We can't trust wikipedia. (1 Viewer)

[Tigerace117]

did you spot the logical fallacy, and the one you made here? Yes that 'amuses' me greatly.

This has literally nothing to do with the subject, like your other tangent. A key sign of being unable to argue is trying to lure others off topic.

 

[Verthaine]

Then you don't understand it at all.

Let me help here:

You wrote:



According to e-prime the more correct version is:




See and feel the difference, mate?

Actually,going by the number of people here,a lot of people think you have zero credibility here.
They are correct.

 

[Pin dÁr]

This has literally nothing to do with the subject, like your other tangent. A key sign of being unable to argue is trying to lure others off topic.

it sure does! You accuse CT'rs from a lack of logical thinking, but you show here yourself not even able to do that yourself.

have you spot the fallacies yet?

 

[Mark F]

it sure does! You accuse CT'rs from a lack of logical thinking, but you show here yourself not even able to do that yourself.

have you spot the fallacies yet?

Tell you what, why don't you enlighten us by pointing out Tigerace117's logical fallacies. You keep claiming they are there so lets see if you can correctly identify them.

 

[Pin dÁr]

Mark F smells like a kind of stalker, lol

Luckily I got that idiot on my ignore.

 

[Tigerace117]

Mark F smells like a kind of stalker, lol

Luckily I got that idiot on my ignore.

So in other words you can't do it so you utilize an ad hominem. An actual one, not what you claim others do.

 

[Pin dÁr]

So in other words you can't do it so you utilize an ad hominem. An actual one, not what you claim others do.

Found the logicll fallacies in your own postings yet? Why not?

Until you do I can't take you seriously, mate!

 

[Tigerace117]

Found the logicll fallacies in your own postings yet? Why not?

Because you are a totally unreliable source. Simply put, your full of **** and I highly doubt anything you say,

 

[Pin dÁr]

Because you are a totally unreliable source. Simply put, your full of **** and I highly doubt anything you say,

That's also a logical fallacy. Ah well, so you admit you are not able to spot them in your own posting, but accuse CT'ers
for being irrational? Hmmmmmm.


It's not a problem for me that you make them. everyone does, but you seem to be unable to spot them.

But then please stop blaming CT'ers for being illogical if you do not even know what it means.


Thank you.

 

[Mark F]

So in other words you can't do it so you utilize an ad hominem. An actual one, not what you claim others do.

Which was of course the point of my exercise.

I know he can't do it.
You know he can't do it.
He may even know he can't do it.

But he can't admit it so resort to evasive ad hom - which he is always the first to call out others for - was as predictable as it was inevitable

 

[Tigerace117]

That's also a logical fallacy. Ah well, so you admit you are not able to spot them in your own posting, but accuse CT'ers
for being irrational? Hmmmmmm.


It's not a problem for me that you make them. everyone does, but you seem to be unable to spot them.

But then please stop blaming CT'ers for being illogical if you do not even know what it means.


Thank you.

I do in fact know what it means; but what's the point? Obviously if you know so much about the subject you'll be able to list any flaws, so why don't you? Unless your scared, of course.....

 

[Tigerace117]

Which was of course the point of my exercise.

I know he can't do it.
You know he can't do it.
He may even know he can't do it.

But he can't admit it so resort to evasive ad hom - which he is always the first to call out others for - was as predictable as it was inevitable

Remember like the first week he was here and every time somebody disagreed with him he screeched "ad hominem"?

 

[Mark F]

Remember like the first week he was here and every time somebody disagreed with him he screeched "ad hominem"?

Oh yeah. That was as often as not directed at me. Then when I would point out to him the definition of ad hominem and how my post did not meet the criteria he would of course run away. If you are conspiracy theorist you run away. Its what you do.

 

[Tigerace117]

Oh yeah. That was as often as not directed at me. Then when I would point out to him the definition of ad hominem and how my post did not meet the criteria he would of course run away. If you are conspiracy theorist you run away. Its what you do.

True that. Especially when you don't have the evidence on your side, as conspiracy theorists don't.

 

[Mark F]

True that. Especially when you don't have the evidence on your side, as conspiracy theorists don't.

Or in the case of certain participants even a coherent conjecture.

 

[Pin dÁr]

I do in fact know what it means; but what's the point? Obviously if you know so much about the subject you'll be able to list any flaws, so why don't you? Unless your scared, of course.....

Well, well, well. I do ask you something. of course you can't deliver and then you start blaming me, and calling me scared?

Really looks like projection now, eh?!

I have seen enough.

 

[Pin dÁr]

True that. Especially when you don't have the evidence on your side, as conspiracy theorists don't.

circular again. you seem to assume a lot and research very little.

 

[Thoreau72]

The TRUTH, huh. Well I hate to break it to you, but you don't have the TRUTH.

To borrow from Jack Nicholson's character, you can't handle the truth, much less recognize it when you see it.

 

[zyzygy]

To borrow from Jack Nicholson's character, you can't handle the truth, much less recognize it when you see it.

I like that CT cliché. It always makes me laugh.

 

[Tigerace117]

Well, well, well. I do ask you something. of course you can't deliver and then you start blaming me, and calling me scared?

Really looks like projection now, eh?!

I have seen enough.

Why should I "deliver"? You brought it up; its your place to make the argument. Stop trying to get me to do your own work for you.

 

[Tigerace117]

To borrow from Jack Nicholson's character, you can't handle the truth, much less recognize it when you see it.

How original.

I'm perfectly fine with the truth. Want me to explain to you what it is? Obviously you don't even have a nodding acquaintance with it.

 

[Tigerace117]

circular again. you seem to assume a lot and research very little.

Says the guy who very rarely, if ever links sources, and when he does its always sites which are extremely weak in terms of credibility.

 

[Mark F]

To borrow from Jack Nicholson's character, you can't handle the truth, much less recognize it when you see it.

What truth is that exactly?

Since Pin can't, I wonder if perhaps you can tell us the logical fallacies in Tigerace117's recent posts that Pin is so sure exist but can't identify.

 

[Bodi]

I do trust it much more then mainstream ****.

AND I have seen other sources finding these same things

wikipedia is, among others, controlled by the c.i.a

Just because it's not mainstream doesn't mean it's right. This is becoming a serious problem in our culture.

Wikipedia is so dubious. There are so many examples of bias that it begs the question: Is it disinformation?

 

[Bodi]

Some people refuse to see it even when it is right there...tiger ace just likes to throw around ad Homs instead of debate.

To borrow from Jack Nicholson's character, you can't handle the truth, much less recognize it when you see it.

Says the guy who very rarely, if ever links sources, and when he does its always sites which are extremely weak in terms of credibility.