This section has gone full blown retarded. I had my fun picking on the weak minded simpletons, but I'm getting bored of it and ready to find fun elsewhere.
But before I do, I'm going to lay it out exactly how participating in this section really goes.
Usually a thread is started, most of the time it's an alarmist type post full of doom and gloom, laden heavy with bias.
Inevitably someone will point out the dishonesty and bias of what was posted, often times followed by a quip of how gullible so many folks are for believing it. In reality, it's often deserved, as some of these stories are extremely outlandish and border on insanity.
So is the actual information ever questioned by those who blindly believe it? Of course not. Instead, the reaction is to bristle up and go on the defensive, which usually immediately is taken into name-calling, bashing, etc.
What is sad is how when obvious and indisputable facts are presented, and there is no way to overcome the logic of a sound argument, the wingnut behavior takes over. That behavior is best illustrated by the following video clip. Note that when an indisputable fact is presented, the irrational behavior that follows from the other party is nothing more than a ridiculous response:
And that's how thread after thread after thread after thread evolve. Nothing ever changes. There are those who constantly feel they must remain divided, and will do everything in their power to label others as being extremists in the opposite direction..... logic, rational thought, facts, and common sense be damned. Nothing more than boiling down to "I'm a better American/Patriot than you, and let me demean you as much as I can to prove it".
So, let me lay out a guide to political arguments. This simply describes step-by-step how every political argument is approached by the resident wingnuts on this forum, and the irrationality that follows.
1) The Irrelevant Thesis:
This is the rebuttal that fails to address the central argument. It's a way to dodge a direct question by creating a new and separate argument. This also incorporates the addition of "two wrongs make a right" fallacy, which again distracts from the central argument, and dodges direct questioning.
2) The Fallacious Argument:
This is the rebuttal that does nothing more than attack the other party rather than addressing actual concerns, questions, or the central argument. Rather than debate the pros or cons of an argument, it's a tactic to call the opponent names and/or label them as extremists on one side or the other. The issue here is that the name calling and mud slinging, even if some or part of it may be true, still doesn't mean the opponent is wrong. Einstein could have been a sheep fukker, but that still doesn't dismiss his theory of relativity.
3) The Straw Man Argument:
This is where someone intentionally misrepresents their opponent's position. It is the idea of arguing with a man you just created out of straw. It doesn't actually exist, but you will argue with it anyway as if it were true. This also incorporates media where quotes are strategically recontextualized to seem far more sinister than they are and altered to appear to make points that were never intended by the original speaker.
4) The Slippery Slope:
This argument presupposes that one small step in any given direction will inevitably lead to an extreme outcome. This typically includes hyperbolic assumptions that this country is turning socialist or totalitarian, and that the next step will begin an irreversible process that will ensure this inevitable outcome.
5) The Unfalsifiable Hypothesis:
This is exactly how it sounds, a theory that cannot be disproved. An example would be solipsism, the idea that only you exist, and everything that is happening around you, everything you perceive, and everything you experience is all in your imagination. It is impossible to prove, thus an unfalsifiable hypothesis. This is typically seen in religious arguments. In politics, it often involves conspiracies. This argument typically utilizes the method of "special pleading" to validate the argument. This is where someone argues that skeptics just aren't open minded to the idea, and thus they can't relate.
6) The Fallacy of the Single Cause:
You can probably guess this one. It's where an argument places all blame or all praise on one singular cause. The problem with this argument is that often times there are multiple factors at play to produce the outcome. In addition, the "single cause" may have only played a very insignificant roll. But to the person arguing with this tactic, all other factors are beside the point, and thus ignored entirely. This is where arguments spawn such as the "right-wing media", the "liberal media", "education indoctrination", "the elitists", "big business", etc.
7) The Appeal to Motive:
This is pretty straightforward. It's the argument that someone is in a position or is doing something because of a singular motive. Often times it's a sinister motive, such as bringing about the destruction of the current status quo, often to the doom of the civilization as we know it. An argument that is typically a by-product of the appeal to motive is the "guilt by association". This invokes the typical "you're either with me, or against me".
8) The Argumentum ad Populum:
This is the argument that if enough people believe something, then it must be true. It's the idea that a larger group of people can't possibly be wrong. Often seen in religious arguments (there are so many believers of Christ, so it must be true. That many people can't be wrong), but often spills into political arguments as well. If something is popular enough, or if enough people believe it, then it must be true and there is no argument against it. This is also an argument that is widely used in news media.
9) The Argumentum ad Metum:
This one is a combination of a bunch of the above fallacies, as it can be an irrelevant thesis, an unfalsifiable hypothesis, an appeal to motive, and a slippery slope straw man argument, as in the example, "If we don't do X, the terrorists win." This argument typically resorts to fear-mongering, and often resorts to sensationalism and over-dramatization. These arguments typically play to people's emotions very strongly.
10) The Argumentum ad Nauseam:
This is the argument that is used over and over, time after time, even when the argument has been completely debunked and disproven. The idea here is that if people hear it enough, they may come to believe it eventually. Seen in politics often, such as the Birther conspiracy. No matter how many times it's debunked and proven as false, the Birther's come back in droves with the exact same arguments time and time again. This is where arguments in politics just never change.
I don't take credit for that list. I stole it like the thieving bastard I am.
However, it's very easy to go back into almost any political or religious thread, and see these illogical political arguments at work. They are repeated time and time and time again, without fail. This is why I'm bored playing this game. So now instead of pointing out the obvious in each individual thread and argument, I'm now pointing out the obvious of how this entire section functions overall. When you read that list, then stop and think about it, these arguments have gone full retard.
So with that said, I'm not going to disappear from this section forever. I'm just going to take a step back on how often I read/post here. Don't worry, I'll still be an a$$hole, that's for certain. For I would rather look like a jerk than an idiot. So when I do decide to grace everyone with my presence, and give you the privilege of allowing you to read my thoughts online, be assured they will reside in the form of absolute sarcasm and mockery.