Here is my response left in the comments section of this idiotic drivel:
http://apathysketchpad.com/index.php?…
I’m sorry Andrew… but, you appear to be somewhat of a moron. Your analogies are nonsensical. The massive flaw in your dice analogy should be painfully obvious to anyone with a brain more developed than that of the average eight year old: Seeing the die rolled, and landing on six, four hundred times in a row is analogous to actually having the names of four hundred people who died from second hand smoke.
A much better analogy for your argument would go like this: I rolled a die four hundred times in a completely darkened room where it was impossible to see the result of any roll. But, I proclaim that the die landed on six four hundred times because I’m convinced that the die was loaded. Therefore, asking to see the real-world results of the four hundred rolls is stupid and pointless because, by power of proclamation, I’m right and you’re wrong!
What Dave Hitt is asking for is to actually see the results of the die roll. In fact, he’s not even asking for all four hundred results, he only wants three of four hundred! “Give me the names of victims” is the same as “Tell me what number the die landed on.” What Dave Hitt is asking for is real-world, empirical evidence that corroborates what the epidemiology “suggests.”
Dave Hitt’s “name three” challenge is a very, very strong logical argument. And, you seem to have completely missed the point of it. The argument is not really: “If you can’t find anyone who has ever died from SHS, that means that nobody ever has.” The argument is “If you can’t find anyone who has ever died from SHS, then we CAN’T KNOW if anyone ever has. And, it is SUGGESTIVE that the stats are flawed.” As such, are we justified in pushing legislation that is highly restrictive to people’s personal liberties based on what we “suspect” without any solid, empirical, independently verifiable evidence? If we’re being told that an absolute torrent of people have died from SHS, then logic dictates that it should be a simple matter to locate three of them. If we can’t locate them it doesn’t mean that what they are telling us is wrong. It may be suggestive of such, but what it really means is that we can’t really know if it’s wrong or not. And, any claims to the actual veracity of the statement becomes nothing more than conjecture. In short: You don’t know how many people have died from SHS, and until you find some actual people who have, the statistics are not empirically verifiable and it is intellectually irresponsible to make any absolute claims regarding the dangers of SHS.
In the words of Richard Feynman: “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with the experiment, it’s wrong!” When/if you ever learn to think independently and critically, you’ll realize that one of the most important and fundamental tools in your arsenal for weighing truth is comparing what is told to you against your real-world experience. If 50,000 corroborative, epidemiological studies come out tomorrow that all say that 99% of people who have ever chewed bubble gum grow third eyes in the middle of their foreheads, I want you to think back over your life. Ask yourself: “How many people have I known that have ever chewed bubble gum? How many people have I ever heard of that have grown third eyes in the middle of their foreheads?” If you can’t come up with a number that comes anywhere close to 99%, then the safest conclusion is that the studies, no matter how ‘beautiful’ they were, no matter how ‘smart’ the people who conducted them were, are most likely B.S.
How many people are they telling us have died from second hand smoke? Exactly how much related death am I able to verify? If the answers to those two questions don’t come close to matching, then the safest conclusion that a truly independent, critical thinker can come to is: “It tells me nothing.”
And, in closing, as further evidence to just how much of a moron you actually make yourself out be, it should be noted that on your web page, which opened by calling people “morons”, claim that the reason certain people disagree with you is because they’re morons (Which suggests that if they weren’t morons, they would be agreeing with you — ipso facto: Those who don’t agree with you are morons… even though you, quite irrationally, suggest the exact opposite) you later state that one of your main objections is Dave Hitt’s “arrogant attitude.” So, not only are you a moron, you’re also a hypocrite. And, more importantly: You state: “I make no claims about the dangers of second hand smoke whatsoever.” Then, in THE SAME PARAGRAPH, you state “…I’m so opposed to smoking in public, on the grounds that slowly poisoning the general public any other way is illegal.” A statement that is not only entirely self-contradictory, but also entirely false — Automobiles are not illegal, certain chemical pesticides are not illegal, alcohol (Which evaporates a class ‘A’ carcinogen into the atmosphere at many more times the CFM than the average smoker) is not illegal, certain industrial cleaning products are not illegal, etc., etc., etc.
I’m sorry. But, you sir, are demonstrably a moron!
15 Comments
? You decide to drop back in after a year and a bit there Andy? Let me hit the fan for you, us dirty smokers are still stinking up the place.
Good point, yes, I didn’t think of that.
Dammit, I forgot WordPress uses HTML formatting. Oh, well.
Well, I know I did. I never pretended that I didn’t. But the difference there is that I’m right. I had a long email discussion with Hitt, during which he lied to me, then all but admitted that he was lying to people. Only after that was finished did I post “Dave Hitt Is A Twat”, and even that was accompanied by a lengthy discussion of why and what I meant by “twat”. If he sued me for libel I’m confident I’d win that case.
You, on the other hand, posted one comment, in which you defend an argument that even Hitt doesn’t actually believe is logically sound. Then I replied, showing your interpretation of my main argument to be incorrect and therefore your main argument to be a rather feeble straw man (as straw men tend to be), but instead of blogging the whole discussion in a semi-balanced way, you chose to blog the initial comment [i]on its own[/i] — even though I’d clearly explained the flaws in it you posted it unedited with no mention of the flaws or the criticism — and then [i]not tell me[/i] so that I couldn’t have any kind of a right to reply until one day, two months later, I happened to Google it. How can you not see that that is a different thing?
Very good. And, if you read my follow up, explanatory comment on your website, you’ll see that I explained why I chose to write a blog entry in response to your article, and why I chose to use words like “moron” to describe you. It was, of course, because of your use of such words to describe people who hold differing opinions to yourself.
Your original post was loaded with arrogance. So, I responded with the same.
So, in short, if you want to post articles that label people in such derogatory ways, that’s fine – that’s your right. And, I, for one, will never do anything to try and remove your ability to do that. But, don’t expect that people wont then respond in kind.
Alright, so when I chose to draw attention to the other comments, and when I chose to link this page from my own, I phrased both in a slightly snide way. But then, you wrote a blog entry and a comment on my site both of which are topped and tailed by you using the word “moron” to describe me, so I don’t see how I’m under any kind of an obligation to be polite to you until you start extending the same courtesy.
I’m sure you’re not really trying to hide anything, with the possible exception of your own head.
In the sand, I mean, before you get any funny ideas.
What did you expect exactly? You make wholly arrogant “isn’t that cute?” remarks on your blog, then show up here with snide comments fallaciously implying that I’m attempting to hide something. If you can’t take it, don’t dish it out – it’s as simple as that.
And, please! You ‘thought you’d mention’ the comments? If that were the case, you’d have posted something like “If anyone is interested, there were a number of comments made…” etc. Your comment was loaded with accusation. Who do you think you’re trying to fool exactly?
Oh, and thanks also for pointing out that “Neeeewwwwoooo” thing… I actually did think that was an honest-and-for-true word. Really… is that all you’ve got?
Wow, you took that badly. All I know is that I Googled Hitt one afternoon to see what was about, found this page, and thought “if he’s posted a blog entry about how he thinks I’m stupid, and put a public comment section below it, then I shall comment there to draw attention to the fact that this opinion of his is at least a little controversial”. This blog entry makes no mention of the comments that followed it in which your arguments are rebutted, and I thought that it was worth mentioning them to make this page a little more balanced. The fact that you chose to interpret and reply to it in such a terse and insulting way, I think, says a lot more about you than it does about me.
Oh, and “Neeeewwwwoooo!” isn’t anything like a word. It’s more like an impression of an ambulance.
Did you mate with a thesaurus or something?
Ummm… The person commenting above wasn’t me, you idiot.
But anyway, what do you expect me to do? Cut & paste the entire comment section into my blog? You can’t seriously be that obtuse, can you? The link is there – it takes people right to the comments page. Nothing is being hidden. If people can’t be “arsed” to read it, that’s not my responsibility. And, I must say that the fact that you seem to feel the need to try and invent some completely ridiculous fantasy about me not being entirely forthcoming or something speaks volumes about your general pathetic-a-tudeness. Grasp much, do we?
Did I take the link down? Did I remove the post? Neeeewwwwoooo! Y’know why? ‘Cause I got a pretty good chuckle out of exposing Andrew’s intellectual vacancy for a while, and I thought others might as well. But, then he bored me and I moved on. After a short while his general inanity becomes much like the buzzing of gnats – insignificant, mindless little things that you keep squashing, and keep squashing, but they never seem to get any less annoying. Nonetheless, I figured I’d leave the post up (with link intact) so my readers could have a head-shake or two at the rare, special brand of banality exhibited over at Apathy Sketchpad.
Love ya,
D.R.A.
English is not my native language so sometimes I will have mistakes. How many languages do you write? And what points do you mean I made? I didn’t write “on that site” so you are stupid.
For one thing, ‘a lot’ is two words.
Secondly, there are pages upon pages of rebuttals to your arguments on that site, which make a lot more sense than your points. Yes, they’re in the link, but you’re hardly bringing them to the attention of anyone who can’t be arsed to do that much reading are you?
Allot more, yes. Good arguement.
Say what? I see nothing being omited. I see a clearly visible link to the sketchpad blog that shows all the comments on it for everyone to see. That kind of makes you look like allot more of the idiot.
Notice how this column omits the pages of comments after Derek’s explaining how he’s an idiot 😉