The Arguments I Hate Part 2

Over at the UPC, in the comments section of this post, (which is well worth reading) I was told:

1. Don’t naively assume that the United States does not practice its own double-tap policy. With the possible exception of the Jimmy Carter administration, the US has never been particularly reluctant to engage in assinations. We are just more hypocritical about it than the Brits. Conversely, don’t presume that MI5 will hessitate to snatch you in the middle of the night and secretly detain you in order to shove a red hot poker up your arse. When push comes to shove everybody plays for keeps.

   Comment by Libertas — July 8, 2005 @ 8:05 pm

To which I replied:

Yeah Libertas, but don’t YOU naively assume that the world is not controlled by Jews using mind rays from their LEO satellites.

Sorry, but I don’t believe in these conspiracy theories. I mean anybody can say “You’re naive if you don’t accept PROVIDE CYNICAL THEORY WITH NO PROOF HERE.”

I don’t see the difference between your suggestion and saying Israel committed 911, or that there are engines that run off water that the oil interests are stopping from becoming public, etc.

Sans proof, sans evidence, sans anything except a blanket accusation of naivete for anyone who does not accept your proclamations of faith, I have to assume kookery.

Cheers!

And I thought that it was worth its own post. Don't you hate the "You're naive if you don't agree that X" argument? I hate it. You can even break it down farther.

"You're Y if you don't agree that X."

Where Y = dumb, mean, uncool, greedy, racist, bigoted, ignorant, ugly, short and so on
and X = zionists caused 911, Bush is a Hitlermonkey, Iraq is a mistake, Jews drink Arab baby's blood in Satanic rituals, Ferenheit 411 is Truth, and so on.

Click here for Arguments I Hate Part 1