Worst abuse of Insane troll logic you've ever seen?

What is the contorted use of logic to prove a point you've ever seen? Serious examples only, no joking uses of Insane Troll Logic.

Something about how Tibetan sky burials are bad because there's a chance that they would result in babies getting AIDS. [1]

This is a bad idea. What if the body was a homosexual man? this would mean the body had aids and germs of aids would be eaten by the birds. what if the birds then landed on a babys buggy? The baby mite touch the bird and get aids from the homosexuals body.

IT is just a mad way of spreading aids around the world to normal people.

edited 1st Apr '10 7:51:10 PM by melloncollie

That is....I don't even know.

I have a couple examples, but none off the top of my head, I shall be back when I can recall them in detail.

Every other thing by Glenn Beck, because he does it on national television. Any online troll pales in comparison to that.

But in terms of actual logic... and being specific... the national ovals, since it means getting on the world stage is equated with being like other countries.

edited 1st Apr '10 7:58:27 PM by DragonQuestZ

I read a speech by Mao once that was basically all about how we should kill or marginalize whole economic classes and that this would mean no one was poor anymore.

And I spent some time reading what were basically Ayn Rand applying some troll logic philosophy to sex. Gay people didn't come out well.

And Descartes proof for god. Yeah, that one has to take the cake.

edited 1st Apr '10 7:58:33 PM by Roman

Wow Mellon that is a piece of "Logic"

Just as a suggestion if at all possible can we post the quotes in which the not-logic is displayed?

I decided that I"m not going to shift through old papers to find an obscure Rand quote and a Mao speech.

Descartes Proof of God can be found with a simple Google.

Basically:

God is Perfect.

God would be imperfect if he did not exist.

Therefore God exists.

edited 1st Apr '10 8:57:36 PM by Roman

I thought his proof that god exists was:

• I can be certain of nothing other than the fact I exist
• This being the case, everyhting I have experienced may just be a dream or halucination caused by Satan
• This would be bad
• Therefore, God exists to stop Satan giving me nightmares.

Actually, the Cartesian Original Flavour for the Ontological Argument is as follows:

1. Whatever I perceive as being true of a thing, is true of that thing.
2. I perceive that God exists.
3. Therefore, God exists.
Yes, it's that stupid.

edited 2nd Apr '10 12:33:56 AM by BonSequitur

Hmm... maybe he just wanted to be thorough and included all three in case anyone tried to use his teachings in favour of materialism *COUGH cartesians COUGH*

edited 2nd Apr '10 1:03:26 AM by ?Tribune

According to some people, apparently you are a bigot for suggesting that the US should not give unconditional support to Israel and suggesting that Israel should think a bit better about the possible consequences before building houses in the occupied territories. If you then say that security forces unlawfully killing innocent people in foreign countries such as Iraq is bad and even dare to suggest that certain practices (Guantanamo Bay, for one) ressemble to certain things happening in World War 2 (concentration camps), you obviously are an anti-American facist communist whose home-country should be invaded cq. nuked. Suggesting that the war in Iraq/Afghanistan should not be called a "Crusade" makes you an anti-Christian nazi. Making any remark that is even remotedly positive about the French makes you a pro-French, pro-Canadian socialist communist terrorist who needs a bullet in the head. Oh, and referring to any group of people with the words "those people" or "you people" obviously implies that you hate black people, gays, Jews, and all Americans...

Now this might seem logical if the person you were having a discussion with is some backwater, redneck, extremist Christian fucktard, however in that case it was a bunch of people supposedly coming from New York, amongst others.

edited 2nd Apr '10 1:26:26 AM by TheStupidExclamationMark

The ontological argument in general . However, the most idiotic argument for the existence of God that I've heard is as follows: God exists because if he didn't, atheist wouldn't feel compelled to try and disprove the existence of God.

edited 2nd Apr '10 2:56:06 AM by Taelor

The whole Wikipedia page on the Ontological argument is hilarious, especially the newer, revamped forms. Such as the 'modal' Ontological argument: 1. God is possibly necessary.
2. Therefore, God is necessary (Modal logic demands it!)
3. Therefore, God exists.

Of course, the initial premise is just that, a premise. Alexander Pruss, however, has come up with a way of fixing that: 1. Ninth Century Indian philosopher Samkara said that if something is impossible, then we cannot have a perception of it.
1a. Ninth Century Indian philosophers, being Ninth Century Indian Philosophers, can be presumed, a priori, to be right. 2. I perceive that God is necessary.
2a. Therefore, God is possibly necessary.
3. Modal ontologic argument!
4. ???
5. Therefore, God exists.

edited 2nd Apr '10 2:05:02 AM by BonSequitur

Worst one I ever heard was a guy attacking the concept of a good vs evil dualistic morality system. His argument went as follows.

A:George Bush called the Irag War a battle between Good and Evil.

B:Killing innocent Iragi civilians cannot possibly be good.

C:There for Good does not exist.

He then finished off with some meaningless comments on how this doesn't do anything about evil. Dude, this isn't that hard of an argument to defend. How do you fuck it up, that badly.

As for the arguments for and against God, the Ontological argument and Trademark argument are pretty dumb. On the against side, the argument from free will and argument from complexity are moronic.

Trademark Argument? And isn't 'argument from complexity' another name for the 'Watchmaker' argument?

edited 2nd Apr '10 2:24:15 AM by BonSequitur

The trademark argument is that we have an idea that God exists there for he must.

The argument I was talking about in the against camp is also called the Boeing 747 argument and is intended as a response to the watchmaker argument. Really, the only response you need is the poor design and the fact that we can account for the existence of things like animals and planets already.

edited 2nd Apr '10 2:27:51 AM by Myrmidon

True enough, but there isn't anything wrong with the 747 gambit itself, as far as I can tell. It may be belabouring the point, but it's hardly insane troll logic.

edited 2nd Apr '10 2:33:55 AM by BonSequitur

It only works if you accept God as a natural part of the universe that remains unchanged since the beginning of of time. If he's outside the universe, or supernatural, or changes as the universe does it fails. Basically it only works for one specific conception of God. And not one in which many people believe. Atheists and believers alike tend to think of a God as being supernatural, or outside the universe.

edited 2nd Apr '10 2:41:08 AM by Myrmidon

Anytime the rightards use 'moral relativism', anytime the leftards use 'crypto-fascism'. Politicians just love their slippery slope fallacies.

Arguments against healthcare reform in the US. There, I said it.

A moralistic argument against contraception:

1. Contraception prevents babies. People use contraception when they don't want babies.

2. Therefore, if the contraception fails, they're more likely than non-contraception users to abort the pregnancy.

3. Therefore, contraception causes abortion and is evil.

edited 2nd Apr '10 8:43:34 AM by Karalora

From an Amazon review of Baruch Spinoza's Ethics

After reading Spinoza's supposedly great work, I couldn't help but think about the things he told me regarding God, or say, the universe. After constant pondering, I began to come to my own conclusion that most of Spinoza's propositions in Ethics are completely absurd. One of these propositions, that "God exists, is everything, and is all thoughts" (yes, even the thought that's the opposite of that thought) makes no sense to me. For if it were not absurd, then thinking "God doesn't exist, is not everything, and is not all thoughts" would be true as well, which totally goes against Spinoza's proposition on God. He also proposes that everything is infinite and that nothing is finite. But what about the size of my arm? How can that be infinite if it does not go out infinitely, say compared to, the distance of light? Spinoza then claims that it's the imagination or distinction of things that makes things finite. But according to Spinoza, nothing is finite. So how can the imagination make something finite if the finite doesn't exist? Again, the more I think about what he says in this book, the more absurd it becomes. I can tell you countless more, but I don't want to bore you. Now I'm giving this review 2 out of 5 stars because I do believe this book is very well organized and very well translated. Other than that, I can't see how this book can help clear my mind from any doubts it has already given me.

National ovals, DQZ?

^^ Wut.

Probably we should be happy he didn't use his penis for the comparison...