Conservapedia talk:DeMyer's Laws

I clipped this from the article;

It is a logical fallacy similar to "Godwin's Law" which seeks to cut off further debate after an opponent plays the Hitler Card. Additionally, it bypasses the principle of falsifiability by asserting that YEC is false prima facie, implying that the negation (Old Earthism) is unimpeachably true. DeMyer's Law and Godwin's Law, then, resemble the arguments made by Al Gore when he seeks to silence dissenters of global warming by prior restraint.

I feel that DeMyer's Law is only a fallacy if what you are discussing is evolution or creationism. If you are discussing anything else I don't feel it is overtly fallacious to ignore the prick that is dragging you of track as they are not staying on topic and so are not presenting an argument anyway. - User ${\displaystyle \approx }$${\displaystyle \pi }$For best results always render PNG 07:43, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

Who added that crap? "Old earthism" is prima facie true. Introducing YEC instantly destroys one's position. ħuman 21:14, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

A bold proposal

This is a complete change of the article I know but I think DeMyers' Law should be "Anyone who post on an argument on the internet which contains more than 40% quotations is deemed to have already lost the argument". This turns the logical fallacy issue raised by Francine to the person violating DeMyer's Law. - User ${\displaystyle \approx }$${\displaystyle \pi }$For best results always render PNG 23:23, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

How about that's KDM's Second Law? ħuman 01:59, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
Works for me. - User ${\displaystyle \approx }$${\displaystyle \pi }$For best results always render PNG 07:57, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

Clarification on quotations.

When a respondent begins to quote back to you your own statements, as if you did not know what you just said, you can be fairly sure that he has entered the quicksand of his own opinions.Uniquerman (talk) 23:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Have you met our friend Phillip? - π 23:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

It is allowable if doing something along the lines of a refutation of each point. --Whyhow (talk) 03:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

New Law?

I was thinking a new one could be anyone who states "I noticed you still haven't managed to refute the conservapedia Atheism article has automatically lost the argument" or something. Thoughts? Se7enEight 21:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be his own personal extension of Danth's Law. - π 12:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Restore

On Dalek's redirecting spree this was deleted. I have restored this as this is the page the Telegraph decided to link to. d hominem 21:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

By this, I mean one of the redirects. It seemed to have redirected me to this namespaced version without me noticing. d hominem 21:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Woops, apologies. EXTERMINATE 22:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
No problem. This is just to stick it on record. d hominem 22:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)