The level of discussion here is appalling. I am too to some degree guilty of occasionally employing some logical fallacies, often intentionally, for that I do apologize. Now let me give you some details and examples.The simple truth is that Pirate made an extrordianary claim that he has some kind of biz model that is producing >3400% APR AND that it is reasonable to buy capital at ~3400 APR% AND that his biz model is not a ponzi. Moreover he takes(has taken) deposits/money based on that claim directly and via intermediaries/partners/employees/etc.
The opponents have called this BS and are completely justified to assert that pirate is running a ponzi scheme. based on logical reasoning.
Pirate and his shills, supporters, lieutenants and captives went on offensive employing every logical fallacy in the book (many of them anyway).
Let's just list some of fallacies routinely used and/or likely will be used shortly by team "pirate, the miracle worker":
Ad hoc: "pirate paid 1 account, hence he will pay all accounts", "pirate paid N weeks on time, hence he will continue paying on time" etc...
Anecdotal evidence: "we had a dinner with pirate, therefore he is not anonymous"
Argumentum ad baculum: "you say something against pirate, you get paid last"
Argumentum ad crumenam: "pirate has NNNNNN BTC, therefore he is right", "I bet NNNNNNN BTC, therefore I am right (or ballsy), you did not bet therefore you shut up"
Argumentum ad hominem: attacking opponents personally and on various unrelated matters, like their own businesses, bets they have or not have placed etc...Argumentum ad ignorantiam: "Of course the Bible is true. Nobody can prove otherwise.", "pirate is not a ponzi because nobody can prove otherwise", "there is a giant teapot orbiting the sun, because nobody can prove otherwise". This also includes "shifting the burden of proof", btw.
Argumentum ad misericordiam: (soon to be employed) "I did not murder my mother and father with an axe! Please don't find me guilty; I'm suffering enough through being an orphan.", "I lost so much money on ponzi and stupid bets, I am suffering enough, do not tell me that I am guilty of promoting and conspiring in a ponzi scheme and a scammer"
Argumentum ad nauseam: ohh yea repeat utter BS until any reasonable person tells you "fuck off, no point to talking to you", nauseating it is indeed.
Argumentum ad numerum: "so many people invested in that, they cannot be all wrong"
Argumentum ad verecundiam: (Appeal to authority, false authority in this case): "Pirates's lieutenants and shills say they know him, and he a has magical biz model and it is not a ponzi, it must be so then"
Bifurcation: "if pirate pays all accounts now, he is not running a ponzi" (That is an interesting one, think about it)
Fallacy of presupposition: (demanding an explanation of something that is not true or have not been established)
Ignoratio elenchi: (illogically concluding that some set of usually fallacious arguments support the desired conclusion)
Non causa pro causa: "pirate has defaulted because, they were posting that he is running a ponzi"
Non sequitur: "pirate pays 7%, therefore he has some miracle biz model making lots of money and it is totally possible"
Petitio principii: "pirate is not running a ponzi, because he pays dividends, and must have some underlying biz model, and therefore he is not running a ponzi"
Plurium interrogationum: demanding a simple answer to a complex question.
Red herring: "some copies of bitcoin magazine were delivered late, therefore pirate is not running a ponzi"Shifting the burden of proof (again): "pirate has claimed that he is not running a ponzi and that he needs to buy capital at 3000% APR and that he has some underlying biz model other than paying capital back as dividend and asked and received lots of money, now you need to prove that he is not running a ponzi."
Straw man: (happens ~10 times in every thread.) miscquote your opponent than attack his, taken out of context or misrepresented, opinion. Works especially well with typos and grammar/spelling mistakes.
Tu quoque: "you attacked ad hominem, I will respond with ad hominem too." The persistent abuse here of all the fallacies is so annoying that continuing any serious discussion here amounts to utter waste of time, not intellectual stimulating and often simply aggravating.
The above is why I do this...
For your reference:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacieshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proofhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_teapothttp://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/