The Cellar - View Single Post

Undertoad · 12-08-2009, 12:33 PM

Fine, I was being nice, let's try it this way.

Does your entire argument rest on these kinds of hypotheticals? Because that automatically shoots all kinds of holes in your thinking. Can you see how we can pretty much say "what if" followed by *anything* and make up an argument out of thin air? Can you see how, because of this, the words "what if" can never be used to form a logical, provable argument? Here, let me try:

WHAT IF the government created vaccines as a way to actually encourage disease, to make us all dependent on them in a sort of mass hysteria play? WHAT IF the Cellar is a tool to help get the right word out on it? WHAT IF Undertoad is a ploy in that game to try to rescue a situation that's failing rapidly? WHAT IF the government created polio as a way to further that scenario? WHAT IF the secret is on its way out and this is a last chance opportunity to keep it hidden? WHAT IF the CDC was created as a way to make people think the right information is in good hands? WHAT IF each new head of the CDC is indoctrinated in the right way? WHAT IF one of them decided not to go with the program and was assassinated? WHAT IF the rest of the CDC fell in line thinking they might be next? WHAT IF medicine is semi-aware of the problem and hospitals are part of a program to hide vaccine-related deaths? WHAT IF vaccine-related deaths are three times as common as we think? WHAT IF AIDS is part of the plot that kind of got away from them when they couldn't figure out a vaccine-based fix for it?

Naturally, we could go on all day with this kind of shit. And it wouldn't prove ANYTHING. If we wanted to address the above paragraph, we would have to address each What If entirely and provide proof that each What If was not true. But nobody can do that, because it's hard to impossible to prove the truth or falsehood of a hypothetical. And any hypothetical that's resolved can simply be replaced with another hypothethical. ("Of course the CDC wasn't created to make people think the information is in the right hands. But WHAT IF it evolved to that mission -- and nobody outside the government figured it out?")

And when you come to believe the hypotheticals, you are in effect creating your own truth out of thin air. When you do that, you become a little DUMBER EACH TIME. It's FAULTY THINKING. OK, OK, don't stop doing it because you'll be HAPPIER. Do it because you'll be SMARTER, and less worried about STUPID LITTLE CONCERNS that can keep you engaged in fighting shadows your whole life.

Better?

OR: let's try it another way. Your argument is But WHAT IF they aren't as safe as the government thought way back when there were only 3 or 4 of them commonly used?

My counter-argument: WHAT IF they're actually safer than they were back then?

Did I just "win"? Or did we just play a little rhetorical game and prove nothing?

12-08-2009, 12:33 PM	#3
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	Fine, I was being nice, let's try it this way. Does your entire argument rest on these kinds of hypotheticals? Because that automatically shoots all kinds of holes in your thinking. Can you see how we can pretty much say "what if" followed by anything and make up an argument out of thin air? Can you see how, because of this, the words "what if" can never be used to form a logical, provable argument? Here, let me try: WHAT IF the government created vaccines as a way to actually encourage disease, to make us all dependent on them in a sort of mass hysteria play? WHAT IF the Cellar is a tool to help get the right word out on it? WHAT IF Undertoad is a ploy in that game to try to rescue a situation that's failing rapidly? WHAT IF the government created polio as a way to further that scenario? WHAT IF the secret is on its way out and this is a last chance opportunity to keep it hidden? WHAT IF the CDC was created as a way to make people think the right information is in good hands? WHAT IF each new head of the CDC is indoctrinated in the right way? WHAT IF one of them decided not to go with the program and was assassinated? WHAT IF the rest of the CDC fell in line thinking they might be next? WHAT IF medicine is semi-aware of the problem and hospitals are part of a program to hide vaccine-related deaths? WHAT IF vaccine-related deaths are three times as common as we think? WHAT IF AIDS is part of the plot that kind of got away from them when they couldn't figure out a vaccine-based fix for it? Naturally, we could go on all day with this kind of shit. And it wouldn't prove ANYTHING. If we wanted to address the above paragraph, we would have to address each What If entirely and provide proof that each What If was not true. But nobody can do that, because it's hard to impossible to prove the truth or falsehood of a hypothetical. And any hypothetical that's resolved can simply be replaced with another hypothethical. ("Of course the CDC wasn't created to make people think the information is in the right hands. But WHAT IF it evolved to that mission -- and nobody outside the government figured it out?") And when you come to believe the hypotheticals, you are in effect creating your own truth out of thin air. When you do that, you become a little DUMBER EACH TIME. It's FAULTY THINKING. OK, OK, don't stop doing it because you'll be HAPPIER. Do it because you'll be SMARTER, and less worried about STUPID LITTLE CONCERNS that can keep you engaged in fighting shadows your whole life. Better? OR: let's try it another way. Your argument is But WHAT IF they aren't as safe as the government thought way back when there were only 3 or 4 of them commonly used? My counter-argument: WHAT IF they're actually safer than they were back then? Did I just "win"? Or did we just play a little rhetorical game and prove nothing?