egafd.com

I want to dispute everything that everyone has ever said here (even myself) and use ridiculous arguments like - "You claim there are millions of starving Africans. Well just name two of them!"

and

"You claim the Queen and the Prince Phillip are married. But did YOU actually witness the wedding certificate and have it verified by an independent expert?"

No, see you can't!!! Nah Nah Nah.

Deano!

The (kinda) inverse argument to the starving Africans case you highlight is a classic, too - one often used by the tabloids and loud-mouth "broadcasters"/columnists/pundits.....

It's where a person uses a case study or two (sometimes factual, sometimes twisted to suit their own needs) to make a point (often about asylum seekers, homosexuals, ethnic minorities, public sector workers et al) and then - using a mix of statistical tomfoolery, black magic and ignorance - then confirms this empirically proves the point they are making about thousands/millions/billions of other people and that there is no need whatsoever for any further debate.

It makes me laugh and dispair in equal measure.

alicia_fan_uk

I guess you only have to look at the appalling level of debate in political election campaigns to see how unpopular logical thinking is. What now passes for debating is often nothing more than shouting over each other with gems like "How can you have any opinion on abortion when you weren't aborted?".

Anyway I must be off to burn a witch. She weighs more than a duck, so she must be a witch.

If she denies being a witch, well, that's what a witch would say, ain't it? If she admits it, then case closed.

The first PM debate during the election campaign was a great example of "I met a man the other week and he (fill in example of "broken Britain" here)....". You can find examples to support pretty much whatever point you want to make.

I once saw a man touching himself on a bus....using such "logic" above, surely this is prima facie evidence to:
(i) ban men
(ii) ban buses
(iii) ban men on buses
(iv) introduce CCTV everywhere to catch such men on buses, exiting a bus, heading for a bus or otherwise planning or seeking to become involved in such activity in, around or even unconnected to buses
(v) ban the internet (through dropping in the suggestion that he was inspired to do this by some website or other)
(vi) reduce taxes (if the man had more money, he could afford private transport and so would not be found on buses)
(vii) ban all immigration (he looked "a bit foreign"...."bloody cheek, coming over here, wanking on our buses" etc)
(viii) claim social services/the authorities are to blame ("why the hell didn't social services stop this", ie as if they are omnipotent and omniscient....even after a huge efficiency saving/budget cut takes hold)
(ix) (insert whatever else you want here - yeah, pretty much anything, because bollocks to rational debate and discussion)

alicia_fan_uk

This the ideal time for someone to yell -

"You seem to spend a lot of time defending perverts on buses. So you think its OK for kiddie fiddlers to roam the streets then eh?"

A pervert doesn't equate to a kiddie fiddler. On a Venn diagram there would certainly be a cross-over area, but the two are certainly not mutually exclusive. I guess you are (rightly) making that point in jest....otherwise I am worried how my posts are coming across here!!!!

Plus, if they stick to buses then technically they are not "on the streets". This would allow a bold politician to claim "perverts are now off our streets....law abiding citizens can walk the streets free of this menace, thanks to the Lab/Lib/Con etc govt"!!!

Plus, there's CCTV cameras on all the local buses in my area, so the pervert would have to be (i) stupid (ii) an exhibitionist or (iii) both, if they were to pursue such interests.

Unless, of course, you mean "kiddie fiddlers" as in young people learning to play the violin or similar stringed instrument. They can roam the streets as they see fit, but they may get weighed down if carrying said instrument on longer journeys. But that's their prerogative.

alicia_fan_uk

alicia_fan_uk wrote:

> I guess you are
> (rightly) making that point in jest....otherwise I am worried
> how my posts are coming across here!!!!

I was completely joking. It was meant as an example of jumping to ridiculous assumptions and derailing a line of logical argument. I would have supplied a picture of a lynch mob waving pitch forks and flaming torches if I had one handy - but all I've got is gigabytes of nudie babes.

Sir,

Although I am 99.9% (nay, 100%) sure you are joking, I still believe my reputation has been sullied. Accordingly, expect to hear from my rottweilers/lawyers in due course as I plunder the country's favourable libel laws whilst they remain in their existing form.

NOTE: You have inadvertently revealed your assets (above) and I will drop this action in exchange for the gigabites of nudie babes. I'm a literal and metaphorical sucker for tits.

alicia_fan_uk