing. For instance. Get informed, stay informed, do not believe things with no factual basis, such as crazy conspiracy theories. Even if ATS didn't mean it as such I feel there is a lot more to denying ignorance then what you have pointed out.

reply to post by Pimpintology


What determines if something is 'crazy' or not?

Here's something for those of you who may be technologically disadvantaged by work or indeed network and cannot access Youtube.

Rhetological Fallacies

vasaga
reply to post by Pimpintology

 

What determines if something is 'crazy' or not?

I do.
It's my calling.

reply to post by Pardon?


I asked what. Not who.

vasaga
reply to post by Pardon?

 

I asked what. Not who.

The same thing that defines what or who.
Context.