Random
Source Code
Random
In political debates, when someone asserts an opinion that cannot be supported by evidence--usually something that has been debunked by fact-checkers for several years and is often in Alex Jones territory--we should respond that we're not obligated to "debate your imagination".
You claimed President Obama is a Muslim born in Kenya as a Manchurian Candidate in order to ruin the Constitution, confiscate all guns, lock up Christians in FEMA camps, and usher in the reign of the Anti-Christ, but you haven't shown evidence that it is a reality that exists outside your own head. Why do you think we're required to debate your imagination?
When a political ideology that should still be on the fringe of civilized society for its extreme views drifts into the mainstream because people in certain positions of power lack their own ideas, those fringe ideas move into the mainstream of one political party, creating a fringestream.
Asking the newly-elected president to provide multiple copies of his birth certificate, college transcripts, a rundown of everyone he's ever met, a blood sample, a polygraph, and a note from his mother would be dismissed without prejudice if the president in question were white. However, since President Obama is our country's first black president, Birtherism has become fringestream.
2👍 1👎
When someone on social media wants to say something, especially in politics on Facebook and Twitter, but doesn't know enough to make a reasonable argument, s/he will often string a few words together followed by five or six hashtags, believing that they've won the argument.
"Hillary is the most corrupt politician everrrrr. #feelthebern #bernieorbust #birdiesanders #hillno"
If that hashtag word salad is the best you can do, you've lost the argument.
4👍 3👎
A belief that everything in the known universe revolves around you, marked by a lack of empathy for others, a primal need to be worshiped, a persecution complex, and burning desire to turn any discussion not involving you back to you, making being a functional representative of other people impossible. It is common for someone in this place to bring up irrelevant, if minor past glories and create an alternate reality as a distraction from the present moment, attacking others as a defense mechanism against the inevitable cognitive dissonance.
The people who voted in 2016 for Donald Trump thought they were electing a successful businessman who was capable of sober, rational thought and out-of-the-box thinking and would be able to fix the problems in Washington. They underestimated the magnitude of his trumpiocentrism and the rest of us are watching in horror as the man falls into madness. We can only hope Mueller completes his investigation and puts an end to this sad chapter in American history before Trump brings the rest of the country and world down with him.
Reductio al Gore is the argument tactic of dismissing all the science and evidence in support of man's contribution to climate change by invoking the name of Al Gore. It is a type of logical fallacy.
"I don't care that 97% of climate scientists support climate change because Al Gore makes money and I don't like Al Gore. Therefore, climate change is a hoax."
"Is that the best you can do? You don't have evidence, just a Reductio al Gore."
When used in an argument, a person takes various scraps of talking points and tosses them together into a bowl, then tries to pass the word salad as a cogent argument.
In discussing the Boston Bombings and the Republican Congressmen who should understand the Constitution as pertains to the rights of American citizens, a commenter referred to the president as "Obummer" and said that the article about Republican Congressmen should have been entitled "Obama doesn't understand the Constitution" because the borders are not secure and Mexican drug cartels get guns. The comment has nothing to do with the article and can be dismissed as argumentum ad saladbar.