gatoraubrey2 wrote: PLAYER57832 wrote:gatoraubrey2 wrote: PLAYER57832 wrote:Newsflash Nightstrike LIBERALS don't particularly care for Obama, either.
That said, political gamesmanship of this type have been around for a lot longer than this previous election.. and MOST DEFINITELY are not liberal monopolies!
(hint: Richard Nixon )
Fallacy: Tu Quoque
This is getting repetitive...
Yes, it would be nice if you looked into things before deciding you are the warden of fallacies. A few of us do have more than a little experience in that area. (and note, I am actually among the least experiences
)
Tu quoque (pronounced /tjuːˈkwoʊkwɛ/,[1] from Latin for "You, too" or "You, also") is a Latin term that describes a kind of logical fallacy. A tu quoque argument attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting his failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. It is considered an ad hominem argument, since it focuses on the party itself, rather than its positions.[2]
You assume I am saying that becuase both liberals and conservatives do this, it is not an issue.
This is just wrong.
One of Nightstrike's major attacks is that Obama is a liberal (and therefore wrong) ... ergo my statement "newsflash .. Liberals don't like Obama". Nightstrike's entire world view is essentially that all ills are due to liberals and very little to any other group. ( I do exaggerate
slightly -- he might not attribute Earthquakes and such to liberals). So, in that context my comment was quite direct and pertinent, not a logical fallicy at all.
In fact, it addresses the initial fallacy that Nightstrike made(makes repeatedly)... basically that anything liberals do is wrong, tied to Obama, etc.
Your statement seems to me to suggest that since conservatives play political games, that makes it ok for liberals to do so as well. You claim that you weren't implying that. If that's the case, my apologies. Realistically, I don't believe you, and I think you were trying to turn this thread into a pissing match about who plays more political games.
There is no implication, Simply read what I wrote. Nightstrike claimed there was a liberal media conspiracy to elect Obama. I pointed out that one reason his idea is incorrect is that true liberals don't actually like Obama. You are looking for "issues", rather than actually reading what is said.
gatoraubrey2 wrote: PLAYER57832 wrote:gatoraubrey2 wrote: Are you truly that naive?
Fallacy: Ad Hominem
You are closer here, but "no cigar".
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:
Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
In the first place, calling someone "naive" is to say that they have ignored, are utterly ignorant of certain facts because they see things from a particular, normally rather simplistic, worldview. So, for me to say that Nightstrike's claims are "naive" is for me to say he is "ignoring facts", not simply a personnal attack, in this instance.
Second, in this instance it is utterly pertinent, because Nightstrikes claim is that this is something unique (or almost unique.. he will no doubt admit to "exceptions").
To call someone naive without proof is an ad hominem attack.
Ah, but see, I have proof. The proof is that Nightstrike continues to insist liberals are his arch enemies, but makes it plain he doesn't really understand true liberals. It is a long-standing debate between us.
Also, in this case, I actually was directly addressing his falacious point.. that is, his whole point is that this is a liberal conspiracty and not something conservatives would do, etc. I do realize he did not spell that out. But, sometimes when you have debated someone for a while every last detail doesn't get spelled out.
gatoraubrey2 wrote: You aren't addressing his points at all. You're just calling him, in the view of most readers of this forum, an immature, uninformed, uneducated child.
Uninformed and uneducated.. yes, in regards to what the liberals he claims to hate so much truly think.(also in terms of the environment, some science issues). But "immature" , "child" -- that comes from you.
Forgive me for not going into the whole history of our debates in this single thread for your benefit. See, I was addressing Nightstrike, not necessarily everyone else. You are welcome to chime in and add things, but don't make such blatant assumptions.
And PLEASE don't presume to speak for "most readers" here. You speak for yourself. Everyone else is quite capable of speaking for themselves. They do, quite often! That is the whole point.
gatoraubrey2 wrote: Don't pretend that you don't level these accusations against anyone who disagrees with you in any thread, and don't pretend that it's not what you implied here. If you wanted to show "facts," you would have shown them. If I'm wrong, show the facts that he's ignoring.
Actually, I don't have to pretend anything. ASK AROUND. I did make a similar accusation against Woodruff.. and admitted it was a mistake. I don't believe I have ever made such a charge against greekdog, b.k. barunt, etc, etc etc. I have opinions, I have strong opinions. And lately I have gotten very frustrated by the conservative attempt to utterly change the meaning of the word "liberal". You have to be over 30, better yet 40 to even begin to see what I mean. OR look at what has been happening with an objective eye. You want to judge me based on maybe 3-4 threads and not even all of those threads. The one being judgemental here is you.
gatoraubrey2 wrote: PLAYER57832 wrote:gatoraubrey2 wrote:Man, it's like it never ends...
True, I really wish you would do more than just sit back and try to poke holes at what you cannot be bothered to truly follow.
gatoraubrey2 wrote: So in conclusion, no one has made a single argument even attempting to disprove Night Strike's assertion that a group of media contributors collaborated to ensure Barack Obama's election. You just all figure if you attack him or distract him enough, he'll forget about it?
Not even close!
Some of us did ask him for better references/proof. Others of us fully acknowledge that his facts might well be correct, or simply chose not to dispute them, but argued that they did not represent what he claimed they represent.. namely an overall
liberal media plot.
Try again. Next time be a bit more careful.
Some of you may have asked for proof, etc, in the last few days, but when I made my original post, which you are quoting days later, I addressed the posts that had been made prior to mine, none of which directly addressed his claims or demanded further proof. If you look, I believe I quoted almost every single post prior to my own. My whole point was that there was a page of posts, none of which were relevant. And it doesn't matter what my personal beliefs are or even whether I contribute them to this discussion. Fallacious arguments are an irresponsible distraction and should be pointed out.
EDIT: I went back and looked, and I quoted every single post made at the time except for three. One was BigBallinStalin making a joke. One was spurgistan making a valid point. And I ignored one3 of Army of God's two posts, both of which explicitly stated that he doesn't care about this debate. I think that was sufficiently covered by his post that I did quote.
I love that you're coming back two days later, after another three pages of posts have been added, and saying that I ignored a bunch of posts to try to make you all look bad. Can you read a timeline?
No, you came in here, a newbie, and decide you are going to be some kind of "police" on these threads.. but you cannot be bothered to take the time to really read through and see what happens here before criticizing.
We welcome many views, many people here. But... take the time to read through before just lopping in and criticizing.
For some reason you have decided I am either an idiot or just your enemy. You are free to believe what you like, but nothing I have seen in your posts shows that you really have the knowledge to "correct" the rest of use here as you wish to do.
