The Ethical Skeptic

Challenging Pseudo-Skepticism, Institutional Propaganda and Cultivated Ignorance

Fact/Ambiguity Dipoles

For Every Fact there is an Equal and Opposite Parasitic Implication
With SSkeptics be on your guard because the dipole implication which comes along with a seemingly innocently tendered “fact” – is often misleading and malicious.

In Electromagnetism, there is a basic configuration of electrical ions or current in which the positive and negatively charged regions of a linear conductor accrete to opposite ends or sides.  This is called a dipole. Each dipole has a positive and a negatively charged side.  In many instances, the user of a magnet may indeed see the effect of the dipole in that the magnet they might hold, will attach its positive side immediately to a ferrous substrate.  What is commonly forgotten in this relationship is that the magnet, while attracting itself to a ferrous surface, carries with it a negatively charged opposite end – which is not immediately obvious to the unaware user.

A positive lead on a dipole carries with it a negative side, which is not always immediately obvious to the unaware recipient

Fact Ambiguity DipoleIn similar fashion, SSkeptics make common use of Fact and Implied Ambiguity dipoles in order to surreptitiously condemn topics and people they wish to attack, without tendering the overt appearance of doing such unethical activity.  Remember, that with a SSkeptic, the matter at hand is THEM, their image, and the constant need and charade of ‘being right’ at all costs.  This mandate dictates that the seasoned SSkeptic also avoid the appearance of impropriety with regard to argument tactics.  The well trained SSkeptic has learned long ago: No ad hominem attacks.  Those attacks reveal your agenda and character, and as well indicate that one may not yet be mature enough to be accepted into the inner circles of the Cabal; not yet attaining the old age and treachery incumbent in weaving un-factual slight-work into your semantics and material expression.  One liners and headlines are often the best places in which to practice the malicious art of Fact/Ambiguity Dipoling.  Success at such unethical activity, typically involves fantasies on the part of the practicing SSkeptic involving throngs of pseudo-intellectual sychophants cheering behind the scenes declaring “Those cretin-credulous tin foil hat types are not even smart enough to comprehend that SSkeptic Phil just SLAMMED them!”

Fact /Ambiguity Dipole – Conflation of fact along with a malicious and implicit ambiguous element.

A fact tendered along with a less obvious parasitic and maliciously incorrect implication.  This sleight-of-hand is employed to surreptitiously condemn topics and people false skeptics wish to attack, while avoiding the overt appearance of doing such unethical activity.  One-liners and headlines are often the best places in which to practice this malicious art; typically employed with the personal goal of improving overall Cabal ranking.  A Fact/Ambiguity Dipole dances along the boundary line of slander or libel, with its virtual center of gravity, the parasitic implication, clearly on the unfactual side of that line, while at the same time the superficially contended technical facts remain accurate.

A visceral example of a Fact/Ambiguity Dipole might be as follows:

Fact/Ambiguity Dipole:  “My neighbor has sex with women, but the age of these women is unknown” or the more craftily imbedded form: “My neighbor has sex with women of unknown age.”

This statement is correct in its gramatical fact construction, but is completely unethical and malicious in its utterance or delivery.  It dances along the boundary line of slander or libel, with its virtual center of gravity clearly on the unethical side of the line, but the physical parts of its matter physically residing on the legal side of the line.  It is a a corrupt practice of Deskeption, and is of VERY common employment among SSkeptics.

So the seasoned and visible SSkeptic, who enjoys the art of the argument as one of his psychological rewards, takes the much more surreptitious, and in the mind of the SSkeptic, “higher road” of implicating his attack on disdained topics and people through the employment of Fact/Ambiguity Dipoles.  Perhaps rather than continue to attempt to use my limited skills at communication to further give this a direct definition, I should instead elicit the principal with some key examples from the big names in SSkeptic-dom.  I will tally those in the One Liners page of my blogsite.

August 29, 2011 - Posted by | Argument Fallacies, Social Disdain | , , , , , , ,

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Chinese (Simplified)EnglishFrenchGermanHindiPortugueseRussianSpanish
%d bloggers like this: