|
crazyml -> RE: Never Forget! Sept 11th, A Day of Infamy (10/21/2014 12:34:17 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
quote:
ORIGINAL: thishereboi
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
RealOne, give it up...they don't care. Far too many Americans don't care about what really happened on 9/11.
Awww, don't be like that. I care. Really I do. So tell me what really happened on 9/11?
Do you realize that your demand upon someone who disagrees with the governments attempt to establish the 'facts' serves not as a legitimate premise but rather as a psychological assault and [argument] fallacy?
Nope. But I do realise that you don't understand the concept of argumentum ad ignorantiam.
The government has provided facts. In the form of evidence and testimony. It has drawn conclusions from those facts. Now, those facts may not be true, or the conclusions may be bogus, but the assertion has been made is supported by argument and evidence.
The statement "Far too many Americans don't care about what really happened on 9/11." is an assertion that, itself, depends on argumentum ad ignoratiam.
quote:
Its a well known and understood fallacy that has been weaponized to shut down criticism much like the term 'conspiracy theorist' developed by the CIA to ward off anyone who did not fall in line with the governments negligent investigation and complicit actions in the kennedy assassination.
Inappropriate shifting the burden of proof is a fallacy;
"Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat" the burden of proof is on the person [government] who makes the claim, not on the person who denies (or questions the claim).
It is a particular case of the "argumentum ad ignorantiam" fallacy, here the burden is shifted on the person defending against the assertion.
The assertion is that there is a conspiracy. The application of "argumentum ad ignorantiam" is in the hands of the person making that assertion. You are attempting to engage a logical fallacy to shut down a very reasonable enquiry as to the evidence that supports the consipiracy claim.
quote:
Government agencies were chartered to establish the FACTS, hence 'they' or those who have accepted the governments premise as a fact, more importantly a 'true' substantial rendition of the event, and therefore step in to argue or affirm the governments position are required to prove the assertions they wish everyone to accept to accept as truth, NOT someone who denies the agencies assertions.
Your demand is paramount to asking someone to disprove the government claims illegally shifting the burden to proof to the skeptic.
No, you don't understand. The demand is actually paramount to asking someone making an assertion to defend that assertion.
quote:
The government has been shown to claim physical impossibilities as fact. Investigating 'what' 'who' 'why' something happened is not the job of the trier of fact, judging the validity of fact however is.
The government has provided facts that determine "what", "who" or "why", the government's position has to be challenged by challenging the validity of those "facts"
quote:
It is the job of the creator of fact to prove the fact, hence the government, or you if you have accepted the governments position as fact.
Otherwise why would you globally demand to know "what happened" from anyone who was not chartered to investigate the matter and is not privy to the vast information that is being withheld from the general public?
The scope of the trier of fact is binary and only needs to determine 'true', 'false', of each piece of data presented.
Ah, can you see now how you're making your argument from ignorance here?
You really ought to reflect a little on the meaning of the things you fetch from google, when you misapply terms it makes you look foolish.
|
|
|
|
