that has to be the most thought out circular amount of B.S. you have EVER posted yet.
nice attempt to save face, but you've really lost it there.
now trying to split them as 2 different points?
your trolling in your own thread.
hahahahahaha!
This is the vile hatred that the Democrats and leftists are encouraging
- Thread starter shagdrum
- Start date
that has to be the most thought out circular amount of B.S. you have EVER posted yet.
nice attempt to save face, but you've really lost it there.
now trying to split them as 2 different points?
your trolling in your own thread.
hahahahahaha!
Shag – maybe we should go on a mission to clear this up
And, believe me – I hate throwing around debate terms, but since you have just gotten silly here… You leave me little choice.
By-the-way - this is a boring way to argue...
Your headline
This is the vile hatred that the Democrats and leftists are encouraging
Is an inductive argument – which is a type of fallacy
The following is an example of inductive argument…
Most outdoor dogs are Huskies
Skip is an outdoor dog
Skip is a Husky
Your headline follows the same flawed logic…
Vile hatred is encouraged by Democrats and leftists
This is an example of vile hatred
This is the vile hatred that the Democrats and leftists are encouraging
As you can see – your headline is logically unsound, therefore a fallacy.
ford nut
Local nut case
OK - come on guys. PLEASE --- Debate the issues and stop with the personal attacks and snyde comments. Im getting complaints from other members. So please, can we reign this in ?
You are mischaracterizing me by taking my headline out of context to set up a straw man.
Here is an explanation of the fallacy of quoting out of context:
The practice of "quoting out of context", sometimes referred to as "contextomy," is a logical fallacy and type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning
Here is an explanation of a straw man argument:A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
The original post that created this thread, and the headline of the thread where created in reference to the specific populist anger against AIG concerning the bonuses that was being discussed in the article in post #1. To not acknowledge that as an assumption in the claim is to take the headline out of context.
So, if you are going to break the claim down into an argument (even though it is ill suited to make into an argument) and still keep it in context, it should look more like this:
- The vile actions in the article are based in hatred [directed at AIG concerning the bonus payouts]
- Democrats and leftists are encouraging hatred [directed at AIG concerning the bonus payouts]
- Therefore, the hatred that these actions in the article are based in, is being encouraged by Democrats and leftists.
However, the "vile hatred" referred to in the headline was clearly referring to the specific populist anger and hatred directed toward AIG, when taken in the context of the original article that the headline was setting up and the consequent debate in this thread. In that context, it is deductive reasoning:
In logic, an argument is said to be deductive when the truth of the conclusion is purported to follow necessarily or be a logical consequence of the premises and (consequently) its corresponding conditional is a necessary truth. Deductive arguments are said to be valid or invalid, never true or false. A deductive argument is valid if and only if the truth of the conclusion actually does follow necessarily (or is indeed a logical consequence of) the premises and (consequently) its corresponding conditional is a necessary truth
Also, the argument, as you set it up, is referring to the hatred that the actions were based in and not the actions themselves. Is that an acknowledgment that the headline is not claiming that the Dems were encouraging these actions?fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Can you admonish the trollish behavior as well, Joey?
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Dude, you really have problems.
ford nut
Local nut case
Will do....funny how this thread gets complaints for personal attacks and snyde comments.
It has been the norm for along time in the Politics forum, I have seen you attacked Joey and nobody complained then.
I can't count the times foxpaws has been called everything under the sun, same with Rich.
Now this thread pops up and somehow by magic it collects complaints. :shifty:
Last edited by a moderator:
ford nut
Local nut case
ford nut
Local nut case
ROFL
Shag – obviously I know that the hatred referenced in the headline is the specific populist anger that the article refers to – I was beginning to wonder if you knew that – you seem to have indicated in the past that (post 123)…
I never said (or implied) that these specific actions are a direct result of encouragement by the left. In fact, when you first asked about that, I made it abundantly clear that the article was meant as an example of the hatred that is being encouraged by the left.
So, we agree on part one – the article is obviously about vile hatred caused by populist anger directed toward AIG executives.
But, once again – you have never proved part two – that the dems and leftists are encouraging this hatred. All of your evidence has been anecdotal. In fact, other evidence, which included very specific examples from the right (Grassley’s ‘should commit suicide’ quote being a sterling example) was far more concise than any evidence you have presented.
You haven’t been able to show that these actions within the article were very specifically caused by the left/dems, nor have you been able to prove that any type of vile hatred has been traceable to the left/dems. Your ‘assignation of blame’ has been contingent on your personal viewpoint, rather than based in actual fact. Classic anecdotal evidence.
My claim regarding your headline doesn’t hinge on the ‘hatred’ having a broad context – it can be based on it being very specific – the hatred portrayed in the article. The ‘hinge’ is that you claim that this specific action is the result of a specific group (dems/leftists) causing the action. That is where your argument falls apart shag. You have not proved that the vile hated (as defined in the article) was encouraged by a specific group. There has been no hard, or even circumstantial evidence – all of it has been anecdotal.
Your deductive reasoning is flawed, therefore it is invalid.
?????? Spin me right round baby right round, like a record....
YouTube - Marilyn Manson - You spin me around
How is that at all inconsistent with what I said in the headline and what I have been saying throughout this thread? I never said (or implied) that those actions were a result of the leftist encouragement. I have only ever claimed that those actions stem from that hatred and that hatred has been encouraged by the left. The quote you cite is consistent with that. Either you are, for whatever reason, incapable of seeing that, or are stubbornly refusing to acknowledge that.
Here is another blatant lie! I have provided plenty of evidence that logically shows that Dems and leftists are encouraging this. You have the various video's in post #98 and the list of evidence that has been repeated (and not honestly refuted) countless times in this thread:
- The Democrats created this mess by creating and passing the legislation that specifically allowed for these bonuses; they passed this with full knowledge and no oversight
- When the bonuses were paid, Democrats expressed vehement indication that was clearly false because they knew about this all along.
- They conducted hearings and made sure to publicly demonize there people. The Democrats illegally taxed, threatened to "name names" and generally worked to intimidate and disingenuously marginalize these people through what is basically a witch hunt that the left created.
- Leftist organizations, like ACORN (who Obama worked for) have seen fit to bus people to these execs houses and protest in front of those homes and at their jobs.
- Vandalizing has occurred as well death threats as a result of the false indignation of the left here.
- even internationally, leftist anti-capitalist groups have taken to violent measures to intimidate these people and unjustly punish them.
- This has caused a number of execs to leave their jobs due, at least in part, to safety concerns. Some of these execs have even received death threats against themselves and their families.
Here is what anecdotal evidence is:
The expression anecdotal evidence has two distinct meanings.
Here is what circumstantial evidence is:- Evidence in the form of an anecdote or hearsay is called anecdotal if there is doubt about its veracity: the evidence itself is considered untrustworthy or untrue.
- Evidence, which may itself be true and verifiable, used to deduce a conclusion which does not follow from it, usually by generalizing from an insufficient amount of evidence.
Circumstantial evidence is a collection of facts that, when considered together, can be used to infer a conclusion about something unknown.
Here is what direct evidence is:Direct evidence is testimony/other proof which expressly or straight-forwardly proves the existence of a fact.
All the evidence I have provided is either circumstantial evidence or direct evidence. None of it is in the form of an anecdote and none is hearsay. The premise that the evidence is cited as supporting (that the left is encouraging that populist anger) logically follows from the evidence presented. None of it meets the definition of "anecdotal evidence". It all qualifies as circumstantial or direct evidence.You are, once again, lying when you claim that the evidence is anecdotal. This is another attempt to mischaracterize my argument and, once again, set up a straw man fallacy.
My "assignation of blame" in the claim I am making (not your mischaracterization) is backed up by the facts I have cited. However, your habitual inconsistency, dishonesty and deceptiveness suggests a desperate attempt to rationalize as a defense mechanism due to cognitive dissonance. In short, you are projecting.
More mischaracterization. I never claimed that the specific actions were the result of a specific group. You are, once again, setting up a straw man.
Oh! Before I forget, you still have two questions to answer:
- Do you think fallacious arguments are a valid form of debate?
- Do you think fallacious arguments should go unchallenged (as to their logical nature) in a debate?
Can you honestly answer these questions? Weather or not you or I are making a fallacious argument in this thread is irrelevant to these questions. There is no need to try and turn these questions on me to answer them. All you need to do is give a simple yes or no.
Remember, a fallacy is not something to be proven, and only an argument can be fallacious or logical, not a premise. Here is the definition of what a fallacy is:
A fallacy is an argument which seems convincing but is not logically sound. The truth of the conclusions of an argument does not determine whether the argument is a fallacy - it is the argument which is fallacious.
Now, would you kindly answer those questions honestly?
same :q:q:q:qe, different wording.
the italics would be you admitting you were wrong in the headline, and the bold puts you back at the same problem from the start.
you can't prove leftists are encouraging the hatred.
it's dishonest arguing comparable to taking quotes out of context. you use a headline with a single implication, then try and argue your way out by stating they are 2 different arguements in one.
you have no proof of the headline as it stands, and can only provide circumstantial evidence at best to prove any hatred is being promoted from the left.
any hatred and the hatred you proclaim within the article your headline pertains to are a very different arguement not indicative of your headline.
next time choose your propagandist arguements more carefully.
I already have proven that, countless times in this thread. You know this yet refuse to admit it.
I never claimed that there were two different arguments. You are mischaracterizing what I said. again. I said there were two points in the headline. If you want to view the headline as an argument, then there are two premises that are assumed and the headline is the conclusion of the argument, tying those premises together.
As is your pattern in this thead, you can only argue through lying about me and mischaracterizing my arguments.
Circumstantial evidence is more then enough. But, I have also provided direct evidence as well.
What?
Take a deep breath, wipe the foam away from your mouth, calm down and try again.
What you wrote makes no sense.
All you are doing in this thread is vindictively and dishonestly attacking and harassing me. All your actions in this thread are consistent with that. The few times you have, in any way, contributed anything relevant to the debate have been tangential and a byproduct of your attempts to attack and harass me; and even those contributions have been dishonest mischaracterizations and out and out lies about what I said or did. You have called me an @$$hole and a dip$h!t (among other things) as well as lied about what I am arguing and mischaracterize my arguments as a means to slander me. You are exhibiting the intellectual and social maturity of a 7 year old. I ask that you please leave this thread as all you are doing is hindering any possibility of an honest debate.
Post #121
I answered your questions – what more do you want Shag? What part of I don’t think that fallacious arguments are a valid form of debate, I disagree with both of those statements is beyond your comprehension shag?
Post #114
last I looked it was in english
I don’t think that fallacious arguments are a valid form of debate. I disagree with both of those statements.
Post #109
Obviously by challenging you on this point – your false claim that the actions by the people against the AIG executives are a direct result of the left and the Democrats - I don’t think that fallacious arguments are a valid form of debate. I disagree with both of those statements.
Your evidence is anecdotal, because there is nothing that ties the evidence you have directly to vile hatred in the article. You show liberals talking, Democrats debating, and you conclude, that by your 'observations' their actions are creating 'vile hatred'. There is no direct or even circumstantial proof. It would fail a rigorous or 'scientific' analysis. Therefore it is anecdotal.
Democrats. leftists talk about the 'wrongness' of the AIG bonuses. Some people make threatening phone calls and write bad emails to the executives at AIG. Therefore, according to you, the two must be connected. But, the news has also been talking about the 'wrongness' of the AIG bonuses, along with the Republicans, and who knows who else. That is why it is anecdotal Shag. You cannot show where the people in the story have gotten their information.
There are far too many variables to conclude, as you have, that the left or Democrats are to blame for the hatred that the people in your article demonstrated without 'direct' evidence. To claim that those actions are the direct result of the left/Democrats you need direct proof - which you do not have...
So, anecdotal evidence attempting to back up an inductive argument. Two wrongs don't make a right shag.
This is the vile hatred that the Democrats and leftists are encouraging.
I believe that headline indicates specific actions and names a specific group -
Shag - I wanted to show you an example - this article, regarding a shooting last July. If the people in the article you posted were found to have tivo'd speech after speech of Democrats rallying against AIG executive's bonuses, walls of newspaper clipping of leftist speeches - that would be the same type of proof that is shown in this article... circumstantial. Even the evidence of the right wing books present in this murder's home isn't direct evidence that the right, in your style of words shag, are encouraging this particular brand of vile hatred. It appears that it would be fairly easy to blame these right wing pundits as the 'fire' beneath the kindling, but there really isn't any direct tie, so it remains circumstantial.
Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity on accused shooter's reading list
4-page letter outlines frustration, hatred of 'liberal movement'
Police found right-wing political books, brass knuckles, empty shotgun shell boxes and a handgun in the Powell home of a man who said he attacked a church in order to kill liberals "who are ruining the country," court records show.
Knoxville police Sunday evening searched the Levy Drive home of Jim David Adkisson after he allegedly entered the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church and killed two people and wounded six others during the presentation of a children's musical.
Knoxville Police Department Officer Steve Still requested the search warrant after interviewing Adkisson. who was subdued by several church members after firing three rounds from a 12-gauge shotgun into the congregation.
Adkisson targeted the church, Still wrote in the document obtained by WBIR-TV, Channel 10, "because of its liberal teachings and his belief that all liberals should be killed because they were ruining the country, and that he felt that the Democrats had tied his country's hands in the war on terror and they had ruined every institution in America with the aid of media outlets."
Adkisson told Still that "he could not get to the leaders of the liberal movement that he would then target those that had voted them in to office."
Adkisson told officers he left the house unlocked for them because "he expected to be killed during the assault."
Inside the house, officers found "Liberalism is a Mental Health Disorder" by radio talk show host Michael Savage, "Let Freedom Ring" by talk show host Sean Hannity, and "The O'Reilly Factor," by television talk show host Bill O'Reilly.
The shotgun-wielding suspect in Sunday's mass shooting at the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church was motivated by a hatred of "the liberal movement," and he planned to shoot until police shot him, Knoxville Police Chief Sterling P. Owen IV said this morning.
Adkisson, 58, of Powell wrote a four-page letter in which he stated his "hatred of the liberal movement," Owen said. "Liberals in general, as well as gays."
More, at the Knoxville News Sentinel...
4-page letter outlines frustration, hatred of 'liberal movement'
Police found right-wing political books, brass knuckles, empty shotgun shell boxes and a handgun in the Powell home of a man who said he attacked a church in order to kill liberals "who are ruining the country," court records show.
Knoxville police Sunday evening searched the Levy Drive home of Jim David Adkisson after he allegedly entered the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church and killed two people and wounded six others during the presentation of a children's musical.
Knoxville Police Department Officer Steve Still requested the search warrant after interviewing Adkisson. who was subdued by several church members after firing three rounds from a 12-gauge shotgun into the congregation.
Adkisson targeted the church, Still wrote in the document obtained by WBIR-TV, Channel 10, "because of its liberal teachings and his belief that all liberals should be killed because they were ruining the country, and that he felt that the Democrats had tied his country's hands in the war on terror and they had ruined every institution in America with the aid of media outlets."
Adkisson told Still that "he could not get to the leaders of the liberal movement that he would then target those that had voted them in to office."
Adkisson told officers he left the house unlocked for them because "he expected to be killed during the assault."
Inside the house, officers found "Liberalism is a Mental Health Disorder" by radio talk show host Michael Savage, "Let Freedom Ring" by talk show host Sean Hannity, and "The O'Reilly Factor," by television talk show host Bill O'Reilly.
The shotgun-wielding suspect in Sunday's mass shooting at the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church was motivated by a hatred of "the liberal movement," and he planned to shoot until police shot him, Knoxville Police Chief Sterling P. Owen IV said this morning.
Adkisson, 58, of Powell wrote a four-page letter in which he stated his "hatred of the liberal movement," Owen said. "Liberals in general, as well as gays."
More, at the Knoxville News Sentinel...
I already have proven that, countless times in this thread. You know this yet refuse to admit it.
I never claimed that there were two different arguments. You are mischaracterizing what I said. again. I said there were two points in the headline. If you want to view the headline as an argument, then there are two premises that are assumed and the headline is the conclusion of the argument, tying those premises together.
As is your pattern in this thead, you can only argue through lying about me and mischaracterizing my arguments.
Circumstantial evidence is more then enough. But, I have also provided direct evidence as well.
What?
Take a deep breath, wipe the foam away from your mouth, calm down and try again.
What you wrote makes no sense.
All you are doing in this thread is vindictively and dishonestly attacking and harassing me. All your actions in this thread are consistent with that. The few times you have, in any way, contributed anything relevant to the debate have been tangential and a byproduct of your attempts to attack and harass me; and even those contributions have been dishonest mischaracterizations and out and out lies about what I said or did. You have called me an @$$hole and a dip$h!t (among other things) as well as lied about what I am arguing and mischaracterize my arguments as a means to slander me. You are exhibiting the intellectual and social maturity of a 7 year old. I ask that you please leave this thread as all you are doing is hindering any possibility of an honest debate.
i make perfect sense, and if you don't understand it, then i have doubts as to your ability in understanding your own posts.
as to attacking and villifying, i was only following YOUR lead against me and ford nut, let alone the amount of times you have done that to foxpaws.
you're the one who claims you want honest debate and then start the attacking and villifying in every arguement you get countered.
what comes around, goes around.
and hey, if the shoe fits.....
ford nut
Local nut case
I agree with this statement 100%, and I think it says it all.
Post number 121 was simply referring back to post #114 and ultimately post #109
In post #109 you were clearly assuming a flawed definition of fallacy, as I had already pointed out in post #123 and subsequent posts. in addition, you didn't answer the question. The question is a simply "yes" or "no" question and you provided an example from which we are to infer your disagreement with those statements. The question didn't call for an example, but a "yes" or "no", so your response doesn't directly answer the question. Your answer also equivocated what a fallacy is and dishonestly changed the definition. So even if one were to assume that your response was a "no", it would still not answer the question I gave because it is redefining the question.
Here is what a fallacy is:
A fallacy is an argument which seems convincing but is not logically sound. The truth of the conclusions of an argument does not determine whether the argument is a fallacy - it is the argument which is fallacious.
A fallacy is not something to be proven, and only an argument can be fallacious or logical, not a premise.Now, could you please honestly and directly answer these questions using that definition of what a fallacy is?
- Do you think fallacious arguments are a valid form of debate?
- Do you think fallacious arguments should go unchallenged (as to their logical nature) in a debate?
I have heard all this before in this thread. My evidence is "anecdotal" because of whatever mischaracterization of my evidence and/or argument you are trying to argue this time. I disprove it, and you will simply mischarcterize it in some other way. Or you will simply reassert a previous mischaracterization and either claim that the counter argument I gave was insufficient by dishonestly moving the goalposts, or flat out ignoring the counter argument I gave and forcing me to repeat it. It is nothing more then a very effective, but ultimately dishonest way to deflect and shift the burden of proof.
However, that is your habit throughout this forum. You simply talk in circles using these dishonest and deceptive techniques until either you are given an opening (or an opportunity to manufacture one) to dishonestly marginalize your opponent (and consequently, their argument), or your opponent gets frustrated and gives up. However, that doesn't change the fact that when you look at the substance of the debate, you are constantly being rude (by mischaracterizing their argument and effectively lying about their actions and/or arguments), irrational (due to your habitual use of fallacious arguments), dishonest (again, due to your mischaracterizations and lies) and deceptive (again, due to the fallacious and dishonest arguments). "When you can't argue substance, go for name calling." That is what you are doing, but with a passive aggressive twist that subtly distorts/misdirects the argument and plays off of peoples emotions and perceptions instead of direct name calling.
This thread has gone on for 143+ posts and five pages due to ford nut and hrmwrm's vindictiveness, and your dishonesty and stubbornness. You can't accept my argument and let it stand, so you have to discredit it by any means necessary (since you cannot honestly argue substance). That leads to the rudeness, irrationality, dishonesty and deceptiveness.
Now, if you want to keep this charade going, you have two questions to answer:
- Do you think fallacious arguments are a valid form of debate?
- Do you think fallacious arguments should go unchallenged (as to their logical nature) in a debate?
Remember, a fallacy is not something to be proven, and only an argument can be fallacious or logical, not a premise. Here is the definition of what a fallacy is:
A fallacy is an argument which seems convincing but is not logically sound. The truth of the conclusions of an argument does not determine whether the argument is a fallacy - it is the argument which is fallacious.
Now, would you kindly answer those questions honestly and directly?
My "attacks" are relevant to the debate and/or credibility of the person in the debate. They are reasonably drawn from the actions and arguments of the person in question both in the thread where the debate is taking place and that person's history in the "politics & current events" section of this forum. My arguments never hinge on those "attacks", but are separate from them. In short, my "attacks" are honest, relevant to the debate, straight forward and reasonably drawn observations of the arguments given and actions taken in the course of the debate.
However, your attacks (and the attacks of others on this forum) are more often then not what your argument hinges on. They are not reasonably drawn from the actions of the person in question, but due to a mischaracterization of those actions in some fashion, or flat out lies. Often times, they are irrelevant to the debate (calling me an @$$hole and a dip$h!t, for instance). In this thread, the few times you have attempted to make an argument, that argument has been secondary to, and a byproduct of your obvious attempt to smear and harass me. In short, you attacks are dishonest, irrelevant to the debate, based on distortions, lies and vindictiveness, and are inherently deceptive.
There is a profound difference between your dishonest ad hominem attacks, smears and harassment, and my "attacks".
Also, even if we assume that your premise is true and that I am the one who started all the attacking and vilifying here and you and ford nut were simply following along; that doesn't justify your actions. All it does is make you a hypocrite, if that is your justification for your attacks.
Shag - and you obviously can't back up your headline -
You have never answered me when I have asked where is the proof that these people were reacting to something democrats were saying? You have link after link that shows democrats talking - however, there isn't any place where you create the connection between the words of the Dems causing the actions of the people in the story
Not only that, you have never ruled out all of the other sources that have also 'talked' about the unfairness of the bonuses.
Prove to me that it wasn't Grassley's words that drove these people to do this. Show me how you know that these people didn't listen night after night to Fox News going on about how unfair the bonuses were, and their actions weren't the direct result of Fox's news coverage.
Your headline is inductive, and your evidence is anecdotal - take it to any first year law student -
Fallacious Arguments - valid or not? Not.
Fallacious Arguments remain unchallenged? Yes.
I rarely take on one of these posts anymore shag - I took on this one because your headline was 'unproveable'. I personally saw that it was an obvious red flag, and I wanted to make sure that people who read this would understand that there was nothing to connect the Dems/left to the actions of the people in the story.
However, I let most of the posts just go without comment. If I end up arguing them, it turns into something like this - calling me dishonest and deceptive, and who knows what else. If you can't prove your statements, in this case that the actions of these people is the direct result of encouragement by the left/dems, you go after me because you know that I won't fight back like for like. I won't use the words dishonest or deceptive against you. You know you can label me with those words, and more, and then sit back and somehow feel good that you have warned everyone against my evil ways. Just because your headline is wrong - that doesn't make you dishonest or deceptive, just mistaken in your certainty that it has to be the Dems/left that caused the actions of these people. However, when I pointed this out, in a sensible, and rational way, you seem to think that allows you the 'right' to assault my character.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
^^^ Victim
Again, I already have.
I never claimed these people were reacting directly to something dems said. I said that the hatred the actions were based in was being encouraged by the left. I have been consistent in that claim throughout this entire thread.
You have been rather inconsistent in this thread in a number of ways throughout this thread.
- You said that my headline was an inductive argument in post #127. Next, you agree that it is based in deductive reasoning in post #136. Then you again claim it is an inductive argument in post #140
- In post # 99, you called what the politicians were doing "political posturing". Then in post #105, you tried to claim that it was not "a political issue but rather an economic issue". Then in post #109 you again call the actions "political posturing".
However, you have been rather consistent in some things here.
- You have consistently attempted to decieptively most the goalposts on the proof of the claim in my headline as a dishonest means of deflecting and redirecting the burden of proof onto me. Usually this is through your direct mischaracterization of what I was saying (claiming I had to prove the specific actions were directly inspired by the Dems), although it is sometimes an indirect mischaracterization (calling my argument fallacious by assuming a false definition of the term fallacy, calling the evidence anecdotal, etc).
- You have consistently used fallacious arguments and lied about what I said as well as talk authoritatively about things you either know nothing about, or are also willfully mischaracterizing (what a fallacy is, the differences between the various types of evidence, etc)
- You have consistently worked to dodge honestly and directly answering any question asked of you. You have attempted to redefine the questions in a number of ways, and/or cite examples from which you can supposedly infer your positions (though you assume a redefinition of the question in citing those examples) and use the opportunity of answering the questions to attempt to dishonestly turn the questions on me.
Straw man mischaracterization:
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
Moving the goalpost:
Moving the goalpost, also known as raising the bar, is an informal logically fallacious argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded
Red herring:
a red herring is an argument, given in reply, that does not address the original issue. Critically, a red herring is a deliberate attempt to change the subject or divert the argument
The headline was never an argument, so it cannot be an inductive argument. It was simply an assertion of some things I had already thought proven. when you asked for clarification (Post #2), I provided it (post #6). I explained why I posted the article with that headline. You have rejected that explanation at every turn and instead worked to mischaracterize what I was saying in the headline with reference to the article.
I even turned the headline into an argument in and of itself (in post #130) after you had tried to distort it through turning it into an argument and taking it out of context.
What? Those aren't even the questions I asked. Here are the questions I asked:
- Do you think fallacious arguments are a valid form of debate?
- Do you think fallacious arguments should go unchallenged (as to their logical nature) in a debate?
I never asked you weather fallacious arguments are valid or not, there is no question that they are not valid due to their fallacious nature. I asked you if they were a valid form of debate.
The second question has a similar flaw in your characterization of the question; should fallacious arguments go unchallenged in a debate. If you think that a fallacious argument should go unchallenged in general, then, am I to assume that you think it should go unchallenged in that specific context?
And I would agree. I was never claiming the the Dems were directly connected to the actions of the people in the story. I was only ever claiming that the Dems/left were encouraging the hatred that those actions stem from. You have consistently attempted to ignore that and claim that I was saying that the Dems/left were encouraging these actions.
So...being honest about someone's actions is "rude"? That is basically what you are saying. Calling you dishonest, deceptive. etc. is not simply an unfounded claim I am making. It is a reasonable conclusion given your actions in this thread and your history in the "politics and current events" section of this forum. Your habitual actions suggest that you are dishonest, disingenuous and deceptive.
Fallacious arguments (like mischaracterization, moving the goalposts, red herring arguments, etc) are easy traps to fall into, and everyone on occasion does it. But even when it is pointed out that your arguments are based in those fallacies, you still habitually use them. At that point, it stops being an honest mistake and starts suggesting dishonesty and deceptiveness. If you establish a pattern of using those kind of arguments, in spite of the knowledge that they are fallacious, a reasonable conclusion about your intellectual honesty and intellectual integrity can be drawn.
Now, as fossten pointed out, you are trying to play the victim. This is another pattern you have established in this forum. You start talking in circles using dishonest, deceptive and manipulative debate techniques. The more they debate, the more you use those dishonest techniques. However, you make sure to never act aggressive or blatantly challenge them; you instead act very passive. Eventually they get frustrated at your dishonesty and spin and call you on it. Then you can “call them” on being “insulting”,” rude”, etc. and come across as the better person and the victim of their “cruelty”.
However, as I have pointed out, that pattern is inherently deceptive. When you look beyond the differences is style to the actual substance of the arguments of the two sides, you are the one habitually being rude as a means of debate (by mischaracterizing their argument and effectively lying about their actions and/or arguments). You are also habitually irrational (due to your habitual use of fallacious arguments), dishonest (again, due to your mischaracterizations and lies) and deceptive (again, due to the fallacious and dishonest arguments). However, your rudeness and actions are subtle and don't come across aggressive or blatant. When someone eventually gets frustrated at your actions and says something, you can dishonestly, and disingenuously marginalize them by playing the victim.
It is really quite sad that you have to deceptively play the victim in order to make any headway in a debate. You can’t debate honestly, so you simply frustrate any effort to have an honest and intelligent debate and have your own mechanisms to deceptively marginalize people if they challenge you on your dishonest and deceptive methods. Again, "When you can't argue substance, go for name calling." That is what you are doing, but with a passive aggressive twist that subtly distorts/misdirects the argument and plays off of peoples emotions and perceptions instead of direct name calling.
Shag, before we get any further.... I would like for you to really back your headline... You keep saying that you have, but you haven't. You can by doing these two things.
You have never answered me when I have asked where is the proof that these people were reacting to something democrats were saying. You have link after link that shows democrats talking - however, there isn't any place where you create the connection between the words of the Dems causing the actions of the people in the story.
Show me where you have created this connection between the left/Dems and the people in this article.
Not only that, you have never ruled out all of the other sources that have also 'talked' about the unfairness of the bonuses.
Prove to me that it wasn't Grassley's words that drove these people to do this. Show me how you know that these people didn't listen night after night to Fox News going on about how unfair the bonuses were, and their actions weren't the direct result of Fox's news coverage.
Show me where you have ruled out the other sources that have talked about the unfairness of the bonuses in reference to the people in the article.
Show me, before March 26th, 2009, 12:05 PM where you had already proven that this was true. It isn't good form to post an article with a 'made-up' headline, unless the article directly supports the headline.
No, shag you were claiming the Dems were encouraging the specific actions. By using the word 'this' in conjunction with 'vile hatred' you were referring to the very specific actions within the article. If you cannot show a direct link your headline is false. If you want to just generalize this you would need to say 'This is the type of vile hatred...." But, you didn't do that. You set up the story as 'the' example of vile hatred. You have to connect the two.
You want rudeness - because it is the only thing you understand? You have consciously lied with your headline, you cannot prove it.
If you cannot answer these...
Show me where you have created this connection between the left/Dems and the people in this article.
Show me where you have ruled out the other sources that have talked about the unfairness of the bonuses in reference to the people in the article.
Your headline is a lie.
You have never answered me when I have asked where is the proof that these people were reacting to something democrats were saying. You have link after link that shows democrats talking - however, there isn't any place where you create the connection between the words of the Dems causing the actions of the people in the story.
Show me where you have created this connection between the left/Dems and the people in this article.
Not only that, you have never ruled out all of the other sources that have also 'talked' about the unfairness of the bonuses.
Prove to me that it wasn't Grassley's words that drove these people to do this. Show me how you know that these people didn't listen night after night to Fox News going on about how unfair the bonuses were, and their actions weren't the direct result of Fox's news coverage.
Show me where you have ruled out the other sources that have talked about the unfairness of the bonuses in reference to the people in the article.
Show me, before March 26th, 2009, 12:05 PM where you had already proven that this was true. It isn't good form to post an article with a 'made-up' headline, unless the article directly supports the headline.
No, shag you were claiming the Dems were encouraging the specific actions. By using the word 'this' in conjunction with 'vile hatred' you were referring to the very specific actions within the article. If you cannot show a direct link your headline is false. If you want to just generalize this you would need to say 'This is the type of vile hatred...." But, you didn't do that. You set up the story as 'the' example of vile hatred. You have to connect the two.
You want rudeness - because it is the only thing you understand? You have consciously lied with your headline, you cannot prove it.
If you cannot answer these...
Show me where you have created this connection between the left/Dems and the people in this article.
Show me where you have ruled out the other sources that have talked about the unfairness of the bonuses in reference to the people in the article.
Your headline is a lie.