Andrew From Apathy Sketchpad Turns Out To Be A Moron

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: β€œIt 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!

Latest Comments
  1. Andrew
  2. Joe-Boo
  3. Friz
  4. AndyB
  5. Joe-Boo
  6. Derek
  7. Friz
  8. Andrew
  9. Derek
  10. Andrew
  11. Derek
  12. Andrew
  13. Andrew
  14. Andrew
  15. Derek

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: