Bad Argument: "You are biased!" (with bonus Vemma debunking)

A couple months back, I documented the bad argument "Demand for Parity", where defenders of a suspect scheme often react to "negative" information about their scheme with "I demand you cover some POSITIVE aspects of our scheme!"  I have already explained that "demand for parity" is an unethical debate tactic, as there is no proof that the two sides are equal, thus there is no "parity" to be sought. However, recently I ran into a variant of this bad argument, which I'll summarize as "You are biased!" bad argument.

It generally go like this:

A: Magazine _____ has published an article that states MLM ____ may be a pyramid scheme. 

B: That is a biased article! Don't believe them! MLM _____  is not a scam!  I am proof! It paid me! 

Somehow, in B's mind, being biased is mutually exclusive from being true. If it's biased, it cannot be true. That clearly can't be right. He believes that MLM is not a scam. Is his opinion biased? Of course it is! Thus, by his own standard, it can't be true! And of course, he used "it paid me" bad argument to justify his position, which is, of course, false proof.

A biased article can be absolutely true. It just may not be the complete truth. 

What's hilarious (or disturbing) is B then usually launches into a tirade of bad arguments that proves he's far more biased (albeit of a supporting nature) than whoever s/he had charged of being biased. The difference however, is that the defender often end up using various fallacies as defense.

Now let's get to a real example:



Here's the real example... a Vemma defender

How many bad arguments did this "Makenzie Whiting" use? Let's count.

First... "this is so biased!"  So what? It's also ALL TRUE! What a whiny crybaby. DEAL WITH IT!

Life is unfair. -- John F. Kennedy

Second... "without having experienced the the business"... I don't need to shoot myself in the head to know it's bad for me. Okay? This "you can't say bad things about me unless you know me personally" is just bogus.

English: A Serb commander puts a gun to the head of his son as he and his friends joke around while waiting for a prisoner exchange near Sarajevo, summer of 1992. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Third... the infamous "they did it wrong" victim blaming. As I said before, this is just like slut-shaming a rape victim. They don't know what caused the failure, but they IMMEDIATELY, with no data, blame the participant. Can you say: prejudiced? Closed-minded? Cultist?

Fourth... "why do people hate us, we are successful"  There is no proof that "we" are successful. There are a few individuals who are enriched, yes. But what does Vemma's own income disclosure say? 

That's right, folks >75% of all ACTIVE participants in 2012 earned less than 1326 WHOLE YEAR.

What's definition of "active"? "auto delivery every 5 weeks". That's $150 every 5 weeks. Or >$1500 PER YEAR (52 weeks).  I guess if they SELL most of the drinks they'll get SOME profit... But how many drinks do they get for $150 every 5 weeks? $150 translates to a "2-pack", which is 48 of those 8.3 oz short-cans.

48 cans, for 35 days. You can see where this is going right? Most of these will be consumed internally. Few if any will be sold. These are not distributors. These are CONSUMERS with DELUSION of profit. And at over $3 for that little can wholesale(150/48=3.125), that price is MORE THAN TWICE of that of Red Bull (5.98/4=1.49) retail.  That's right, you can sell Red Bull on campus and make MORE money.

Now how do you convince people to pay MORE THAN TWICE the competitor's price? Hmmm? By convincing them they will be SUCCESSFUL if they buy it. Is that a lie? You be the judge. 

Fifth... Don't hate on people with success... Oh come on, PLENTY of people hates people with success. What do you think "Occupy Wall Street" was?

Day 3, September 19, 2011: Photos documenting the protest event Occupy Wall Street in New York. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

"People with success" is that 1% in Vemma, as we've shown above WITH Vemma's own income disclosure!

But as we've shown before, success is only for the people at the very top, who managed to RECRUIT their way to the top. The average Vemma rep got stuff shipped to their door, which  they probably can't sell, so they simply drank them all, and pretend they are successful, until they can't no longer afford it and quit, only to be replaced by a new group of naive wannabes. A few who managed to recruited faster and better than others (and stay qualified by drinking their own order) climbed higher on backs of others much like those zombies in World War Z.

Obviously, no sane person will consent to being stepped on... unless they were lied to (or enjoy masochism) So why should you NOT hate the people climbing to the top?

The complaint about "biased" is bogus, and every counter evidence he raised are also bogus. The ENTIRE comment is full of bogosity.

And if you read the New York Post article, you'll find that most of the comments sound exactly like this one. It is as if they were written by my "bad argument generator".

Suggestion to Vemma reps: stay in school, learn some critical thinking, THEN push Vemma if you still think it's a good idea.

Related articles

• Ten Fact-Based Defenses You MLM Marketers Must Avoid
• Alarms Raised at Colleges Over Pyramid Allegations of MLM Vemma
• Social Cost of MLM: How it exploits group mentality and cult indoctrination
• Bad Argument: "Focusing Bias" used as "proof" of viewpoint