The Logical Trickery of the UFO Skeptic

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


Got to love those (un)paid members' advocates. I said - I don't care about getting stars, never post for them, though I find it strange someone getting stars for a post that assumes something I did not even imply, as if a wrong post claimed to be correct, nah.

I just know here thinking, cause I've seen her opinion many times, now why should there be a 3rd party messing here?

Originally posted by ImpactoR
reply to post by ZetaRediculian

 

Got to love those (un)paid members' advocates. I said - I don't care about getting stars, never post for them, though I find it strange someone getting stars for a post that assumes something I did not even imply, as if a wrong post claimed to be correct, nah.

I just know here thinking, cause I've seen her opinion many times, now why should there be a 3rd party messing here?

In all honesty, I don't even know if that member would even like that post or that it even reflected her point of view. For all I know, she hated that reply.

The only thing needing an advocate is the word "Logic" as it is seems to tossed around, and abused like a cheap whore around here from people on both sides. In fact, I "went at it" with a sceptic a while back because of the way he\she threw the word around, apparently, with no fundamental understanding of how to apply it.

You have been using the the word "Logic" quite often and have yet to demonstrate anything resembling such. You cry "foul" when someone uses the same tactic you do. You have implied that I said something I did not. I back up my points with your own words. "I just know her thinking" is an (speaking in absolutes for illustrative purposes only) absolutely useless point. Back up what your saying ,otherwise, your comments are just LOGICAL TRICKERY! By doing so, you may actually point out a flaw in logic or way of thinking. You may even get a few more stars.

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
You have been using the the word "Logic" quite often and have yet to demonstrate anything resembling such. You cry "foul" when someone uses the same tactic you do. You have implied that I said something I did not. I back up my points with your own words. "I just know her thinking" is an (speaking in absolutes for illustrative purposes only) absolutely useless point. Back up what your saying ,otherwise, your comments are just LOGICAL TRICKERY! By doing so, you may actually point out a flaw in logic or way of thinking. You may even get a few more stars.

Why do you talk on behalf of her, are you her agent or speaker or as I said correctly, some advocate??? Wow, who is even talking to you? Or are you one of those that like to argue for the sake of arguing even if no one calls them, wrong or right who cares, has-to-argue!

I will pick on you then, since you are so eager. First of all I know how she thinks, I am basing this on observation. And based on that observation, I know she repeats all the time 'needs empriical evidence'. Did you not see that part? What you know of my knowing about her? Why do we even discuss her? I have been seeing this kind of thinking for a year at least, so my point is very valid.

You attack me on logic? Go backwards, see the example with the base I gave. Does not seeing something in plain sight mean it doesnt exist? Is this religion to you? I am saying simple logic, and it is, when there are things suggesting possibility, accept is as possibility, doubt it, but dont exclude it as if you knwo for sure. Or this is scoffing!

Originally posted by ImpactoR

Why do you talk on behalf of her, are you her agent or speaker or as I said correctly, some advocate??? Wow, who is even talking to you? Or are you one of those that like to argue for the sake of arguing even if no one calls them, wrong or right who cares, has-to-argue!

I am pretty sure I addressed the accusation of being someones advocate. My only goal is to point out flaws in logic which I believe I am doing considering te reaction I am getting. I am discussing the topic "Logical Trickery". I suppose that such a discusion could get rather circular and tricky.

I will pick on you then, since you are so eager. First of all I know how she thinks, I am basing this on observation. And based on that observation, I know she repeats all the time 'needs empriical evidence'.

"Needing emperical evidence" implies what? Logical Trickery? I need that too but can't seem to find it.

Did you not see that part?

I saw that, but don't see the part where you implied she said things don't exist due to lack of...those were your words, I believe, that you then argued against, beat to death and then attributed to her. I pointed that out as did another poster.

What you know of my knowing about her?

nothing.

Why do we even discuss her?

Who? Drucilla or my precious baby "logic"? I am attempting to have a discussion about "Logical Trickery" and its not going so well. Or maybe it is? I don't know, I can't tell as, by nature, its a tricky subject.

You attack me on logic?

Yes I do

Go backwards, see the example with the base I gave. Does not seeing something in plain sight mean it doesnt exist? Is this religion to you? I am saying simple logic, and it is, when there are things suggesting possibility, accept is as possibility, doubt it, but dont exclude it as if you knwo for sure. Or this is scoffing!

yes, the imaginary base with the imgainary drucilla saying stuff you imagined. I know that place well but I don't think you want me to imagine what is going on there. This is not scoffing. I don't even know what scoffing is. This is logical trickery. which, I believe I have now mastered.

I am saying simple logic, and it is, when there are things suggesting possibility, accept is as possibility, doubt it, but dont exclude it as if you knwo for sure

Fair enough. Now my question is who is saying this? Who is saying they know for sure? Saying that there is no evidence for something is not the same as saying there is no evidence, therefore it does not exist. My point is that I don't think anyone is saying that and yet you are attributing this way of thinking to someone. maybe i am wrong, maybe they do think like that. I don't know. You have not made it evident that this is the case. I don't know how else to explain this. It is logical trickery.

This is something I found during my google research into Logical Trickery. It is titled "Rock-Paper-Spock"

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

----Quote Whatever - not gonna cut texts and format only cause of your childish 'quote every sentence---
Yes I do

Oh yes, and when I mention are you one of those that argue for the same of arguing... this QUOTE EVERY SENTENCE is a typical feature of those kind... also so childish. So instead of wasting my time to quote every single sentence I will summarize it:

I am talking about the flaws in logic 'Aliens are not real enver happened, all is a lie' - Yes I am not certain but based on the secrecy that still exists, I think, one shouldn't exclude it yet... And I gave example with My base how something may be there but due to denial many will think is all just bogus stories;

So see where I point the flaws in logic? And Drusdilla's thinking is that, And she asks me if I am saying one should believe such like Steve Greer? And then she gets stars as if 'Right on!' WHILE I never said people should trust some like Greer..

and then I told her that with the logic she has based on previous times, not be claiming non exsitence of unknown things, I am talking about the whole aliens topic, not about LOGIC and I point out the fallacy in the logic being certain it is all fake

Its called scientific reasoning.

That's why the incentive structure of contemporary scientists is such that they will not accept
alien visitation unless they must, which would be when they get irrefutable physical proof.

I seriously wet myself after reading this in the second paragraph.

Wow, imagine scientists agreeing on something based on irrefutable proof.

Wow.

The trickery. OMG!

I can just hear the conversations now in labs around the world.

Scientist1: "No, no, well wait until we get irrefutable proof because we don't want to look incompetent".
Scientist2:: Pure genius, that will trick them all, and its logical. Logical Trickery, muhahahahahahha."

Seriously, one of the most absurd articles I have read in a long time.

That's why the incentive structure of contemporary scientists is such that they will not accept
alien visitation unless they must, which would be when they get irrefutable physical proof.

Originally posted by ImpactoR
----Quote Whatever - not gonna cut texts and format only cause of your childish 'quote every sentence---
Yes I do

Why was that chilidish? I do question your logic. I think it is flawed. get over it or make your case.

Oh yes, and when I mention are you one of those that argue for the same of arguing... this QUOTE EVERY SENTENCE is a typical feature of those kind... also so childish.

I disagree. Typically, when someone has no apparent cohesion in thier posting, i use this method to address each point they try to make.

So instead of wasting my time to quote every single sentence I will summarize it:

it is your prerogative to make your points however you wish as it is mine to make my points how I wish. I sometimes like to use levity and humor to make some points. I think as long as the points are valid and on topic it does not matter how you make them.

I am talking about the flaws in logic 'Aliens are not real enver happened, all is a lie' - Yes I am not certain but based on the secrecy that still exists, I think, one shouldn't exclude it yet... And I gave example with My base how something may be there but due to denial many will think is all just bogus stories;

Your base example is bogus. sorry. Its a straw man argument as best as I can tell en.wikipedia.org...

So see where I point the flaws in logic?

no

And Drusdilla's thinking is that, And she asks me if I am saying one should believe such like Steve Greer? And then she gets stars as if 'Right on!' WHILE I never said people should trust some like Greer..

her argument about Greer and applying it you was also a straw man argument. I think I pointed that out already. but being that there was already a straw man there, I suppose it was fair game. I don't know, I'm not the logic police. There was some other points in her posts. It wasn't all about you. I don't think I starred her. I usually don't star people. I think its silly. maybe I will go star her post now.

and then I told her that with the logic she has based on previous times, not be claiming non exsitence of unknown things, I am talking about the whole aliens topic, not about LOGIC and I point out the fallacy in the logic being certain it is all fake

I don't think thats fair. People do change their positions on topics as they explore. I know I have to some degree. I sometimes resist the temptation to continue an argument with someone in another thread. It just appears uncalled for by other posters. Maybe someone made you cry in another thread and was mean to you. I don't know. Why are we still talking about her? can we talk about me instaed?

Click here for more information.

Scientific skepticism is very selective. There is currently very little skepticism about the existence of Dark Matter. Despite the fact that there is no direct evidence of its existence. And the calculations that imply something like it must exist could have a number of other explanation. Or could simply be wrong due to underlying problems with how we judge movement at cosmic distances.

Similar statements could be made about String Theory and other ideas that the scientific community thrives upon.

There is more evidence of alien spacecraft, and other Fortean phenomena, than there is for either of these theories. Of course, that's not a tall order. As there's only some indirect evidence of Dark Matter and zero evidence of String Theory.

Yet more scientist devote their lives to supporting these theories than being skeptical about them. And they make very little effort to prove them. A bit more in the case of Dark Matter. But that's only because there's next to none for String Theory.

I love science and scientists. But they aren't the most reliably skeptical people we have.

Originally posted by ImpactoR

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
WHATEVER

Not gonna bother reading through text to see which is mine and which is yours, Learn to make constructive paragraphs to address things. Arguing every sentence of mine does not make your point any more valid, also is hard to read when I click the quote button to address your pointless arguing in every aspect. Quoting every sentence is stupid, and arrogant, you cannot argue every sentence unless you are some troll, which you seem to be. You argue a whole meaning, not sentence, whenever you argue as you wish, don't expect to be taken seriously.

Your base example is bogus. sorry. Its a straw man argument as best as I can tell en.wikipedia.org...

The only thing bogus is your arguments towards mine, Is this all you can bring? Saying it is bogus and posting some link of definition when I showed you clearly how a place, base, or alien aircraft recovery could be considered fake and yet it exists. Where is the failure? I gave you an absolute example of how one may wrongly suggest the place/base/being does not exist...

You fail at arguing shut up when you cannot even bring proper arguments.

No you are talking bullcrap, no one upset me ROFL I said in the 1st post here, I do not believe anything until there is harder evidence but I do not exclude. Thus, no one 'hurt my feelings about the topic' SINCE I DO NOT HAVE ANY.

Look at my sig below, you scoffer. That's what you are and should be ignored. Until it is proven what kind of things are secret, everything to which there are clues including aliens is acceptable to assume.

edit on 2-2-2013 by ImpactoR because: (no reason given)

Obviously this is not going anywhere. You can can accuse me of whatever you like. I pointed out how your argument was flawed, provided supporting documentation and stayed on topic without accusing you of anything. apparently I am an advocate of someone else, a troll and a scoffer. I am sure there was something else I missed. One last time. The falacy of your argument is called the straw man argument.

To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position

This is what I see you doing. The arguments are pretty well documented here. Thats my position. That's my point. If I am wrong, I am wrong. So far you have not refuted my one and only point. If you want to continue the discussion, just stop with all the histrionics and accusations and show me where I am wrong. I have been wrong before. It is no big deal. If you can't do that, just ignore me and move on.

reply to post by ImpactoR


What the hell are you quibbling about?

Are you really so completely shallow, lacking in facility and comprehension as well as being so clueless to not see my point that "The Logical Trickery of the UFO Skeptic" is the LEAST thing anyone has to, or should be worrying about?

The illogical self-deluding, self-trickery of the common believer, combined with a subject awash with an entire ocean full of charlatans, attention seekers, flat out liars, opportunists, and outright nutters is a far more grave concern than worrying about anyone that wants real data.

Try reading between the lines and quit being so hand flapping running around in circles crying about it literal.

Originally posted by Druscilla
reply to post by ImpactoR

 

What the hell are you quibbling about?

Are you really so completely shallow, lacking in facility and comprehension as well as being so clueless to not see my point that "The Logical Trickery of the UFO Skeptic" is the LEAST thing anyone has to, or should be worrying about?

The illogical self-deluding, self-trickery of the common believer, combined with a subject awash with an entire ocean full of charlatans, attention seekers, flat out liars, opportunists, and outright nutters is a far more grave concern than worrying about anyone that wants real data.

Try reading between the lines and quit being so hand flapping running around in circles crying about it literal.

edit on 2-2-2013 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)

As if you need an advocate? Sheesh. This really does put it in perspective. I missed your point also. and it is



one day I will catch a flaw and we will have a go. but not this day.

Unfortunately we were driven from childhood within the physical laws adopted and proven experience. But what if all this is The favored illusion. Remember the movie MATRIX

reply to post by xszawe


let the skeptics be, And let us the people who see commune. Some people just arn't meant to know or see things. Let them be skeptics. We are all collectively human, but we are all not the same. So trying to pretend like we are only helps our neurotic thoughts into thinking * it could all work! just if everyone works together!* We can blame the skeptics who feel that humanity is to divided and say they arn't doing their part. But Its going to get ugly before the monkeys come running. And their in no mood right now to break down natural social order. The way humans act right now, its bred in. Not the mindless brainwashing, tho i could say it attributed a lot to swaying the populations opinions. Humanity needs more then a slap in the face to wake up. Even if we revolt against the gov, we will still be infected with parasites fluoride and what ever genetic traits that make us greedy and unreliable.

The overhaul humanity needs is much bigger than people think, and when you look at the picture from a distance. Youl begin to understand that tho we can push people, its going to be inconceivable for people to go against their genetic code for competition grooming and social status. I wish the answer was as easy as *We was brainwashered by the gubment now they wanna take my guns im mad we stop them live happy together!* Honestly, at this point. Who knows whats going to happen. I know this tho that things are going to get ugly before they get better, Unless some people start making the right choices.

Originally posted by Kamikadze72
Remember the movie MATRIX

Yeah, I do.


It was a movie.

reply to post by ZetaRediculian

This is what I see you doing. The arguments are pretty well documented here. Thats my position. That's my point. If I am wrong, I am wrong. So far you have not refuted my one and only point. If you want to continue the discussion, just stop with all the histrionics and accusations and show me where I am wrong. I have been wrong before. It is no big deal. If you can't do that, just ignore me and move on.

I dont care what idiom or word is used... I said you failed at arguing because you simply didn't provide any info what is wrong in the logic I provided and instead give me a word how it is called, the wikipedia link didn't say it in specific, but I can figure it out myself..

What you probably want to say is that (like previous responses about that logic),

There is no proof it doesn't exist - this is not what I am saying

If this were the case... yes believe magical faeries, spaghetti monster, mermaids (like the videos of Flyrax and Cyrax on YouTube), because no one proved this doesn't exist. This is a false way to claim existence indeed, but it is as false as being certain it doesn't exist,.

If you look at the part of words by Haisch, that I have in my sig, nothing is sufficient at the moment to claim existence or non-existence...

The point above 'not proven it doesn't exist' is not what I follow at all.. Unlike the magical faeries, spghetti monster, mermaids... where other than funny youtube videos.. how many alien related cases do you know in comparison?

20 for the spaghetti monster vs 100? There is so much data, cases, encounters, that somehow, you cannot be certain that ALL is a lie, ALL is made up.,

If they wanted to do disinfo with alien stories, why didn''t they do 10-20 cases with aliens, why they keep coming and coming? No forget about blogs and random stories, I mean the overall number of cases and information (and information that is actually not public yet)

This is not to be certain in anything but it's far not the right thing to say for certainty it exists or not. The example I gave with the Secret base was that, imagine you have the same amount of info for it, it proves that thinking 'it doesn't exist' can be wrong?

reply to post by Druscilla

Originally posted by Druscilla

The illogical self-deluding, self-trickery of the common believer, combined with a subject awash with an entire ocean full of charlatans, attention seekers, flat out liars, opportunists, and outright nutters is a far more grave

If we talk about the average believer, I agree with you, and my apology. Though everybody knows that you are a bit biased.

Originally posted by draknoir2

Originally posted by Kamikadze72
Remember the movie MATRIX

Yeah, I do.


It was a movie.

That was totally awesome man...remeber when that guy was like doing all those cool moves in slow motion...and like was really cool..remenber that? Remember the movie Terminator? And like how cool that was? Remember that guy Chris Farley and like interviewed that guy from the Beatles...remember that?