Delica Canada | Mitsubishi Van Club

solanoid wrote:Mr F.

What can you tell me about the THIRD building that fell down on 9/11?

solanoid wrote:Well,

I respect your opinions however, I urge you to research the subject before making a decision. We dont need to agree, as long as we are civil, and diplomatic.

fexlboi wrote:As this discussion has nothing to do with the topic of this forum it lives now in a good place: "Last Word Cafe"

solanoid wrote:Ok,

You are suggesting that a skyscraper fell down (perfectly)two blocks away from where the wtc's fell on account of "shrapnel/debris" ?Not to mention that this was discussed by the media only a handfull of times after the incident, many people to this day dont know about tower 3. It also just happens that there were f.b.i. offices and homeland security offices in there which contained much sensitive information. Furthermore, during the "investigation" tower 3 was not even mentioned.

I know that I wont be able to convince you of any of this, and thats fine. So, as far as you are concerned, the govenments are just upstanding, honest people trying to do whats right huh, looking out for their citizens.

......!?

solanoid wrote:Alright Mr F.,

I see where this is going, I must admit that your ignorance frustrates me. However, we can still be friends even though you dont posses the ability to conjure your own thoughts. People like you need to be taken by the wrist and guided through life at every turn, and thats ok.

Maybe Ill see you at church sometime .......HAHAHAHH....ASIF!

solanoid wrote:Alright,

That is respectable, your cool I guess.
but come on a sky scraper falling down from debris!? that is perposterous. All of the interviews with p.engineers I that I have seen discredit the notion that a building could fall under these circumstances.
You must admit thats pretty far fetched. Closer building werent even close to falling. and what about the insurance policy?

The following are suggested as tools for testing arguments and detecting fallacious or fraudulent arguments:


* Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts
* Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
* Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities").
* Spin more than one hypothesis - don't simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
* Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours.
* Quantify, wherever possible.
* If there is a chain of argument every link in the chain must work.
* "Occam's razor" - if there are two hypothesis that explain the data equally well choose the simpler.
* Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified (shown to be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, is it testable? Can others duplicate the experiment and get the same result?


Additional issues are

* Conduct control experiments - especially "double blind" experiments where the person taking measurements is not aware of the test and control subjects.
* Check for confounding factors - separate the variables.


Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric

* Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.
* Argument from "authority".
* Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavourable" decision).
* Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).
* Special pleading (typically referring to god's will).
* Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased).
* Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).
* Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes).
* Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!)
* Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because they are not "proved").
* Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down.
* Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by" - confusion of cause and effect.
* Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?).
* Excluded middle - considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is).
* Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?").
* Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle - unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).
* Confusion of correlation and causation.
* Straw man - caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack..
* Suppressed evidence or half-truths.
* Weasel words - for example, use of euphemisms for war such as "police action" to get around limitations on Presidential powers. "An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public"

Mr. Pistachio wrote:Have you folks seen Zombieland!

If so, That's why I got myself a Delica, when the WTC went down, it created a hole to the center of the earth and the zombies will come out of that breach! Asweel as the breach created by the Big One (still to ome)! That's why there's so many Delicas in Vancouver, the big one! The Delica is a perfect vehicule to fight zombies! Diesel (long range) Van type so you can live in it, RHD so they'll be confused where's the driver, community wise, there's way more usefull knowledge in the Delica community then anywhere else, every Delica as a skid plate and rugged under body so no worries about crushing them!

That's my 2 cents!