Bullshidoka Arguments

**Phrost** · Posted On: 3/08/2007 10:09am

That's a good one. My coach, for example, is overweight but he puts guys in the big shows.

**It is Fake** · Posted On: 3/08/2007 10:20am

Forcibly narrowing the scope of an investigation better said as, staying on topic.

In other words they say certain things are off topic. Family etc I can understand. Yet, if we are looking into your MA claims and stumble across a possible false or diploma mill education, it ties back into the fake credentials.

**OnceLost** · Posted On: 3/08/2007 10:39am

Forcibly narrowing the scope of an investigation better said as, staying on topic.

Please add your input to this thread:
http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?t=52243

The threads are related, but different enough that I believe they should be addressed separately.

Fake, do you agree with the wording of the counter to Argument #4?

Supplemental information may be relevant to the hypothesis that the person has lied about or misrepresented parts of his history to bolster his own authority (usually as it relates to MA).

Investigations are 'living documents.' They can get larger or smaller depending on the information obtained.

**It is Fake** · Posted On: 3/08/2007 10:56am

Originally Posted by OnceLost

Please add your input to this thread:
http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?t=52243

The threads are related, but different enough that I believe they should be addressed separately.

Fake, do you agree with the wording of the counter to Argument #4?

Investigations are 'living documents.' They can get larger or smaller depending on the information obtained.

Yes, I agree.

**Matt W.** · Posted On: 3/08/2007 11:17am

One favored tactic (and hopefully no one has said this already) is to drag an argument on for days/pages without answering any questions, and then at some later point start claiming "I already answered those questions. Go back and find them yourself."

There's also the "I'm not going to do your research for you" line that is used to avoid answering questions.

**OnceLost** · Posted On: 3/08/2007 11:31am

Excellent points, Matt. That ties in with the other thread I started (http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?t=52243) - I'd appreciate your input there. I'll throw out some ideas about the two you've listed; see if you agree.

Bullshidoka Argument #13 - I've already answered those questions. Go back and find them yourself.

Counter - First and most obvious, check to make sure those questions haven't actually been answered. If they have, acknowledge it. If not, tell the bullshidoka that you have checked but you were unable to find anything that answers your particular questions. Than restate the questions - if they're already answered those questions, they shouldn't be too torn up by having to answer them again. If this is a consistent pattern, the poster who makes this argument is not a credible source of information and should be dismissed (ignored, posts removed, etc).

Bullshidoka Argument #14 - I'm not going to do your research for you.

Counter - This is where I view the 'put up or shut up' coming into play. If you're not going to assist with an investigation, don't post on the thread. If you have information you could contribute but choose not to, fine - we can't force people to give information. If you don't have the answer, that's fine too - part of an investigation is identifying credible sources of information. Either way, don't clutter up a thread.

**Nate1481** · Posted On: 3/08/2007 11:31am

This is worth a sticky, at least until the article can be written, also would it be worth refining it on .org as it's in a convenient wiki format?

**Nickeroon1987** · Posted On: 3/08/2007 11:49am

Originally Posted by Matt W.

One favored tactic (and hopefully no one has said this already) is to drag an argument on for days/pages without answering any questions, and then at some later point start claiming "I already answered those questions. Go back and find them yourself."

There's also the "I'm not going to do your research for you" line that is used to avoid answering questions.

Hopefully this list will help that from ever happening, by having quick, succinct answers to all their bullshit, therefore keeping the thread from getting cluttered.

Also, here's a good, short book on logical fallacies:

http://www.amazon.com/Nonsense-Handb...3376082&sr=8-1

I enjoyed it a lot and it really helps one cut through all the bullshit politicians spit out, or in this case, Bullshidoka's.

**Permalost** · Posted On: 3/08/2007 1:59pm

#15: My credentials can't be backed up because the training was super secret/the government won't allow it.

Counter: If you can't validate your credentials, you should at the very least be able to validate your skills.

**OnceLost** · Posted On: 3/08/2007 2:07pm

I'd add to #15 that credentials that are super secret wouldn't be shared at all, not shared with the caveat that no verification is available.

That is similar to a large number of arguments, though, I'd suggest rewording it to:
My credentials can't be backed up because (insert reason here).
Including - they were destroyed in a house fire, lost in a move, currently at someone else's house, top secret, my sensei won't allow me to share his name, et cetera.

Whenever possible, I'd suggest asking for verification of the excuse (a house fire, you say? A check with the fire department can verify that - what was the address and date). If verification is impossible (super secret) or not forthcoming, I would make a note that the person was unwilling or unable to provide evidence about a particular claim.