• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Why truthers are dangerouse!

JihadJane said:
Truthers aren't dangerous.
Click to expand...
sylvan8798 said:
Tell that to the families of Richard Poplawski's victim's in Pittsburgh, and James von Brunn's victim's in Washington, JJ.
Click to expand...
JihadJane said:
Tell that to your logic teacher.
Click to expand...


UD/DD: People.
Tx: x is a Truther.
Dx: x is dangerous.
Lxy: x is y's logic teacher.
r: Richard Poplawski.
v: James von Brunn.
p: Par.
j: JihadJane.

  1. [∀x(Tx→¬Dx)→¬∃x(Tx∧Dx)]
  2. [(Tr∧Dr)∧(Tv∧Dv)]
  3. ∴∃x(Tx∧Dx)
  4. ∴¬[∀x(Tx→¬Dx)]
  5. ∴Lpj
 
Par said:
UD/DD: People.
Tx: x is a Truther.
Dx: x is dangerous.
Lxy: x is y's logic teacher.
r: Richard Poplawski.
v: James von Brunn.
p: Par.
j: JihadJane.

  1. [∀x(Tx→¬Dx)→¬∃x(Tx∧Dx)]
  2. [(Tr∧Dr)∧(Tv∧Dv)]
  3. ∴∃x(Tx∧Dx)
  4. ∴¬[∀x(Tx→¬Dx)]
  5. ∴Lpj
Click to expand...

Love it! Now if I where JJ I would demand a formal proof of one of those assertions. But since I believe the assertion in question is true I doubt JJ will be able to pinpoint it.
 
NutCracker said:
Love it! Now if I where JJ I would demand a formal proof of one of those assertions. But since I believe the assertion in question is true I doubt JJ will be able to pinpoint it.
Click to expand...

The assertion in question would follow logically if one of JJ's statements in this thread were added as an axiom. So even if JJ were capable of identifying the assertion in question, she could not deny its truth without being illogical.

Those of us who have not agreed with JJ's statement remain uncommitted on the assertion in question.

Well done, Par.

Will
 
Par said:
UD/DD: People.
Tx: x is a Truther.
Dx: x is dangerous.
Lxy: x is y's logic teacher.
r: Richard Poplawski.
v: James von Brunn.
p: Par.
j: JihadJane.

  1. [∀x(Tx→¬Dx)→¬∃x(Tx∧Dx)]
  2. [(Tr∧Dr)∧(Tv∧Dv)]
  3. ∴∃x(Tx∧Dx)
  4. ∴¬[∀x(Tx→¬Dx)]
  5. ∴Lpj
Click to expand...

Wow. I can't believe I understood that. That's what having kids in high school geometry does for you.
 
Par said:
UD/DD: People.
Tx: x is a Truther.
Dx: x is dangerous.
Lxy: x is y's logic teacher.
r: Richard Poplawski.
v: James von Brunn.
p: Par.
j: JihadJane.

  1. [∀x(Tx→¬Dx)→¬∃x(Tx∧Dx)]
  2. [(Tr∧Dr)∧(Tv∧Dv)]
  3. ∴∃x(Tx∧Dx)
  4. ∴¬[∀x(Tx→¬Dx)]
  5. ∴Lpj
Click to expand...


As I understood it, the OP uses "truthers" as a collective noun.

("Why truthers are dangerouse!")

I was certainly using it as a collective noun in my comment

("Truthers aren't dangerous.")

Your "logic" appears to have overlooked this.

Your equation also begs the question "What is a Truther?"



Humans are dangerous - discuss.
 
JihadJane said:
...Your "logic" appears to have overlooked this.
Click to expand...


You put logic in sneer quotes. If you think something’s logically wrong with it, then be specific about where.

JihadJane said:
Your equation also begs the question "What is a Truther?"
Click to expand...


Begging the question is where the conclusion is presupposed within the premises. I’ve not done that. Again, if you think I have, then be specific about where. Anyway, I think you mean “raises the question”. Again: Lpj.
 
The 9/11 truth movement is dangerous for the same reasons that Al-Queada is dangerous. They both take in disaffected angry types like Mohammaed Attah, Ziad Jarrah, Richard Poplawski and James Von Brunn. Both groups fill these peoples heads with paranoid fairy tales about how powerful people are secretly plotting to get them, and how the day will come when there will be a reckoning, showdown or some manner of conflict with these dark and secret forces. Both groups them turn these people loose after their brainwashing to follow their pseudo-beliefs to their logical conclusion.

Yes, Jane. Your movement propgrams people like Poplawski and Von Brunn to be killers. All on the basis of claims you know to be lies. After you are done here trying to be cute, you are going to tell someone else like Poplawski or Von Brunn that there is a secret cabal that is out to get them. And when they inevitably explode, you are going to bear a measure of responsibility for lighting their fuses.
 
RedIbis said:
That's what I want to know.
Click to expand...

As a for instance, a Truther is someone so blinded by ideology and the predetermined belief that 9/11 was an inside job, they ask idiotic questions about why a building not attacked by terrorists wasn't mentioned in a report about a terrorist attack, or they espouse the idiotic notion that three skyscrapers were brought down by explosives in front of thousands of people who happened not to notice.

A Truther could also be someone equally blinded by ideology and predetermined conclusions, but too cowardly to make arguments of their own, so instead resort to merely promoting the above mentioned idiotic arguments of others on Internet forums.
 
i would say as a whole truthers are no more dangerous than people who play first person shooter video games or listen to gangsta rap
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
The 9/11 truth movement is dangerous for the same reasons that Al-Queada is dangerous. They both take in disaffected angry types like Mohammaed Attah, Ziad Jarrah, Richard Poplawski and James Von Brunn. Both groups fill these peoples heads with paranoid fairy tales about how powerful people are secretly plotting to get them, and how the day will come when there will be a reckoning, showdown or some manner of conflict with these dark and secret forces. Both groups them turn these people loose after their brainwashing to follow their pseudo-beliefs to their logical conclusion.

Yes, Jane. Your movement propgrams people like Poplawski and Von Brunn to be killers. All on the basis of claims you know to be lies. After you are done here trying to be cute, you are going to tell someone else like Poplawski or Von Brunn that there is a secret cabal that is out to get them. And when they inevitably explode, you are going to bear a measure of responsibility for lighting their fuses.
Click to expand...

Thank you for writing this! You said it a lot better then me! :D
 
Hokulele said:
I was going to say, that must be why there were discrepencies between the various reports (FEMA, NIST, etc.). :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

That must also mean the North Tower impact was an accident because that's what Bush said the day of the attacks.
 
Par said:
You put logic in sneer quotes. If you think something’s logically wrong with it, then be specific about where.




Begging the question is where the conclusion is presupposed within the premises. I’ve not done that. Again, if you think I have, then be specific about where. Anyway, I think you mean “raises the question”. Again: Lpj.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I thought I was being very specific.

If we forget about defining "truther" for the moment, the premise that Sylvan8798's statement, "Tell that to the families of Richard Poplawski's victim's in Pittsburgh, and James von Brunn's victim's in Washington, JJ", supports would be something like "Two Truthers are dangerous", but certainly not the generalization "Truthers are dangerous".


911kongen said:
Thank you for writing this! You said it a lot better then me! :D
Sword_Of_Truth said:
The 9/11 truth movement is dangerous for the same reasons that Al-Queada is dangerous. They both take in disaffected angry types like Mohammaed Attah, Ziad Jarrah, Richard Poplawski and James Von Brunn. Both groups fill these peoples heads with paranoid fairy tales about how powerful people are secretly plotting to get them, and how the day will come when there will be a reckoning, showdown or some manner of conflict with these dark and secret forces. Both groups them turn these people loose after their brainwashing to follow their pseudo-beliefs to their logical conclusion.

Yes, Jane. Your movement propgrams people like Poplawski and Von Brunn to be killers. All on the basis of claims you know to be lies. After you are done here trying to be cute, you are going to tell someone else like Poplawski or Von Brunn that there is a secret cabal that is out to get them. And when they inevitably explode, you are going to bear a measure of responsibility for lighting their fuses.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Why didn’t you tell us earlier, 911kongen, that you were interested producing rubbish evangelical diatribe?

I wonder what our logical friends would make of Sword’s soup of misguided conjecture and unsubstantiated assertions.


Brainache said:
The NIST Report was released the same day as the attacks?
Click to expand...

The NIST reports did not change the already established Bush-talking-heads narrative.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom