GameBanshee Forums

I've discovered something quite distressing and disturbing in my time in what apparently amounts to America's higher education. It seems that, despite any and all education recieved by the individuals attending my university, my compatriots insist upon using rather primitive methods of proof, methods such as "proof by (supposed) superior education", "proof by ad hominum", and my favourite, "proof by sheer stupidity". I despair for the future of America, as apparently Bush's method and manner of "proving" WMD in Iraq is not the exception but the rule. One of the reasons I post on this forum is that it at least gives the impression of intelligence, unlike many other forums I frequent, where oft times I see something akin to this:

YO MANNN I HAXXORZZ U HANAHAAA!!!11

Just looking at it lowers my IQ a few points. And God knows it's low enough after having to endure my compatriots' "proofs". Here's a few examples:

"proof by (supposed) superior education"
I transfered here from Harvard, where they taught us <insert topic here>. Since Harvard is such a superior school, I've got to be right.
- granted, not in so many words, but that's essentially the argument

"proof by ad hominem"
You're stupid. Your argument makes no sense.
- Of course, the idea is to make me react to "you're stupid" and to not notice that he gives absolutely no data to back up the sentence that follows those two words.

"proof by sheer stupidity"
My argument is correct. Why is it correct? Well, first we assume that it's correct ...
- if you are assuming it's correct as a premise what need you for the rest of the proof you dimwit cad?!

Yes, it's true. People often value their arguments more, just because they've had a higher education, which in a lot of cases doesn't mean anything.
In a lot of cases, your first 2 points kind of supplement each other. I have higher education, so your arguments have less value.

Some great philosofers and scientist (? not sure about the latter) had to use the sheer idiocy method to, for example, explain behavior of material. The Ancient Greeks didn't have the means to see molecules, but one philosofer explained matter as consisting of tiny 'Athomos' (or something..).
It couldn't be proved until relatively recently. So sometimes that method does work.

[QUOTE=Opalescence] I despair for the future of America, as apparently Bush's method and manner of "proving" WMD in Iraq is not the exception but the rule.[/i][/QUOTE]
despite the unpopularity of methods born in the USofA here in oversea Europe, u could be amazed by the amount of words wich mean "idiot" on croatian.there are so many of them that Mr.B could actually prove his point.and back it up.

as for the the other types of prooving...recently i came to conclusion that i can't seem to decide if a person with a harvard degree is resepected, or despised?

[QUOTE=ik911]Oooh, I'm really bad at this... Ask CE [/QUOTE]

-ahem-troll-ahem- <-- Oh that was SO totally unrelated


Hate to be so dimwitted, but to what exact point and purpose is this thread? Are we meant to be answering a question? Or is it just a general rant???
Good point well made though