• afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    1 year ago

    These are rhetoric tricks. Refusing to defend your viewpoint and trying to use carrot+stick.

    Why not answer my question? It will be easier than bring out stuff that would have been caught that easily.

    • pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It’s the truth. It’s like asserting that because I can’t give the scientific explanation for why the grass is green, it must not be, while I am pointing at the grass on the ground and showing you its color.

      Again, it’s up to you to be willing to accept the reality in front of you and what has been happening innthis country for decades together. It’s up to you to be willing to overcome your own pride to save yourself and your family from what’s coming. I can only lead you to water. It is you who must choose to drink. Choose wisely. Your family depends on it.

        • pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I’m giving an analogy to demonstrate why his basis for denialism is wrong. He demands a scientific explanation for why an easily observable phenomenon is the way it is in order to accept what his eyes see. It’s not enough for him to look at something and see it for what it is.

          As in he needs to be told why the grass is green to accept that it is green. It’s not enough for him to just look at it and see for himself that it is, in fact, green.

          Replace “grass is green” with “civil war is happening”, and you’ll understand.

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        ’s like asserting that because I can’t give the scientific explanation for why the grass is green, it must not be, while I am pointing at the grass on the ground and showing you its color.

        Your analogy is false. We have as much data as we want that grass is green. We have no data about the future since it hasn’t happened yet. To predict the future to any degree we have to look at trends of the past and apply the scientific method to it.

        Again, it’s up to you to be willing to accept the reality in front of you

        Forgot the name for this one. It is when you assume the conclusion to get the conclusion. I know it’s a basic logical fallacy.

        I can only lead you to water.

        Ok your Cassandra/Jeremiah routine is wearing thin.

        Choose wisely. Your family depends on it.

        Bifurcation, and FUD.

        • Intralexical@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Forgot the name for this one. It is when you assume the conclusion to get the conclusion. I know it’s a basic logical fallacy.

          Tautology. Circular reasoning, if you will.

      • Intralexical@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        …Right. So, based entirely on faith, with nothing to substantiate it, and with a healthy dose of some weird Messianic complex.

        Also, as another commenter pointed out, we actually have surprisingly robust data affirming that yes, indeed, the spectral albedo of grass does show peaks in the 530-550nm range correlating to M-type cone photoreceptor cells­— I.E., Is green. Civil war isn’t the sort of thing you’re going to be able to pass off as self-evident.