Although I still have not seen the movie itself, I thought the clip was interesting enough to post. This clip from the movie, “Interstellar” tries to insult the conspiracy theorists that the moon landing was not staged and that we should be ashamed of ourselves for thinking otherwise.
Published on Oct 31, 2014 by Movie Trailers
Interstellar Official Movie Clip #1 ‘Useless Machines’ (2014) starring Matthew McConaughey, Anne Hathaway, Jessica Chastain and directed by Christopher Nolan.
A group of explorers make use of a newly discovered wormhole to surpass the limitations on human space travel and conquer the vast distances involved in an interstellar voyage.
Release: 7 November 2014
Director: Christopher Nolan
Cast: Matthew McConaughey, Anne Hathaway, Jessica Chastain, Casey Affleck, Michael Cane, Mackenzie Foy, John Lithgow
Genre: Mystery, Sci-Fi
Country: USA
Production Co: Legendary Pictures, Lynda Obst Productions, Paramount Pictures, Syncopy, Warner Bros.
Distributor: Paramount Pictures (USA), Warner Bros. (UK)
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Interstellar
Official Website: http://www.interstellarmovie.com/
The elite seem to be trying to use our tactics against us. They create propaganda to indoctrinate our children with their Communist Core rhetoric and then blame the truthers for it by saying we are the ones changing the textbooks and indoctrinating our children by distorting their matrix version of reality that they created to brainwash us. Psychos!
Hi NC,
Uhmmmm,… yeap,.. you about summed it up pretty well.
Good job.
JD – US Marines – See,.. read NC’s explanation,.. its not so hard to understand afterall.
.
You nailed it :
Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a rhetorical device where adverse information about a target is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say. Poisoning the well can be a special case of argumentum ad hominem, and the term was first used with this sense by John Henry Newman in his work Apologia Pro Vita Sua (1864).[1] The origin of the term lies in well poisoning, an ancient wartime practice of pouring poison into sources of fresh water before an invading army, to diminish the attacking army’s strength.
Examples
If Adam tells Bob, “Chris is a fascist so do not listen to him”, then Adam has committed the fallacy of poisoning the well; if Bob takes Adam’s advice then he is also a victim of the fallacy of poisoning the well. Assuming that Chris is not merely going to tell Bob that he is not a fascist then there is a fallacy because it is irrelevant to the cogency of Chris’ argument(s) whether he is or is not a fascist. It is possible to be a fascist and also to have cogent arguments on some arbitrary matter, e.g. Chris may wish to persuade Bob that the Earth is not flat; being a fascist does not preclude the possibility of having a cogent argument that the Earth is not flat.
Structure
Poisoning the well can take the form of an (explicit or implied) argument, and is considered by some philosophers an informal fallacy.
A poisoned-well “argument” has the following form:
1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false, relevant or irrelevant) about person A (the target) is presented by another. (e.g., “Before you listen to my opponent, may I remind you that he has been in jail.”)
2. Implicit conclusion: “Therefore, any claims made by person A cannot be relied upon”.
A subcategory of this form is the application of an unfavorable attribute to any future opponents, in an attempt to discourage debate. (For example, “That’s my stance on funding the public education system, and anyone who disagrees with me hates children.”) Any person who steps forward to dispute the claim will then risk applying the tag to him or herself in the process. [Especially ; Anyone who does not agree with Israeli policies is anti-semitic]
A poisoned-well “argument” can also be in this form:
1. Unfavorable definitions [The Climate is changing ; Global warming is bad] (be it true or false) which prevent disagreement (or enforce affirmative position)
2. Any claims without first agreeing with above definitions are automatically dismissed. [The Palestinians support Hamas, Hamas are terrorists therefore all Palestinians and anyone who supports them are terrorists]