Some logical fallacies are so stupid that I don't even like calling them "logical fallacies." It's an academic-sounding phrase.
buy augmentin online pharmacohealthcare.com/wp-content/themes/twentysixteen/inc/engl/augmentin.html no prescription
If I call something an example of fallacious logic, you immediately think I am talking about something relatively high-brow. So I hesitate to call One-Sidedness a logical fallacy (although obviously it is) because it is essentially just grown men and women sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting "LA LA LA LA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"
Not so dignified, this.
One-sidedness, aka ignoring counterevidence, is essentially that. You present an individual with evidence that disproves or seriously challenges their argument…and they simply decide that it doesn't exist. Really. People do this. What kind of people? Why, John Bolton for instance. America's favorite thundering-idiot-as-diplomat reacted thusly in the face of the previously-discussed National Intelligence Estimate on Iran's nuke program. Faced with a mountain of evidence disproving his paranoid fantasies, Yosemite fuckin' Sam just dismisses it all with a wave of his bloody hand:
Bolton: Well, I think it's potentially wrong, but I would also say, many of the people who wrote this are former State Dept employees who during their career at the State Dept never gave much attention to the threat of the Iranian program. Now they are writing as (fingers quote) 'members of the intelligence community' the same opinions that they've had four and five years ago.
Blitzer: President Bush says he has confidence in this new NIE. He says they revamped the intelligence community after the blunders involving the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He says there's a whole new community out there and he has total confidence in what the National Intelligence Director is doing.
Bolton: Well, I don't…
Right. Got that? There's a credible mountain of evidence, but….it's wrong. John Bolton doubts it. Therefore it is wrong. Hey, would you all like to hear a secret about how to spot a moron? Present them with factual evidence undermining their argument and see if they say "No, that doesn't count. It's not credible."
I am also reminded of one of my favorite moments in the checkered legal history of creationism (oops, I mean "Intelligent Design"), Judge John Jones's written beatdown of creationist "scholar" Michael Behe in Kitzmiller v Dover. The Judge relayed this anecdote in the opinion for our amusement:
"…on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not "good enough." (23:19 (Behe))." (Page 78)
You know who else argues like that? Holocaust deniers. La la la la, I can't hear you. It's rather incredible that anyone can maintain a semblance of credibility throughout the process of using this "logic.
buy xifaxan online pharmacohealthcare.com/wp-content/themes/twentysixteen/inc/engl/xifaxan.html no prescription
" I guess it's comforting to remember that the people who aren't bothered by it are as dumb as or dumber than the people using it.