Sometimes, people seem to think that the more they repeat an idea, the more likely it is that someone else will believe it. In other words, they are trying to convince people of something not based upon reasons or evidence, but instead upon sheer repetition. But why do some think that such a tactic will work?
Read Article: Repetition - Argumentum Ad Nauseam
Head on! Apply directly to the foreHead! Head on! Apply directly to the forehead! Head on! Apply directly to the forehead!
Reminds me the accusations that Glenn Beck raped and killed a girl in 1990. It’s not true! It’s not true that Glenn Beck raped and killed a girl in 1990. So if you have any proof that Glenn Beck didn’t rape and kill a girl in 1990, please come forward. In the mean time i look forward to Glenn Beck refuting the accusations that he raped and killed a girl in 1990.
This is probably one of my least favorite logical fallacies… Not that I actually have a favorite, but this one just makes me the most angry. It clearly shows that anyone who keeps bringing the same thing up again and again is in no way listening to anything you say. No matter how soundly you refute their argument, they aren’t listening, and are in no way interested in listening.
At least this is a tip off to me that I am better served leaving them to their delusions and moving on to someone who may at least have a functioning sensory system instead of being as intelectually capabla as a turnip.
In my opinion, the reason folks continue to repeat themselves is to make themselves feel that they are right. They believe they are so right, and they want others to accept what they believe to be truth.
I think strawman is most frustrating–or most funny–depending on how you look at it. There’s something really ludicrous about someone telling you that you said things you didn’t say. And they never quote you–they just present a statement and respond to it–like it’s what you said. I’ve had people respond repeatedly to X-statement that I haven’t stated, and keep doing so until I have finally said, “You need to go back and pull the quote where I said this, or you need to stop saying I said it. If you don’t provide a quote, and you mention this one more time, I’m not responding.” And I’ve had people _honestly_ go back, find that I never said any such thing–and then chastise _me_ for being a “clever/tricky debater” (by not having said what they pretended I said)…?!
It’s probably the one area where my brain can’t even process it. They repeatedly accuse me of having said X, won’t demonstrate I said it, then get upset with me (after I’ve told them again and again, I never said it), when they can’t back up what they made up. It’s unfathomable.
The latest was a guy who wrote to me to say “god is energy.” He presented his case, and I asked him about his logic and evidence. He wrote back to say (using a lot of caps) that the burden of proof was on “YOU” to support my claim that god isn’t energy.
I only pointed out that I had not claimed “god isn’t energy”–and that he contacted _me_ to present _me_ with a claim god is energy, and I had only asked him questions about his logic and evidence.
He also talked about how “pissed off” he was that I was equating his belief with being an idiot–and he repeated “idiocy.” I did a search for “idio” to see if I had even used the word (since I did not recall having insulted him in that manner–which I hadn’t. I asked him to show me where I called him an idiot or his beliefs idiotic. While I am inclined to suppose they are–I never said that to him, so I was just mystified. I kept the entire history of the strand in my reply at his disposal.
There’s just something really funny about writing back and responding over and over, “but…I never made that claim, so why should I have to support that claim–just because you’re saying I said it?”