Friday, May 30, 2014

Internet Loons Declare Me An #Anonymous #Hacker LOL!

Well I guess that settles that question.

If Heather Martin, a registered nurse at St. Pauls Hospital in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan and other Internet Loons declare me an Anonymous Hacker then it must be true. Lol.

After all, they allege:

  1. that they are all 'thorough' researchers 
  2. have a veritable treasure trove of links, and documents that they and other Internet Loons produced 
  3. which they share amongst each other

which say so.

Of course, according to their circular logic, that is 'evidence' and makes their allegations true because, after all, they can reference each others bullshit.

This argument is based on the logical fallacy, Argumentum Ad Populum which simply states: "If many believe so, it is so.

Of course, the flaw in that statement should be obvious here. Everyone used to believe the world was flat and we know that isn't true. In fact, a lot of people believe in a lot of stupid things. If we assumed they were all true just because a lot of people believed them, we'd still be living in caves.

And people wonder why I call them irrational Internet Loons. Lol.


Why is their demonstrated looniness even a question? Is it that human beings are lacking in a general ability to engage in rational thought processes by default?

I think so and I think this is a serious failing in our educational system.

EVERYONE should be taught logical argumentation skills from the time they can speak. It can be done and it should be done or I see very little hope for the survival of the human race.


The kind and quantity of sheer ignorance that gets flogged on the Internet daily and that some people eagerly lap up and spew everywhere is absolutely astounding.

Maybe we should consider licensing people before they're allowed to have blogs? A required Pass in a course on logical argumentation could be the ticket in. Lol.

Anyway, according to their loony logic, given that,

  1. I am in IT (I'm a web and software application developer)
  2. I support the Anonymous concept

therefore I am an Anonymous Hacker. Lol.

This is like saying (Example 1):
  1. All toasters are items made of gold.
  2. All items made of gold are time-travel devices.
  3. Therefore, all toasters are time-travel devices.
Or to be more specific (Example 2):
  1. All people in IT are Hackers
  2. All Hackers are Anonymous
  3. Therefore, all people in IT are Anonymous Hackers
BOTH of the above examples have statements that are known in logical argumentation as valid logic. That is, the conclusion (3) logically follows the premises (1 and 2).

So, as you can see by example 1, logic can be valid, even if it is based on statements that are untrue.
"It is important to stress that the premises of an argument do not have actually to be true in order for the argument to be valid. An argument is valid if the premises and conclusion are related to each other in the right way so that if the premises were true, then the conclusion would have to be true as well." --IEP. Validity and Soundness [in logical argumentation]
And to the idiot, the premises will be assumed to be true therefore the conclusions are presumed to be true.

Herein lies the difference between the intelligent critical thinker and the ignoramus (who can, should and might be willing to learn) or the stupid (who is incapable of or self-servingly refuses to learn).

Whether these irrational Internet Loons who are alleging that I'm an Anonymous Hacker fall into the category of ignoramus or stupid is solely in their hands. I have no control over which they demonstrate, by their own actions, to be. Only they can do that.

All I can do is provide the education and information which will help to educate those interested in learning and that is what I'm doing here.

Now, as you can see, in the demonstration above, valid logic, while it's certainly logical, isn't necessarily true if the premises aren't true. It can be false. It can even be completely nuts unless you think toasters are actually time machines. In which case I'd have to say that you were nuts.

That's why logical argumentation doesn't just require validity. It also requires soundness.

A sound logical argument is one which uses both valid logic (the conclusion follows logically from the premises) AND the premises are demonstrably true.

This is where the irrational Internet Loons fail in all their allegations. In many cases, they are sort of capable of making claims which on the surface might appear to make sense or appear to have some truth to them but as soon as you scratch the surface a little you expose the filthy inner lining of irrational looniness because the premises are false. That is, they intentionally don't or can't present sound arguments.

Their goal is just to fabricate some bullshit that sounds good and that thoughtless people might buy rather than to present truth. The purpose of that goal is defame and discredit those they target with their bullshit.

A sound logical argument about people in IT and Anonymous hackers would look like the following:

  1. Some people in IT hack
  2. Some people in IT support Anonymous
  3. Some people in IT might be Anonymous Hackers

Does this logic support the allegation that people in IT are Anonymous Hackers?

Of course it doesn't.

It supports the allegation that those people in IT who hack and who support Anonymous might be Anonymous Hackers not that they are Anonymous Hackers.

If you replace the term, 'Some people' with my name, does it support the allegation I'm an Anonymous Hacker?

Of course it doesn't.

In order for the logic to be sound, you'd have to have evidence that I hack. The fact that I publicly support Anonymous isn't enough. BOTH premises have to be demonstrably true for the conclusion to be true and argument (allegation) logic to be sound.

Since I have publicly stated that I don't hack and since there is no evidence that I'm lying (you'd need actual demonstrable proof of my alleged hacking not some paranoid unproven accusation), the statement is flagrantly obvious bullshit and most likely intentional lies.

Even if someone fabricated evidence that I hack (and that's what they would have to do since I don't), the statement is still can't be perceived as being necessarily true. The conclusion can still only be that I might be, not that I am, unless there is demonstrable evidence of me participating as a hacker in an Anonymous Op. That evidence would also have to be fabricated since I haven't participated in any Anonymous Ops as a hacker.

Given that some of these Internet loons actually have a proven and demonstrated history of fabricating evidence in order to support their false allegations this is certainly within the realm of possibility.

Of course, my specialty is to expose their lies, fabrications and frame-ups which I have done successfully and repeatedly on my Cyberharassment and the Cyberbullies blog. The loons hate this blog and claim that I'm targeting 'innocent' people on it despite the fact that it contains a great deal of evidence, much of it hard evidence and some of it irrefutable evidence. Lol. This is the real reason they hate it.

If you want to have a good laugh you can read all about their lame attempts at frame-ups and deceptions and watch how I expose their lies using forensic technology and critical reasoning applied to evidence openly available on the Internet or provided to me by others.

sound arguments both start out with true premises and have a form that guarantees that the conclusion must be true if the premises are, sound arguments always end with true conclusions. --IEP. Validity and Soundness [in logical argumentation]

In my company blog I've provided an excerpt from a very good article which defines the different groups of people in IT, what they do, and what the differences are between the groups including the difference between web and software developers like myself and hackers. There's also a link back to the full article which is interesting and worth a read.

Here's an excerpt of the excerpt. Lol.


These words might all mean the same thing to you. Perhaps you hear geek, nerd, and dweeb, but we all know these have very important differences. Knowing the differences also can give you a sense of how deep you want to go on your coding adventure.

  • Coders - Can pretty much figure out it. It'll work, but it won't be pretty.
  • Hackers - usually low level folks, skillful, with detailed understanding of some area deeply, often scarily deeply.
  • Programmer - Write code and understand algorithms. Often work alone and well.
  • Developer - Are the best generalists, can use lots of different systems and languages and get them to talk to each other. Are true and broad professionals, work with people, and communicate well.
  • Computer Scientist - Need to be able to prove how computers work, at a theoretical level. Are usually math people also.

No comments: