User:Faunas



Hi, my name is Faunas, and I'm from Portugal.

I'm on high school university, and I'm RW's home Conspiracy theorist

My Internet law proposals
NOTE: not all these laws are my original idea, although some are; they're just transformed in wotty sentences I made up.


 * Faunas's law nº 1: "If your only refutation to an argument consists on claming alone your oponents are hypocrites or liars, that probably means that either you're out of good arguments to spend or you don't really know how to argue with your opponents."
 * In other words, just because someone is a hypocrite, it doesn't mean that person is wrong or lying; correctness/incorrectness and truth/lies are evaluated independently of hipocrisy. The law is known in philosophy as an ad hominem. If that person is lying, then the argument is wrong, but it's still an ad hominem and you've got to prove they are lying. Note that the law does not apply when the only way to disprove an argument is to claim and prove your opponent is a hypocrite or lying; however, these cases are rare, and the law applies in 99,99% of the cases (just a way of saying, not an actual statistic).


 * Faunas's law nº 2: "If your only refutation to an argument or ideology is heavily dependent on or uses exclusively your own argument or ideology, then your argument or ideology - and thus your refutation - is deemed wrong."
 * In other words, you've got to prove your refutation independently of your world view; if not, your argument is basically just a large circular argument. Normally, the people who try to disprove other people's arguments by using their own world view have no proof to support their argument, are wrong or are conspiracy theorists (these ones put Faunas's law nº 2 to "good" use by deeming any proof contrary to their theory a proof of the conspiracy). The law is known in philosophy as assuming the antecedent and normally uses the argument from ignorance.


 * Faunas's law nº 3: "When someone mentions the expression 'begging the question' or some variation thereof, it's almost absolutely certain they don't know what they're talking about."
 * "Begging the question" is in reality the name of a fallacy, also known as circular reasoning; when people say something "begs the question", they normally want to say something "raises the question".


 * Faunas's corolary to Cohen's Law aka Faunas's law nº 4: "Who ever uses Cohen's Law in their arguments will see their own arguments self-extinguished."
 * Read "Cohen's Law" for more info.


 * Faunas's law nº 5: "Whenever a particular thing is parodized, the parodized will think it's a parody of the opponents' view of the parodized. Whenever an opponents' view of a certain thing is parodized, the opponents will think it's a parody of the thing itself."
 * Basically a widened version of Russell's Law: "It is impossible to distinguish a creationist from a parody of a creationist". Case in point: for the first, The Colbert Report (yes, I know it's not online); for the second, the #INeedMasculismBecause hashtag on Twitter. This law is related to Poe's law.


 * Faunas's law nº 6: "Whenever Richard Gardner and/or parental alienation syndrome (PAS) are discussed, there will always be nutsies claiming Gardner and other PAS proponents are pro-pedophile or even covert pedophiles/abusers."
 * I highly recommend you read "Am I Evil?" by Amy J.L. Baker, Ph.D. on Psychology Today, an article answering questions to which Faunas's Law nº 6 heavily applies. Be warned, comments section is a hotbed of Faunas's Law nº 6.