SM gratuitously said:
> >
>
> Let's go over this again, Pamela, carefully.
Me:
Does Mr. McCroskey actually understand how to do that? WC defenders are not taught critical thinking, so this will be interesting...
>
> I said: "You have no *evidence* that Oswald was guarded laxly
> deliberately."
>
> You said: "I have ample evidence. Have you taken a look at the footage of
> LHO's murder? Just where was any 'security'? He was led, handcuffed,
> into a garage full of press and who knows who else? Anything could have
> happened there. Curry was given ample warning ahead of time.
>
> That's when I asked you the logical question: "So you are accusing Curry
> of being part of the conspiracy to kill Kennedy, and frame Oswald? That's
> why he had to let Oswald be killed?"
>
If Mr. McCroskey thinks that is a 'logical question' he has, as my Mother would say, 'another think coming.' That is imo an illogical jump. Curry WAS given ample warning, in the form of endless death threats against LHO on his home phone. What did Curry do? He took his phone off the hook. When Curry arrived at the DPD Sunday morning he was informed of the calls to them. What did he do? Did he say, 'Whoa Nelly! How can we safely move this man if other people such as the press are around? We need to re-think this.' No, he did not. He went ahead with his original plan and LHO was killed.
> Now you say that you were not implying that Curry was part of the
> conspiracy that you believe existed.
Show me one word I have posted in this thread that shouts to you that I was
implying Curry was a part of a conspiracy that I invented or back off. In fact, you have made two illogical accusations here imo -- (1) that I am implying Curry was a part of a conspiracy and (2) that I invented a conspiracy that I happen to *believe*.
>
> This leaves the question open: How do you think The Conspiracy assured
> that Oswald would be guarded laxly?
I have not posted anything about this. Here you have demonstrated a false axiom with a false corollary. You did this. Are you able to perceive that?
>
> As we know, Curry was in charge of the security. So how could The
> Conspiracy know that the security would be lacking and would allow Oswald
> to be murdered, since Curry wasn't part of The Conspiracy?
A false conclusion based on a false axiom and false corollary. It's all yours.
>
> Do you have a plausible, concrete answer for that?
For your strawman? Probably not.
Another problem with WC defenders is that they seem to be taught that, not only are they more 'patriotic' than the dissidents, but they are 'smarter'. The only catch is that they have not been taught how to think critically. Therefore, they have a tendency to fall into fallacies. This post is a good example of that, imo.
Pamela
>
> Thanks.
>
> /sandy [...]
>
> >
>
> Let's go over this again, Pamela, carefully.
Me:
Does Mr. McCroskey actually understand how to do that? WC defenders are not taught critical thinking, so this will be interesting...
>
> I said: "You have no *evidence* that Oswald was guarded laxly
> deliberately."
>
> You said: "I have ample evidence. Have you taken a look at the footage of
> LHO's murder? Just where was any 'security'? He was led, handcuffed,
> into a garage full of press and who knows who else? Anything could have
> happened there. Curry was given ample warning ahead of time.
>
> That's when I asked you the logical question: "So you are accusing Curry
> of being part of the conspiracy to kill Kennedy, and frame Oswald? That's
> why he had to let Oswald be killed?"
>
If Mr. McCroskey thinks that is a 'logical question' he has, as my Mother would say, 'another think coming.' That is imo an illogical jump. Curry WAS given ample warning, in the form of endless death threats against LHO on his home phone. What did Curry do? He took his phone off the hook. When Curry arrived at the DPD Sunday morning he was informed of the calls to them. What did he do? Did he say, 'Whoa Nelly! How can we safely move this man if other people such as the press are around? We need to re-think this.' No, he did not. He went ahead with his original plan and LHO was killed.
> Now you say that you were not implying that Curry was part of the
> conspiracy that you believe existed.
Show me one word I have posted in this thread that shouts to you that I was
implying Curry was a part of a conspiracy that I invented or back off. In fact, you have made two illogical accusations here imo -- (1) that I am implying Curry was a part of a conspiracy and (2) that I invented a conspiracy that I happen to *believe*.
>
> This leaves the question open: How do you think The Conspiracy assured
> that Oswald would be guarded laxly?
I have not posted anything about this. Here you have demonstrated a false axiom with a false corollary. You did this. Are you able to perceive that?
>
> As we know, Curry was in charge of the security. So how could The
> Conspiracy know that the security would be lacking and would allow Oswald
> to be murdered, since Curry wasn't part of The Conspiracy?
A false conclusion based on a false axiom and false corollary. It's all yours.
>
> Do you have a plausible, concrete answer for that?
For your strawman? Probably not.
Another problem with WC defenders is that they seem to be taught that, not only are they more 'patriotic' than the dissidents, but they are 'smarter'. The only catch is that they have not been taught how to think critically. Therefore, they have a tendency to fall into fallacies. This post is a good example of that, imo.
Pamela
>
> Thanks.
>
> /sandy [...]
>
No comments:
Post a Comment