Comment by narrator | Hacker News Reader

Comment by narrator | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I think what broke the political dialog in this country is the whole hearted embrace of the association fallacy[1]. For example. I was talking with someone about COVID-19 and why it could have been released from a lab accidentally. The person I was talking with then accused me of believing in conspiracy theories. I then said many prominent people such as Tom Cotton and Mike Pompeo said this theory is credible. She then said that those are Trump supporters and "you know what those people are like." I said, no what? and then she said "They're like Timothy Mcvae" they are extremists. Implying that I was like Timothy Mcvae for believing ideas that Trump supporters also held.

I then, to show her the flaw in her reasoning, played guilt by association with her. That people denying this are parroting CCP propaganda and the CCP does all this horrible stuff. Why do you support all that horrible stuff? She got very emotional and burst into tears at the accussation.

I then explained the association fallacy, we made up and moved to other topics of conversation. However, this is a good percentage of arguments on reddit and most political forums and mainstream news. The association fallacy over and over and over again.

Nobody wants to have an information producing argument they just want to find out what team you're on by comparing your beliefs to "bad people" and "good people" and seeing which one you match the most with and then accusing you of being them.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

> I then said many prominent people such as [American politicians who stand to benefit from people supporting certain foreign policy positions] said this theory is credible.

Maybe that's the potential weakness in your reasoning she was trying to pick up on.

> She got very emotional and burst into tears at the accussation. I then explained the association fallacy,

I hope you also apologized.

Apart from that, I think your observation is mostly correct.

I'm not sure why it matters if prominent people believe in what is ostensibly a conspiracy theory. Alex Jones was prominent, but that doesn't mean chemicals in the water are turning frogs gay for example. In fact you should be placing more scrutiny on prominent people (politicians especially) for pushing such a thing, because usually they have an agenda they're trying to push.

The fact that you chose to accuse someone of denying such a thing as parroting CCP propaganda indicates either your story is entirely fake or you're just an asshole.

Funnily enough, Alex Jones' statement is mostly true:

"Hayes and his colleagues raised 40 male African clawed frogs in water containing atrazine, from when they were larvae all the way up until sexual maturity. The atrazine levels were about what the frogs would experience in environments where the pesticide is used, and below levels that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency considers safe for drinking water.

They compared this atrazine-exposed group with 40 other male frogs reared in atrazine-free water.

At the end of the experiment, all frogs in the atrazine-free group remained male, while 10 percent of the frogs exposed to atrazine were completely feminized — their genes said they should be male, but they had female anatomy, including ovaries. The feminized frogs were able to mate with males and produce viable eggs."

https://www.livescience.com/10957-pesticide-turns-male-frogs...

"The fact that you chose to accuse someone of denying such a thing as parroting CCP propaganda indicates either your story is entirely fake or you're just an asshole."

I was using her reasoning to make a ludicrous argument similar to the one she made to show her the flaw in the argument and her method of reasoning. I don't actually believe that and made it clear to her when I explained the association fallacy. The only way to argue against someone using a fallacious arguing technique, which can be used to prove anything, is to use that arguing technique to prove the opposite or something ridiculous.

I mean, you countered her reasoning by committing multiple fallacies of your own. You strawmanned her ('That people denying this are parroting CCP propaganda and the CCP does all this horrible stuff.') and did an appeal to authority ('I then said many prominent people such as Tom Cotton and Mike Pompeo said this theory is credible'). You did so in a way that was enough to make her cry by your own admission.

Whenever I see a person use a fallacy I immediately use that fallacy against them. When she said the thing was a "conspiracy theory" that's essentially an appeal to authority that no one in authority believes that argument. When she compared me to a terrorist, that's an association fallacy, so I used that argument. Arguing against a fallacious reasoner is pointless, the only thing you can do is instruct them in proper reasoning.

The thing about Alex Jones is that he takes about 18 hours of reading and condenses it into about 7 words.

Turning the frogs gay

Evidence suggests that pharmaceuticals are making their way into waste water and altering the hormones of amphibious animals.

They're reading all our emails

The NSA turned off encryption methods on American communications, which were previously in place, after 9/11 with the implementation of the patriot act

Interdimensional space vampires

Elites believe that the world was 'seeded' by aliens, they are pagans who have two kinds of holidays. Those that require sexual sacrifice, and those that require blood.

Parroting communist propaganda? Remember the "dotard" remark that was literal propaganda and was picked up and parroted by people who knew better?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com