|
Nintendo Kid posted:Yous till haven't explained why it's relevant that flight 93 did not hit a building. Based on his truth tree it doesn't seem to be relevant except that it motivated the tree. I think you could draw a similar truth tree without that proposition which makes the same overall assertion. (if I understood it correctly in my last post)
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 00:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 08:43 |
|
|
My chart is supurior because yours is just a bunch of literals. I only use one literal, 2 disjunctives, and three conditionals, with the assumption that we have more conditionals (more official story) that we have to swallow.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 00:17
|
|
|
AddMEonFacebook posted:My chart is supurior because yours is just a bunch of literals. I only use one literal, 2 disjunctives, and three conditionals, with the assumption that we have more conditionals (more official story) that we have to swallow. None of your assertions follow from the fact that no buildings were hit by Flight 93. Please explain.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 00:20
|
|
|
Krotera posted:So if I'm understanding, starting from the given that no plane hit the building, then if you believe the official story you have a lot of things to explain (represented by the huge list of propositions above 'Truther') that you don't have to explain if you express skepticism of the official story? He's explicitly constructed a scenario in which all the variables which require proving are on the "official story" side, so he can say "but if I just don't accept those things have been proven then trutherism is correct". The exact same tree could be constructed except with the burden of proof on the truther side (eg instead of "Terrorists Decided To Attack The WTC" the variable is "The Government Decided To Attack The WTC") and come to the opposite conclusion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 00:20
|
|
|
BBJoey posted:He's explicitly constructed a scenario in which all the variables which require proving are on the "official story" side, so he can say "but if I just don't accept those things have been proven then trutherism is correct". The exact same tree could be constructed except with the burden of proof on the truther side (eg instead of "Terrorists Decided To Attack The WTC" the variable is "The Government Decided To Attack The WTC") and come to the opposite conclusion. I feel the same way, but I don't want to say it until I know that what I wrote is what he meant.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
Krotera posted:So if I'm understanding, starting from the given that no plane hit the building, then if you believe the official story you have a lot of things to explain (represented by the huge list of propositions above 'Truther') that you don't have to explain if you express skepticism of the official story? All the negations above the truther are just a result of there being other variables. We don't really need to go down the road of deciding which terroist group is was if we don't think it was terrorists and we know it was planned by government officials in coordination with the planners, which is essentially the G in that tree. I hesitate again to call it government, when I really mean something closer to the former.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
 Here's the tree, again. All I'm demonstrating is logical thinking. The government pawns and story believers will say anything to discredit me. They even say proven logic is false and mock learning.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
BBJoey posted:He's explicitly constructed a scenario in which all the variables which require proving are on the "official story" side, so he can say "but if I just don't accept those things have been proven then trutherism is correct". The exact same tree could be constructed except with the burden of proof on the truther side (eg instead of "Terrorists Decided To Attack The WTC" the variable is "The Government Decided To Attack The WTC") and come to the opposite conclusion. You're right. I was deliberate in the construcion of the premises. I could use a wide array of set premises.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
AddMEonFacebook posted:I already explained. It starts with the literal that no plane hit the building. In other words, your line of logic begins with an easily disproven assumption. That's normal for a conspiracy theorist I suppose
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 00:26
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:In other words, your line of logic begins with an easily disproven assumption. That's normal for a conspiracy theorist I suppose Nonsense, everyone knows Flight 93 didn't hit the White House. I don't know why he thinks that's so important though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:In other words, your line of logic begins with an easily disproven assumption You could disprove it, but it didn't get hit by a plane. We just need start with some common ground only.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 00:28
|
|
|
AddMEonFacebook posted:You're right. I was deliberate in the construcion of the premises. I could use a wide array of set premises. Doesn't that make it disingenuous to say that you've proven there's a flaw in the reasoning, though, when you've shifted the burden of proof in a way that most people wouldn't agree is reasonable? Doesn't that just leave you in a position where you have to explain why the burden of proof is really on your opponent, so you still have much more to prove? Krotera fucked around with this message at 00:30 on Nov 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 00:28
|
|
|
*sigh* This thread is legitimately awesome whenever there's a Prester John post. Then as soon as he leaves to go eat/drink/sleep/have a life it devolves into this circlejerk. Prester John, come back! Start talking about the horrors of truck driving even! Either that, or someone start crossposting the crazier poo poo from the e-mail forward thread here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 00:30
|
|
|
Krotera posted:Doesn't that make it disingenuous to say that you've proven there's a flaw in the reasoning, though, when you've shifted the burden of proof in a way that most people wouldn't agree is reasonable? I appreciate your actually thinking about this. I think it does place the burdon of proof more squarely on the evidence, and it comes down to who you think you can trust if you are not getting the evidence first-hand. Why, though, would you just believe everything the government tells you? It's just a natural reaction that people don't want to believe they are being lied to, and have been lied to, and they bought it, so people will believe that story, but come on, it's not true.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 00:37
|
|
|
AddMEonFacebook posted:You could disprove it, but it didn't get hit by a plane. We just need start with some common ground only. There's video evidence that both tower 1 and tower 2 were hit by planes. Are you talking about tower 7? Because your handwriting is garbage if that's supposed to be a 7
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 00:37
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:There's video evidence that both tower 1 and tower 2 were hit by planes. Ya it says building 7, sorry that it's hard to read.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 00:39
|
|
|
I picked a hell of a thread to bookmark and come back to months later.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 00:41
|
|
|
Here are all of AddMEonFacebook's recent posts related to his logic chartAddMEonFacebook posted:IT's pretty garbage handwritting, I admit. I just have bad handwriting, but it's far from meaningless. In fact it shows exactly the flaw in the logic of people who believe the official story. AddMEonFacebook posted:That's the logic truth tree people have been clamoring for, too. Stop trolling me please Popular Thug Drink. AddMEonFacebook posted:Haha, that was just a coincidence! I used Q R S just as variables. The other letters are statements like it starts out with the literal that there was no plane, then so either there was a bomb or it collapsed. AddMEonFacebook posted:They are great for when you have a consufing set of premises to test whether they are consistent. I essentially wrote that one out on purpose so it wouldn't be inconsistent. It's also far from complete. AddMEonFacebook posted:I already explained. It starts with the literal that no plane hit the building. Then, if you believe the official story, you really have to buy a lot of un-evidenced premises. I think the logic demonstrates this pretty clearly. I think a five-year old can understand it. Your unwillingness to learn is what's holding you beack, not your ability, for most of you. This is easy stuff. AddMEonFacebook posted:I made two other posts explaining the variables. All in all, you've stated the definition of a single variable: "~P" means "not plane", and then from your other posts we can infer that C and B must mean "collapse" and "bomb". Where's the rest? What's L, R, T, Q, O, B, and S? What do you mean by C, specifically? That the building collapsed on its own, or that it could have been hit by falling debris from another building and then collapsed?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
The later variables relate to the offical story or some other possibility Q, R, S L being some like Al-Queda did it or what you said that it was debris from the other towers, which was caused by al-Quada, and that already gets us to the end of the chart, but it could be extended with another premise like there were high-jackers ordered by bin-laden, B.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 00:50
|
|
|
Can you please spell out what the later variables actually mean instead of making me guess?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 00:52
|
|
|
T was terrorist, but I'll revise T to debris, L to Terrorists, and B to Al-Queda in particular, ordered by bin-laden.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 00:55
|
|
|
AddMEonFacebook posted:T was terrorist, but I'll revise T to debris, L to Terrorists, and B to Al-Queda in particular, ordered by bin-laden.  if you can just randomly reassign the values of variables, then it's not very logical, is it?Look, understanding that debris hit Tower 7 (we have video evidence of this) does not take a stretch in logic or require any leaps in logic. We know for a fact that debris hit Tower 7. That immediately eliminates the other branches of your tree, which by your own logic means that truthers are incorrect.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 00:58
|
|
|
AddMEonFacebook posted:T was terrorist, but I'll revise T to debris, L to Terrorists, and B to Al-Queda in particular, ordered by bin-laden. So you agree bin laden did 9/11. Nice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 00:58
|
|
|
AddMEonFacebook posted:I made two other posts explaining the variables. No you said what the literal was. I want to know what each variable represents specifically. He has since done this. It's still moronic BENGHAZI 2 fucked around with this message at 01:13 on Nov 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 01:11
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:
Actually, that's kind of how logic is supposed to work. Crazy, I know. oh, and if you say so.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 01:16
|
|
|
AddMEonFacebook posted:Actually, that's kind of how logic is supposed to work. Crazy, I know. I'm glad you agree that Bin Laden did 9/11.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 01:17
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:I'm glad you agree that Bin Laden did 9/11. I'm not so sure.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 01:18
|
|
|
AddMEonFacebook posted:My chart is supurior because yours is just a bunch of literals. I only use one literal, 2 disjunctives, and three conditionals, with the assumption that we have more conditionals (more official story) that we have to swallow.  nopeusing a bunch of clever sounding  or textbook notations is worse than useless unless you understand what you're doing (hint: you don't understand what you're doing)AddMEonFacebook posted:T was terrorist, but I'll revise T to debris, L to Terrorists, and B to Al-Queda in particular, ordered by bin-laden. that's not how logic works you dumb poo poo e: another protip - if you can't put your plot into words (walk the audience through it step by step in a logical  and consistent way, or at least through a general outline if it's too complicated which i'm pretty sure your plot isn't) it means you don't understand your own plotmuch like you don't understand anything else about the world suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 01:22 on Nov 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 01:19
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
AddMEonFacebook posted:I'm not so sure. Your chart proved it
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 01:19
|
|
|
AddMEonFacebook posted:I already explained. It starts with the literal that no plane hit the building. Then, if you believe the official story, you really have to buy a lot of un-evidenced premises. I think the logic demonstrates this pretty clearly. I think a five-year old can understand it. Your unwillingness to learn is what's holding you beack, not your ability, for most of you. This is easy stuff. I think you'll find that t; and furthermore, Σ.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 01:21
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Your chart proved it It proves that the official story relies on a series of contentious premises.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
blowfish posted:
Use better grammar if you want me to reply.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 01:24
|
|
|
AddMEonFacebook posted:It proves that the official story relies on a series of contentious premises. but you forgot µ checkmate you KGB holdover 
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 01:25
|
|
|
The ignore feature doesn't work if you all keep quoting him and responding. Whether he's an act or not he's still just desperate for attention and wasting everyone's time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 01:31
|
|
|
AddMEonFacebook posted:I'm not so sure. Then why did you post a logic tree that explicitly shows this? As usual, conspiracy theorists are just disappointing. "HERE'S THE UNDENIABLE TRUTH, BEHOLD AS I PULL THE WOOL FROM OVER YOUR EYES *takes a dump on a table*"
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 01:32
|
|
|
AddMEonFacebook posted:Use better grammar if you want me to reply. but i did in a previous post already and you still didn't reply my logical conclusion from this observation (that you lied) is that you attended a bohemian grove meeting with the shadow government of the world to plan the new world order   pictured: mind controlled subject about to destroy the world as you know it
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 01:35
|
|
|
AddMEonFacebook posted:It proves that the official story relies on a series of contentious premises. No, it proves it happened. Stil don't know why you think Flight 93 not hitting a building proves anything though. Jack Gladney posted:The ignore feature doesn't work if you all keep quoting him and responding. Whether he's an act or not he's still just desperate for attention and wasting everyone's time. Nerd spotted.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 01:39
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Nerd spotted. Please continue feeding the I mean he probably needs professional help but sadly we're not his family so I don't see how we can drag his rear end to the nearest psychiatrist and I don't see us convincing him to go have his head checked 
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 01:43
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:No, it proves it happened. Stil don't know why you think Flight 93 not hitting a building proves anything though. It's one thing to clown on Kyoon when he posts a nutso thread, but this one has been really informative and fun and it's really getting shitted up hardcore.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 01:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 08:43 |
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:It's one thing to clown on Kyoon when he posts a nutso thread, but this one has been really informative and fun and it's really getting shitted up hardcore. We could make a new conspiracy theorist thread and rename this one BlockMeonFacebook Appreciation Station. Speaking of which, I've gotten facebook conspiracy theorists to block me instead  (Did you know that ~the WEST~ wants to go nuclear and that is why East Ukraine happened?)
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 01:54
|
|