HOME | DD
Phracker — Debunking ToastersForever by-nc [NSFW]
#capitalism #capitalist #christ #christian #christianity #christians #communism #communist #corporatism #demotivational #economics #economy #freemarket #fundie #fundies #jesus #jesuschrist #leftwing #leftwingpolitics #political #politics #religion #rightwing #secular #socialism #socialist #demotivator #secularism #secularist #corporatist
Published: 2018-09-17 21:09:20 +0000 UTC; Views: 2568; Favourites: 14; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
This is my response to a deviation by ToastersForever . ToastersForever is a very interesting rhetorical opponent as his arguments tend to be a challenge to refute. This isn't because they're at all solid, mind you, but because they make almost no fucking sense. They are the kind of arguments that when you are presented with them, you immediately know they're wrong, but you can't quite put your finger on where the error is, specifically because they are so nonsensical. You can't follow the logical progression of his reasoning in order to refute it, because usually there is none. Typically you are just left scratching your head, and the only response you can come up with is "Huh?"But fear not, for I have actually done it now. After some serious thought on the matter, I have finally deconstructed this incredibly idiotic meme. Here is a (by no means exhaustive) list of all the logical fallacies this meme commits:
- Strawman: The strawman is very subtle of course, which is why on the surface it doesn't seem like one. But ToastersForever is basically making the implication that socialists who make this criticism are somehow advocating Jesus himself, and not simply Jesus's teachings.
- Equivocation: Specifically, I refer to the equivocation between the socialist teachings of Jesus, and the dogma of Jesus's followers 2000 years later, which are in no way equivalent or inseparable.
- Non sequitur: It takes a lot of examination to discern this, but there's actually no logical relationship - positive or negative - between the two "choices" depicted in this meme. This person is basically arguing that if you agree with something someone said, that means you should force other people to worship that person. There is simply no reason to say this, and it's a completely silly argument with no grounding in rationality.
- Argument from a false premise: The false premise here is that socialists are actually advocating a dogma here, rather than simply reminding right wing Fundies that they're being hypocrites. It also relies on the premise that Jesus was the only socialist or even the most important socialist, and that he should therefore be of any particular significance to modern socialists.
- Smoke-and-mirrors fallacy: This is an argument that works by being so utterly confusing that it catches the opponent off guard, leaving them unable to respond. This is a nonsensical argument that appears superficially to make sense, so anyone who isn't thinking really hard about it is likely to just nod their heads and concede, because their brains have been completely thrown for a loop.
I can only conclude that ToastersForever is either extremely dishonest and manipulative or just not very bright. And I'm betting on the latter.
Oh, and in case anyone's wondering why I'm making a whole new deviation instead of just responding to him directly, it's because the coward blocked me.
