A personal AETV loss »« Fred Edwords: Sailing the Rising Tide of Reason

Irony meter explosion in 3…2…1…

Okay, so that preposterous, demented d-bag Mike Adams has noticed all the ridicule he’s been getting online, and has, like most deluded narcissists, taken it for validation of his awesomeness. In a new post, he offers the following observation, which deserves an Oscar for Lifetime Achievement in Clueless Projection. Now, remember this is the guy who wrote a trillion-word attack on skeptics that led Orac to call him “a pyromaniac in a straw man factory”… Salient hypocrisy boldfaced.

[Skeptics] also tend to jump to false conclusions about what people are really saying. In my previous article, for example, I never stated whether I believed in God, or whether I was an athiest [sic], or whether I followed organized religion and yet people read the article and they leaped to conclusions, assuming I was promoting organized religion, for example, or that I was condemning atheism.

Actually I never stated my position on those matters in the article at all, but the skeptics leaped to the conclusion that I did. This speaks to their tendency to warp all incoming information and restructure it to conform to the beliefs they already carry about the subject at hand.

ROTFL! You silly little bitch.


  1. says

    "ROTFL! You silly little bitch."Martin, if you had left that simple one-liner in response to his original break-down, it would have been the most succinct and accurate response to one of the most rabid spewings I have read in a long time.

  2. Martin says

    Yes, well, Mike — being such an open-minded fellow — censors all critical comments from his site and bans people who leave them. Otherwise, I would have done.

  3. says

    Mike Adams: "Here's a list of all the crazy things 'skeptics' believe…"Skeptics: "You obviously have no idea what we believe." Mike Adams: "See how angry the skeptics get when I show them how ridiculous their beliefs are?" Skeptics: "WTF?"

  4. Martin says

    Bud: Well, presently, poor Mikey is reduced to "Waaah! Mommy! They're picking on meee!"This is a fine time to quote some relevant passages from the Wikipedia entry for narcisstic personality disorder."To the extent that people are pathologically narcissistic, they can be controlling, blaming, self-absorbed, intolerant of others’ views, unaware of others' needs and of the effects of their behavior on others, and insistent that others see them as they wish to be seen.People who are overly narcissistic commonly feel rejected, humiliated and threatened when criticised. To protect themselves from these dangers, they often react with disdain, rage, and/or defiance to any slight criticism, real or imagined….Though individuals with NPD are often ambitious and capable, the inability to tolerate setbacks, disagreements or criticism, along with lack of empathy, make it difficult for such individuals to work cooperatively with others or to maintain long-term professional achievements. With narcissistic personality disorder, the person's perceived fantastic grandiosity, often coupled with a hypomanic mood, is typically not commensurate with his or her real accomplishments."

  5. says

    I like how the "Health Wangjerr" makes all these claims with little or no credible evidence…makes for a perfect guest on the 800 pound gorilla show a.k.a. The Alex Jones Show…oh wait he was on there today spewing his crap to people looking for confirmation bias in their pursuit for the "twoof."

  6. says

    Aren't there computer simulations showing what happens when masses or arbitrary attributes start to orbit around each other? As well as fractal plotting programs? Can't we combine these two things together to predict when people of equal fractal wrongness, like Alex Jones and Mike Adams, are destined to orbit/circle-jerk each other?Oh, and listen to the first 45 seconds of Mike in this video – he sounds almost like a child!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlzSNnm-pVY

  7. says

    It seems like this Mike Adams fellow doesn't understand what skepticism really is.. It's an approach to information not a belief system. He seems like an A-grade moron to me.

  8. DavidCT says

    Well Mike Adams is living proof that one does not have to be a theist to have weird beliefs. I came across the NaturalNews WEB site last year. I was complaining to the editor of paper in Maine about the unsupported health advise being given by a columnist using Mike dam's site as a reference. Just look at the list of Mike's sponsors. It's enough to completely melt down your bullshit detector.

  9. Martin says

    PM, I'm going to be charitable and assume the "claims" you're referring to are the hypocritical ones Mike's making here — that he's being misrepresented by his critics — and not the idiotic claims he made about skeptics in his original rant, as I'd like to believe you're better than that. For the record, Tom Foss responded to exactly what was written in Mike's piece — hell, he quoted every single sentence — so there's no misrepresentation there. It is also a bald fact that Mike was disqualified from the Shorties because his fans, whether at his behest or not, broke the rules. I can see that maybe disqualifying him from the whole contest was overkill, when they could have just deleted the improper votes, but the whole thing hardly justifies Mike's moronic screed, let alone the whiny and dishonest projection he's engaging in now that people are calling him on it.So far not a single skeptical critic of Mike Adams has attacked him for anything other than what he has actually said or done. We're big on the whole honesty thing over here. If you can point to any actual blog posts where our side has strawmanned him the way he's done us, then link to it, and I'll be the first man to rebuke that guy. Otherwise, the lesson we should be taking from this nonsense is that allegations you can't back up make one look like a real bad guy.

  10. Martin says

    Well, I certainly strive not to. Apart from being a logical fallacy, straw man attacks are just cheap shots. Any atheist or skeptic who made straw man attacks against believers would be just as unworthy of respect as the Mike Adamses and Ray Comforts of the world.

  11. says

    ING was right. I do see the straw-man employed by the show, blog, against people who disagree with you. In fact the post itself was a form of the straw-man, as you didn't refute the actual statements of the dude, but instead pointed to the irony and contradiction to my your argument. Ad hominem attacks are also running amock, see "you silly little bitch". A couple other examples in this thread….1.Well, presently, poor Mikey is reduced to "Waaah! Mommy! They're picking on meee!" (Martin)2.makes for a perfect guest on the 800 pound gorilla show a.k.a. The Alex Jones Show (Skeptically Sound)3. Oh, and listen to the first 45 seconds of Mike in this video – he sounds almost like a child! (Pombolo)4. Just look at the list of Mike's sponsors. It's enough to completely melt down your bullshit detector. (DavidCT)All statments which saying nothing about what the dude actually argues, but just points to "accepted" insults and ad hominem attacks to belittle his perspective.

  12. says

    "This speaks to their tendency to warp all incoming information and restructure it to conform to the beliefs they already carry about the subject at hand."This seems to have some slight validity, though I'm sure it's accidental. Basically everyone does this to a greater or lesser extent – not all incoming information is accurate so we have to interpret on the basis of our world-view to filter out the crap. The difference here is that (definitionally) a sceptic should recognise the value of engaging more in the reverse process as well – using incoming information to evaluate our world-view. By contrast it seams that religious instruction seems to often include the ideal of following that quote exactly.So yeah, real irony there.Boom.

  13. says

    Oh and one last thing…@ Martin "as I'd like to believe you're better than that."This seems really dishonest to me, and a dirty tactic. You mostly disagree with everything I write on here and often insult me, so I can only deduce that you write this, to set up your next comment, which will be "Oh I guess I was wrong, you suck etc." Let's make this less personal, less fallacious, this round, all right?

  14. Martin says

    PM, it seems you need to learn what logical fallacies like ad hominem and straw men actually are before making your feeble attempts to claim we're no different than Mike Adams. For instance:1.Well, presently, poor Mikey is reduced to "Waaah! Mommy! They're picking on meee!" (Martin)This is not a straw man. It's exactly what Mike is saying. Read his piece. He's doing nothing but whining about how he's being picked on, after writing his asinine screed. He's like the class clown in 4th grade who shoots spitwads at all the other kids, then wonders why they don't invite him to their birthday parties.Also, name-calling is not the same as ad hominem, and, as this page on fallacies points out:Not all ad Hominems are fallacious. In some cases, an individual's characteristics can have a bearing on the question of the veracity of her claims. For example, if someone is shown to be a pathological liar, then what he says can be considered to be unreliable. However, such attacks are weak, since even pathological liars might speak the truth on occasion.I would say that Mike Adams has more than shown himself to be a pathological liar. Thus attacks on his character that point to the fact he's a silly, lying little bitch are not ad hominems, as Adams is, in fact, a silly, lying little bitch. There is a point where personal attacks are no longer insults, simply descriptors. I made this point in an earlier post about Ray Comfort. When Ray Comfort is called an ignorant fool by Richard Dawkins (and everyone else), Dawkins is not calling Comfort a name, he is simply describing Ray Comfort. Everything in Ray's character and behaviors reveals that he is, in fact, an ignorant fool. If Ray were not out there making his living lying about science, reprinting spurious editions of Darwin with an anti-science preface that he largely plagiarized, making actual straw man attacks about atheists (like Mike Adams, claiming we believe things we actually do not), then there would be no grounds to call him an ignorant fool and to do so would be an ad hominem. But it's not an ad hominem when the person really is the thing you're accusing them of being. There's no fallacy in calling a lying idiot a lying idiot.(As for Mike speaking the truth on occasion, I'm sure he does do that, such as when he says things like "My name is Mike Adams" or "I need to pee." But that doesn't invalidate the bulk of my point.)

  15. says

    @martin Ah as usual, your response is "you don't get it"…I would say my degree and the countless hours I have spent studying Philosophy stand in disagreement with that, but ok. What you wrote was fallacious because you didn't address the content of his argument, but instead labeled him a child. Likewise, do you not see the obvious fact that his comments about you all could be true as well, and therefore invalidating your own criticism towards him? No, you wouldn't because you are an indeologue.

  16. says

    PM: As for my comment, it was a snippy observation.You seem to misunderstand what a Strawman fallacy is. None of the four examples you gave are strawmen.A Strawman fallacy would be to misrepresent the argument of someone into a more easily refuted form: and then refute that, instead of what the person actually said. Adams has made no argument. He has simply listed assertions as if they were facts.

  17. Martin says

    Ah as usual, your response is "you don't get it"…I would say my degree and the countless hours I have spent studying Philosophy stand in disagreement with that, but ok.So you're doing an 'appeal to authority' fallacy with yourself? Cute. You'd think those countless hours of study would have helped you catch yourself doing that.What you wrote was fallacious because you didn't address the content of his argument, but instead labeled him a child.You're simply lying at this point, PM. Mike's arguments were rebutted sentence-by-fucking-sentence by Tom Foss. And my comment about Mike was based on his actual behavior. Again, you're simply denying what's right on the screen in front of you in order to attack us, and it's pathetically transparent.Likewise, do you not see the obvious fact that his comments about you all could be true as well, and therefore invalidating your own criticism towards him?Could be, but aren't, so this little snipe does nothing for you. No, you wouldn't because you are an indeologue.Now that is an ad hominem. Well done.You are now disinvited from the blog, PM. You'd clearly be happier somewhere else. Goodbye.

  18. says

    >"Waaah! Mommy! They're picking on meee!"Wow…wasn't that a Yomin response as well? The similarities just get creepier.Seriously–it's like a personality type that response is a predictable way. Just freaky.And I have to laugh because I honestly just now went back to see what else you wrote after this and you have the entry on Narcissism!!! Hysterical!

  19. says

    Observation:The only reason anyone ever resorts to describing their own intelligence as an argument is because they have failed to demonstrate it.

  20. says

    "Observation:You all are bullies, who like to hold somone down, while your friends get to take shots, pathetic."Observation:You came here, slewing insults and poor spelling, and general jerkyness and seemingly TRY to start flame wars. Look do you have any points or are you just looking to shit in some hats? PM's pattern*Disagree with any given point, but in THE most insulting way possible. *Bitch when people respond to him*Accuse everyone else of bullying him. Let's just cut out step two and jump right to the chase? note: I am trying to be nice(r) to you, but you're making it hard due to your apparent goal to be the least liked commentator.

  21. Martin says

    And I've decided to allow your last comment here to be one that proudly displayed what a sleazy little liar you are. You were banned once for trolling, you emailed us agreeing to play nicer, and you were allowed back for quite a long time, and none of your posts during that time where you argued with our atheist readers were censored or deleted. Now that you're being shown the door again, we're just all "bullies!" Honestly, you and Mike Adams are peas in a pod. You guys sure get a lot of mileage out of that "Waah mommy, the bullies are mean to me!" thing, don't you. Perhaps you can use this your newfound free time to refresh yourself a little on Matthew 7:3-5.

  22. says

    Read Martin's post, PM for the love of cheese, when you've pissed off a mod the response is NOT to snotty ass…as a snotty ass I should know!Even if Martin did not spell out exactly how you were wrong, which….you know a lot of people wind up doing, if you had a problem with a mod or admin in a forum or blog giving you the impression that they're threatening the banhammer or whatever unjustly…don't paint a bulls-eye on your head. If you have a complaint send a PM about it, or talk to another mod or admin. Unless you're trying to get banned (I don't know why, to claim you're being censored or something? For attention? To piss people off?) doing what you've done is a basically a critical fumble on Knowledge(Common Sense) roll

  23. says

    Ad hominem is so tricky when talking to debates. As martin points out, sometimes ignorant, stupid, fool, and even silly bitch, are descriptors…and accurate ones at that.Seriously, why is it our job to maintain civility when talking to children? At some point everyone should be able to realize they're talking to a total ass-hat and just say "you're stupid" and be done with it.

  24. says

    Eh, ad homs are tricky, but personally, I aspire to refrain from them, even if they are completely warranted. Note that I said aspire, as I often fail miserably :PAs for strawmen, one thing to note, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, isn't it prudent to draw a distinction between inadvertent and non inadvertent strawmen arguments? I mean, I see this happen a lot on forums. Someone argues a point, and it ends up being a strawman argument, but you can sort of tell they did not do it intentionally. Rather than try and determine (or ask) whether or not it was intentional, people just jump all over it.And lastly, at the risk of sounding somewhat…..well, stupid, is it me or did all of this constant pointing out of fallacies just sort of enter the 'big debate' in the last couple of years? I don't recall hearing this stuff a few years back, biut now it's strawman this and appeal to that.Oh, that reminds me, the appeal to authority one bugs me. You tread such a fine line, because how often do we say something that could be construed as an appeal to authority? I mean, why is it automatically a fallacy? Do I go to my doctor, hear a cancer diagnosis, only to encounter people saying to me upon my return ''cancer? How do you know?'' to which I reply '' the doctor told me'' only to have them say ''that's an appeal to authority. Can you validate that diagnosis?''I mean really, if I tell a theist it's an appeal to authority to say ''Kent Hovind said it'' yet point to the evidence for evolution, which, while compiled from a variety of sources, also comes to bear from individual experts as well, if you trace back the chain of evidence, aren't I essentially doing the same thing?Why is it wrong to rely on experts? We all do it. I understand that the dea behind it is that just because something comes from a supposed expert, it does not mean it is true. And that's very true. I definitely see how it is fallacious to advance an argument just based on the fact that it came from an 'expert.'But where/how do you draw the line? If the argument behind it is that you cannot automatically asume it is true because it comes from an expert, doesn't that invalidate everything we are ever taught, because no matter how validated, repeatable, etc the evidence is, we aren't doing the wrok ourselves. We're relying on the testimony of individual experts, just en masse.I dunno, just thinking aloud here, go easy on me :P

  25. says

    PM said:Ad hominem attacks are also running amock, see "you silly little bitch".I just read through these comments, and I have to disagree. Calling Mike Adams a "silly little bitch" is NOT an ad hominem fallacy. That kind of fallacy would be if Martin said "Mike Adams' arguments are wrong because he's a silly little bitch." You may prefer that Martin's post addressed Adams' crap as arguments, but what's the point? They're obviously stupid tripe to anyone who is a regular here. He's not trying to take on these statements as if they're valid arguments! We're just laughing at the stupidity.

  26. says

    @ magx01In the case of scientists, we can point to their years of study and experiment, and to the peer-review process that governs scientific concensus. In the case of doctors, we can point to their years of study and experience as well, and also to the body of medical science which is itself policed by peer review.In the case of Kent Hovind, we can point to his degree from Double-Wide University, and his laughably childish dissertation. No description of mental inadequacy is too strong to become an ad hominmen when leveled at Hovind.

  27. says

    @magx01:"But where/how do you draw the line?"It's a valid question. Typically, it's not considered a fallacy if you quote an authority during a discussion of the subject he's an authority on.E.g. quoting your doctor's opinion regarding your health is reasonable, since he's trained in the field and has examined you personally.The problem is when you quote an authority on subject A when discussing subject B.E.g. "God exists, my doctor said so"An expert opinion is not as good an argument as presentation of the evidence itself, but it is valid exactly because we can't all know everything. Also, in most areas, there will be a general consensus among the experts. If all the people who have studied a field agree on a conclusion, it's on pretty solid ground.

  28. says

    Well, therien lies the problem. It's often misused, becuase I have seen claims of 'appeal to authority' levied at people for quoting Dawkins on biology. The way you put it, it becomes clear as day, but it raises a question: Does anyone actually ever do that? That seems so utterly silly to me to quote som- ah, nevermind, the anti-evolution, anti-vaccination and especially anti-global warming people do it all the time. Although it seems more like ignorance and misunderstanding than an appeal to authority to me…..or, at least, it's often an inadvertent appeal, as I said earlier with respect to strawmen. For example, my best friend was into the whole global warming denial thing for a time, and he always quoted non climatologists who were still scientists, which to him seemed fine because ''they're scientists.'' It took me quite a while to get him to understand the fallacy there, but I know it was inadvertent. He wasn't doing it on purpose. I know th eend result is the same, but I think how one arrives at the point where they make such mistakes really matters.I dunno, I'm rambling again. I tend to do that, my thoughts are very incoherent and jumbled at times. I describe it as like having a carbonated drink in my brain.Thanks for the good points Biscuit and Lukas.

  29. says

    "Eh, ad homs are tricky, but personally, I aspire to refrain from them, even if they are completely warranted.Note that I said aspire, as I often fail miserably :P"Note that stating someone's stance in an accurate but stark light is not a straw man or ad hom. PM and others seem to be confused by this…stating someone's opinion in a way that is unflattering is not a strawman…provided it is accurate.

  30. says

    I'm aware of that, Ing. I just don't think it's ever really useful. At least, in terms of advancing a debate. It's great for ending them though :P

  31. says

    @Pombolo, I really don't want to continue any flam war or bashing on him without him to talk as that's unfair regardless of how nasty he is. It's very explicit and personal which confuses me as other than going off on me for the one thing I have no idea why he'd have a hate on for me. He occasionally brought up some interesting topics and all even if he was insulting and odd, so I didn't want to see him banned.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>