The Argument

No not that one. This one: “There are numerous websites that have expended X number of hours to reassure the masses that Y conspiracy is false. If Z really happened, then anyone who says otherwise is nuts and not worth the time to respond when they claim Y. So obviously, Y has merit.”


I mostly see this with the moon hoaxers. “If we really went to the moon, then how come you’re spending so much energy proving it?” Um…what? No, see, how that works is: there are a bunch of people trying to convince everyone else that the moon landing was fake despite mountains of evidence to the contrary and some people want people to be able to access that mountain as much as or more so than the faulty arguments that might get them a D on their school project.

If people go on believing bullshit, stuff like this can happen. I’m not going to deconstruct an already well-deconstructed conspiracy. I just want to draw attention to how silly that argument is.

Of course people address things. Why wouldn’t they? You are. By the same logic, the moon landing has to be true because the conspiracy theorists spend so much time arguing that it’s a hoax. So the moon landing “theory” must have merit. See how that’s silly? Actually the evidence has merit. NASA (with the LRO) and Japan’s SELENE pictures have it. The conspiracy theorists just plain don’t.

The argument “you’re bothering to argue with me, therefore I’m right” (regardless of the topic — the moon landing is just an example) is simply untenable.


Comments are closed.