LOOK AT WHAT THIS ONE LIBERAL SAID!!!!

It seems you made a generalization. I made a list of the fallacies that are used, by evolutionists, & that is one of them. I did not say that all evolutionists believe this, as you said i did. This is a common fallacy, & i have personally seen it used in this forum. I see this fallacy used more as a tactic, rather than revealing any true 'beliefs'. So, about your generalization about my post.. what was you motive for that? Why are you trolling your own thread with 'science!' deflections? You think you can 'poison the well' for my credibility by smearing me as a 'science denier!'? Isn't that just a caricature? A 'generalization' used to demean? You did not present any scientific evidence in that thread, so how can you now criticize the premise of it?

and btw, yesterday i did see another fallacy, that was listed in that thread.

this is more of an 'appeal to authority' fallacy, but it works about the same way. It evades presenting any evidence for an argument or belief, by using appeals of 'common knowledge!' or 'all smart people believe this!'

But you, evidently, don't believe that anyone uses fallacies in the 'science' debates about origins?

 

Since you want to cherry pick some points from an old, long, closed for length thread, i thought it would be good to present part of it, in context, to see what was being said.. that way, if everyone is tired of lamenting right wing overgeneralizations, they can debate origins...

1. False Equivalence. We can observe simple variability within an organism. Colored moths adapt to changing tree bark. Rabbits adapt to their surroundings. This is an observable, repeatable science, also known as 'micro evolution'. The fallacy is in making an equivalence between minor changes in physical traits, to extrapolating large changes in the genetic structure. But that is NOT observed, & cannot be tested. It is a false equivalence, to equate minor changes in micro evolution with the major ones in macro evolution.
2. Argument of Authority. 'All really smart people believe in the ToE.' This is not a scientific proof, but an argument of authority, as if truth were a democratic process. Real science must be proved, via the scientific method, not merely declared by elites.
3. 'Everybody believes this!' This is an attempt to prove something by asserting it is common knowledge. It is obviously not true, anyway, as many people do not believe in the ToE, in spite of decades of indoctrination from the educational system, public television, & other institutions intent on promoting this ideology.
4. The infinite monkey theorem. 'Given enough time, anything is possible.' is the appeal here. If you have infinite monkeys, typing on infinite typewriters (lets update this to computers!), eventually you would get the works of Shakespeare, etc. This is an appeal to measure the ToE with probability, rather than observable science. We still cannot observe or repeat the basic claims of the ToE, so the belief that anything is possible, given enough time is merely that: A belief.
5. Ad Hominem. This is a favorite on the forums. If you cannot answer someone's arguments, you can still demean them & call them names. It is an attempt to discredit the person, rather than deal with the science or the arguments.
6. Argument by Assertion. Instead of presenting evidence, assertions are repeated over & over, as if that will make up for the impotence of the arguments.
7. Argument from Ignorance. This is claiming that evolution is true, because it has not been proven false. But the burden of proof is on the claimant, not the skeptic, to prove their claims. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" ~Marcello Truzzi
8. Circular Reasoning. This is the argument that evolution is true, because we see all the variety of living things that have evolved. It is using the assumption of evolution to prove itself. Taxonomic classifications are often used in this manner.
9. Equivocation. This is similar to the false equivalence. It is using the terms 'evolution' when talking about variability within an organism, & changing the context to macro evolution. It is comparing horizontal diversity in an organism to vertical diversity in the DNA. But one is obviously visible & repeatable, while the other is not.
10. Correlation proves Causation. This attempts to use similarity of appearance (looks like) as proof of descendancy. But morphological similarity can often display wide divergence in the DNA, with no evidence there was every a convergence.

I can start a 'part 2' thread on this, if you really want to address these points. But this thread was already one of the longest running threads in this forum.

 

You said:
"I made a list of the fallacies that are used, by evolutionists, & that is one of them."
"This is a common fallacy, & i have personally seen it used in this forum."

A generalization doesn't have to be about 100% of the population, it can simply be, "I saw two people do this therefore its every common among this type of person." You can start by showing that even a single evolutionist believes that "everyone believes in evolution." You then have to show that these belief is common, and that would be easy to do since it should just be everywhere in evolutionist literature in talkorigins, wikipedia, evolutionist youtube channels, scientists, textbooks, lectures, media articles, and more. You seem to indicate in your OP that these "fallacies" are in textbooks which means that they are official teachings of evolution as dictated by scientists and educators since that is where the content of textbooks comes from.

 

Trying to change the topic to try to make me address all of these supposed "fallacies" all at once are we? Lets stick to the "everyone believes this" claim. I want to see if you can dredge up just a single example of an evolutionist saying this to you or this being in an actual textbook.

 

Adding the most recent updates:
Yes, Antifa is the moral equivalent of neo-Nazi by Wehrwolfen
http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/yes-antifa-is-the-moral-equivalent-of-neo-nazi.513567/
Conservative claims that since a few counter-protesters attacked some people all Antifa is morally equivalent to Neo-Nazis and apparently they are Neo-Communist as well.

Fallacies of Evolution by usfan
http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/fallacies-of-evolution.490664/
Conservative makes up a bunch of unsupported claims on what evolutionists believe based on what he claims to have heard or misrepresented from random people on the internet.

Fallacies of Evolution Redux by ChemEngineer
http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/fallacies-of-evolution-redux.504291/
Another conservative re-posts the arguments made by the "Fallacies of Evolution" thread mentioned above.

Leftist Arrogance by Wehrwolfen
http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/fallacies-of-evolution.490664/
Among other things this conservative accuses democrats of being communist

 

Sorry, but putting your trust in scientific consensus, is not 'appeal to authority' since scientists ARE the authority. Seriously, look this stuff up.

 

Another thread about Antifa:
ARE THE ANTIFA TERRORISTS? FEDS HAVE REPORTEDLY CLASSIFIED THEIR ACTIVITIES AS ‘DOMESTIC TERRORIST by US Conservative
http://politicalforum.com/index.php...eir-activities-as-‘domestic-terrorist.513806/
Conservative claims that because some violence has involved anti-protesters that all anti-facist groups are terrorist organizations.

 

You really need to do more research on this. Antifa have proven themselves to be a totally fascistic collection of terrorists. It's not just a few of them. You really need to learn more before making such obviously ill-informed pronouncements.

 

I haven't read any definitive proof of who flamed ACLU about this. Until I hear otherwise, I will continue to believe it was 4chan members, or such, having fun.

 

You can't just lump in every anti-facist counter-protester with the most violent anti-free speech commies. You just can't. Thats like lumping all Trump supporters in with the white supremacists.

 

OK... You are correct. It appears that you misunderstood my post, somehow. I didn't do that.

Antifa are a distinct set. They are not protesters. They are terrorists.

 

Some are terrorists, others are just far-left hotheads.

 

'...trend among conservatives...'

You just did what you're complaining about...

Though I totally agree, I must point out that this dynamic gets me labeled as a white supremicist/neonazi/fascist.

In the immortal words... "from all sides."

Not just conservatives.

 

I have decided that the below threads aren't an example of generalization like I previously thought. This is because so many of these Antifa groups have violence as part of their code.

Yes, Antifa is the moral equivalent of neo-Nazi by Wehrwolfen
http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/yes-antifa-is-the-moral-equivalent-of-neo-nazi.513567/
Conservative claims that since a few counter-protesters attacked some people all Antifa is morally equivalent to Neo-Nazis and apparently they are Neo-Communist as well.

ARE THE ANTIFA TERRORISTS? FEDS HAVE REPORTEDLY CLASSIFIED THEIR ACTIVITIES AS ‘DOMESTIC TERRORIST by US Conservative
http://politicalforum.com/index.php...eir-activities-as-‘domestic-terrorist.513806/
Conservative claims that because some violence has involved anti-protesters that all anti-facist groups are terrorist organizations.​

However I did find a thread which is a good example:
Those that dont remember history repeat it ---look at this by logical1
http://politicalforum.com/index.php...member-history-repeat-it-look-at-this.513962/
Conservative generalized the violent actions of some violent members in Antifa with the left and the democratic party.

 

You can't have it both ways. You cannot make that kind of generalization and then distance modern Antifa from their roots. It's belies credibility. So, which is it? Modern idiots with flags not Nazi, like you said for Antifa? Or do they both represent the worst of their historic roots?

 

See this post:
http://politicalforum.com/index.php...ne-liberal-said.513730/page-2#post-1067967853

 

Which doesn't say anything useful, does it? You made a generalization that suggested that Antifa are not representations of their historic roots. The post id'ed doesn't disqualify your previous statement, in fact it solidifies that for you, you're fine with those "hotheads" because why? You support them? while you don't wish to inherent their historically violent roots? I'd say that is entirely hypocritical, and reserves a special distinction not in evidence by either their actions, or your perception of them. In this, you fail.

Given your logic, Trump was entirely right in his assessment of Charlottesville, no? I'm sure you won't see that you've committed the same sin, but try that on, cause it seems to fit.

 

The revised added fallacies are:
Fallacies of Evolution by usfan
http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/fallacies-of-evolution.490664/
Conservative makes up a bunch of unsupported claims on what evolutionists believe based on what he claims to have heard or misrepresented from random people on the internet.

Fallacies of Evolution Redux by ChemEngineer
http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/fallacies-of-evolution-redux.504291/
Another conservative re-posts the arguments made by the "Fallacies of Evolution" thread mentioned above.

Leftist Arrogance by Wehrwolfen
http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/leftist-arrogance.513855/
Among other things this conservative accuses democrats of being communist

Those that dont remember history repeat it ---look at this by logical1
http://politicalforum.com/index.php...member-history-repeat-it-look-at-this.513962/
Conservative generalized the violent actions of some violent members in Antifa with the left and the democratic party.

Margaret Sanger said we need to exterminate the negro population by logical1
http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/margaret-sanger-said-we-need-to-exterminate-the-negro-population.513845/
Conservative generalizes the racist beliefs of a single woman's rights activist in 1900 to something the left should logically support to be internally consistent.

 

I must be old.

I've seen this on forums since Gore Cracked a bottle @ Teh Launch of the Webz.

Started really ramping up, right around '08.

 

I didn't generalize antifa, My mistake was that I didn't generalize when I should have done so.

No, I don't support Antifa or any of their violence.

Trump was partially right but he should have made more of distinction between general counter-protesters and Antifa which are more violent and radical groups. He should have also immediately made it clear that he condemns racism and white nationalism. Presidents are responsible for delivering a good message to the nation at times of crisis and it is important that the message not have big holes. He has speech writers for this so I don't see why this is so hard for him to make decent speeches.

 

New Arrival!!!
Where Progressives are going with the statue removals by Brewskier
http://politicalforum.com/index.php...es-are-going-with-the-statue-removals.512416/
Conservative claims that since liberals want to take down Confederate statues that means they want to take down statues of the founding fathers and get rid of the constitution. He tries to support the claim that they want to take down statues of the founding fathers because Al Sharpton apparently wants to.

 

Is there anything liberals like about America? by Super21
http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/is-there-anything-liberals-like-about-america.514118/
Conservative claims that liberals "hate our race, our culture, our government, our institutions, and most of our laws." He also claims that liberals "believe our white European culture is racist." This is based on zero evidence the OP provides to lump in all liberals in to this extreme level of negativity.

 

Regressive liberal ROE


1. Demand a link or an explanation of the truth they are objecting to.

2. Promptly reject all explanations as right wing lies. Smoke spin deflect

3. Ignore any facts presented.

4. Ridicule spelling and typos, punctuation.

5. Attack the person as being juvenile, ie: "are you 12 years old", question their education, intelligence, Age

6. Employ misdirection,

6a. smear people

6b. attack religion

6c. attack their rationality.

7. Lie, make false assumptions

8. Play race/gender card/misogynist card

9. Play gay/lesbian card

10. Play the Nazi/Fascist/bigot card

11. Make up stuff/So you got nothing?

12. Deny constantly

13. Reword and repeat

14. Pretending not to understand, playing ignorant/what did I lie about

15. When losing, resort to personal attacks.

16. Russia

17. Fox News/Alex Jones/Brietbart/infowars/Stormfront/Gateway/hannity

18. You can’t read.

19. Trump Trump Trump TrumpTrump Trump