Cui bono?

[cali]

So Sam Bacile is almost certainly Nakoula Basseley Nakoula.

And we know that the "film" didn't cost anywhere near 5 million dollars, so the claim that it was financed by a 100 wealthy Jews is bullshit.

So who benefits from this? What was their aim? To foment even more antagonism in the middle east between Jews and Arabs? Why would a Coptic Christian and an American Christian (Steve Klein) who's long been tracked by the SPLC produce, this and make the claims about the apparently ficticious Sam Bacile? Was this just a project by two nutters who didn't expect much of any response? Did they know those in the middle east who picked up this piece of shit and promoted it on an Egyptian TV channel?

This is such a murky, tangled, bizarre tale that it's hard to tease any sense out of it.

[JustAnotherGen]

1. They aren't nuts

And they aren't two lone wolves.
They knew PRECISELY what they were doing.

[longship]

2. Hello? FBI?

Hope they are on this. If this is true, this is a serious fraud and likely a serious federal crime. IANAL, but interfering with US international relations may be very serious indeed.

If this is what it is beginning to look like, I hope they catch the bastards that did this.

Cui bono is also the name of a logical fallacy. I hope this isn't fallacious.

Follow the evidence.

[Brickbat]

3. Cui bono, IIRC, is not a fallacy.

It's simply a question.

[longship]

4. Well, the truthers use it that way.

But I agree, it is not a fallacy, per se. But when used as a justification for stuff like 9/11 truther rubbish, it is fallacious reasoning.

I hope that a bunch of truther-like crap doesn't come of this. But I suppose it's inevitable given that an entire party has been screaming about how bad government is for over three decades. The conspiracy theory seeds were planted a generation ago.

[cali]

5. huh? it simply and literally means "Who Benefits".

[longship]

6. I know what it means,

But it is still a logical fallacy when it is used as a justification for a fallacious position, as in 9/11 truther crap. I.E., Bush/Cheney benefited from 9/11, therefore they caused it, or let it happen. That is a cui bono logical fallacy.

[hobbit709]

8. I somehow don't think the Romans considered it a logical fallacy when they first posed that question

The Roman orator and statesman Marcus Tullius Cicero, in his speech Pro Roscio Amerino,[1] section 84, attributed the expression cui bono to the Roman consul and censor Lucius Cassius Longinus Ravilla:
“ L. Cassius ille quem populus Romanus verissimum et sapientissimum iudicem putabat identidem in causis quaerere solebat 'cui bono' fuisset.

The famous Lucius Cassius, whom the Roman people used to regard as a very honest and wise judge, was in the habit of asking, time and again, 'To whose benefit?'
”

[longship]

9. I don't care what Romans thought.

Cui bono is still a logical fallacy when it is used in a fallacious sense. As in, 9/11 was an inside job because Bush/Cheney gained politically.

We've heard that kind of argument for years in these conspiracy theories. They are termed cui bono fallacies because the existence of a benefactor implies nothing about the truth of their reckless suppositions.

Bringing up the historic Roman use of the term is a non-sequitur (another logical fallacy I might add).

[hobbit709]

10. Must be nice to be so sure about things

[longship]

12. Listen to the SGU. They talk about logical fallacies all the time.

Skeptics Guide to the Universe (especially the early episodes)

Note: let me reiterate. I am not saying cui bono is always a logical fallacy. I am saying it is called that when it is used in a fallacious sense. Then, cui bono fallacy is an entirely appropriate name.

Got it now?

Hope so. Because I am done here.

[Generic Other]

11. is trifecta a fallacy too?

Bush acknowledged he benefited.

[longship]

13. If you are arguing:

Dubya benefitted from 9/11, therefore he caused 9/11. <== that would be a cui bono fallacy.

[Generic Other]

14. Well his saying he won a prize that day, his ignoring intell, his desire to start a ME war

we still will never know if he was or was not the culprit. He certainly benefited and they flat out told us they would use psy ops against us, that they would lie when they felt like it...circumstantial evidence against them is very strong. Most of us however don't talk about our memories of these things these days. I do not think Bush's connection to 9/11 has ever been fully explained. I don't consider cui bono a fallacy in this case but an accusation. Big difference.

[Odin2005]

15. It often leads to bad, even delusional thinking.

It often leads to a delusional mindset where nothing is a coincidence and everything in the world is controlled by a secretive cabal. It is the modern version of blaming everything on the gods up in Olympus.

Of course that criticism does not apply here because this film was obviously meant to be inflammatory.

[choie]

7. Cui Bono

is not a logical fallacy - it's a logical and vital question to ask when trying to get at the root of an issue or cause of an event.

[Odin2005]

16. Most events are not the result of the manipulation by people for their own benefit.

That is why using that question indiscriminately leads to a delusional mindset that sees conspiracies everywhere, one often sees that mindset in people with Schizophrenia.