All that has nothing to do with the fact that every conversation you involve yourself in here ends with you blurting out something along the lines of "
UR DUM." This is nothing more than you continuing the pattern.
Aestu wrote:
I know what your response will be: rather than asking me to do so, you will insist those "facts" don't matter, that they aren't really "facts", to skew the historical events and personages that you don't really know anything about towards your own biased interpretation, then Google something up to support your position. (That, or give a flippant, punk-type excuse for not answering).
You start off with an old favorite that, much to your credit, you haven't trotted out in a while: NICE GOOGLE...
Aestu wrote:
First, it's a form of sophistry. Just because you can Google an isolated historical fact, obtuse editorial or biased interpretation that supports your position, does not invalidate the mountains of facts that hard-counter a factoid or debunk the implied claims in an opinion piece. The way that one becomes able to distinguish the exception from the rule is through broad knowledge - being generally well read.
...before we finally get to the obligatory "ur dum," AKA "you don't read," which of course is followed up by...
Aestu wrote:
Second, it's fundamentally biased. Educated people acquire a broad command of facts and information, compare and contrast different information and different perspectives, and from that disparate mass build an opinion that explains the overall picture. Doing the reverse - having an opinion, then Googling to find facts to support it - necessarily causes one's understanding of the world to bear only an incidental resemblance to reality. In essence you are viewing the world and everything in it, including the facts and reasoning of others, through a shard of a broken lens.
Third, it's shifting the burden of proof. Weena made broad generalizations about how he fantasizes the world works. But rather than cite reality to defend his claims, instead you insist the other side volunteer facts to debunk it, then try to defend the argument by way of the claim that it hasn't been conclusively debunked because you have some sort of retort. This is the same fallacy-based debate style used by creationists. Maybe we shouldn't be surprised that they are also identifiable as ignorant people.
...more "you don't read" with a side of "NICE GOOGLE." The only thing missing this round is "you don't read the right books," but that's probably because no one has responded and referenced any books and there's no need to toss that out since you're essentially just arguing with yourself here. Fortunately, you make up for it by...
Aestu wrote:
Anyway, go ahead. Fulfill my expectations as to how you will counter those "facts". Surprise me, or don't.
...ending with the foreshadowing of an impending "because I said so." If I were a code monkey I could probably write a program that would simulate talking to you. It would be like Cleverbot for masochists!
Your Pal,
Jubber
