466 replies to this topic

[pursang]

Palerider777, on 10 September 2012 - 03:16 AM, said:

Honestly I wouldn't respond to this if it wasn't a pet peeve. Ad hominid Literally means to the man it's a personal attack, for example If I had said: "Blackfires is ridiculous what does he know about good politicians he cheats on his wife."

That would be an example of ad hominem now here is the down right hilarious part. There is a type of ad hominem called Guilt by association. For example attacking a source by associating him to another. Such as: "Ad hominem attacks huh? I can see why you'd vote for Romney, you two seem to think a like."

My English professor had a word for people who bring up fallacies in informal conversation or on the Internet.

I don't think I can repeat it here so I will just say: Your post is very Ironic

Yes it is. It's almost like I was being sarcastic.

Oh, and you may want to look up the definition of irony while you're at it.

[Palerider777]

pursang, on 10 September 2012 - 03:37 PM, said:

Yes it is. It's almost like I was being sarcastic.

Oh, and you may want to look up the definition of irony while you're at it.

Sarcasm on the Internet is kind of like silent films for the blind... I would tell you to go look up the definition of irony but I don't think it would help at this point. Maybe try that Alanis Morissette song?

[pursang]

Palerider777, on 10 September 2012 - 04:39 PM, said:

Sarcasm on the Internet is kind of like silent films for the blind... I would tell you to go look up the definition of irony but I don't think it would help at this point. Maybe try that Alanis Morissette song?

Quote

i·ro·ny
¹    [ahy-ruh-nee, ahy-er-] which is actually or ostensibly stated.
b.
(especially[/color] in contemporary writing) a manner of organizing a work so as to give full expression to contradictory[/color] or complementary impulses, attitudes, etc., especially as a means of indicating detachment from a subject, theme,or emotion.
3.
Socratic irony.
4.
dramatic irony.
5.
an outcome contrary to what was, or might have been, expected.

http://dictionary.re...rowse/irony?s=t

I said you where attacking the character of the person you quoted instead of directly addressing their argument (ad hominem). I did not attack your character. Thus it was not irony. There I even did your homework for you.

Simple, no?

Edited by pursang, 10 September 2012 - 07:59 PM.

[Justin Xang Allard]

Celldoor, on 13 August 2012 - 03:28 PM, said:

Mitt Romney chose good running mate Paul Ryan, Voted BIGGEST BROWN NOSER in high school, lol, Also reported he has never worked 1 hour on a real job.. He will be right at home in Washington, DC. For those not from US, They are presidential canidate and running mate.

I'm voting for hanse davion for president...

[Palerider777]

pursang, on 10 September 2012 - 07:56 PM, said:

http://dictionary.re...rowse/irony?s=t

I said you where attacking the character of the person you quoted instead of directly addressing their argument (ad hominem). I did not attack your character. Thus it was not irony. There I even did your homework for you.

Simple, no?

Well i already proved you wrong on both accounts. Firstly: That i never attacked that persons character nor strayed from the relative argument. Secondly: that when you accused me falsely of an ad hominem you used one to do so. I even gave detailed examples, all of it in my previous posts. Lastly I'm not going to keep this thread alive by trading posts with you just to insult your intelligence because you are quite possibly trolling. So feel free to reread my posts and if that does not convince you then nothing else i can say will. Which means I'm done talking never been one for pointless arguments, good luck with the irony though.

Edited by Palerider777, 11 September 2012 - 04:30 AM.

[Catamount]

That's a shame; it was getting to be one of the most interesting discussions about nothing (literally) that I've ever seen. I was even considering fetching some popcorn

Edited by Catamount, 11 September 2012 - 05:54 AM.

[Skinflowers]

Politics threads should have an, "Abandon all hope ye who enter here." sign on them.

Or an "Enter at your own risk" sign at least.

@pht Repeating your answer isn't explaining it but thats your prerogative I suppose.

[Vanguard319]

Here's something interesting, You know those embassy attacks from yesterday? well I understand this to be a clip from the movie that sparked it:



PEOPLE THINK IT"S JUSTIFIED TO KILL OVER SOMETHING THIS ********?!?!

I mean seriously, if some radical muslim depicted Jesus in an offensive light, how many Christians would take up arms over it? but if a Christian or Jew depicts Mohammed in the same way, the muslim world screams for a full-scale holy war.

To add to the stupidity, Obama feels he must turn his response into a full apology for American values of free speech. Is there something I'm missing? Did these radicals apologize for attacking our embassy and killing our ambassador? Part of the responsibility of the POTUS is that they are sworn to defend the ideology and core values of the country they govern, but Obama did not do that.

[process]

Vanguard319, on 12 September 2012 - 05:48 PM, said:

Here's something interesting, You know those embassy attacks from yesterday? well I understand this to be a clip from the movie that sparked it:


PEOPLE THINK IT"S JUSTIFIED TO KILL OVER SOMETHING THIS ********?!?!

I mean seriously, if some radical muslim depicted Jesus in an offensive light, how many Christians would take up arms over it? but if a Christian or Jew depicts Mohammed in the same way, the muslim world screams for a full-scale holy war.

To add to the stupidity, Obama feels he must turn his response into a full apology for American values of free speech. Is there something I'm missing? Did these radicals apologize for attacking our embassy and killing our ambassador? Part of the responsibility of the POTUS is that they are sworn to defend the ideology and core values of the country they govern, but Obama did not do that.

The "film" is amateur and stupid, and no excuse for violence, that I think we can all agree on.

However, for the second part, you are misinformed.

The "apology" talking point was a statement issued via tweet by someone at the consulate without authorization from the administration. That statement is here. This was clearly done as an attempt to diffuse the escalating situation. See: http://www.politifac...-apology-was-i/, http://factcheck.org...ts-it-backward/

While the facts are situation is still being sorted through, there is evidence to suggest that this was a coordinated attack by militants who took advantage of the protest, if not directly incited it. As ridiculous as I find all religions, don't be so quick to generalize all Libyans: http://gawker.com/59...tions/gallery/1, http://www.nypost.co...K#ixzz26JRXTcjm

Quote

A Libyan doctor who treated Stevens said he died of severe asphyxiation, apparently from smoke. In a sign of the chaos of during the attack, Stevens was brought alone by Libyans to the Benghazi Medical Center with no other Americans, and no one at the facility knew who he was, the doctor, Ziad Abu Zeid, told The Associated Press

Meanwhile, there's all sorts of curiosity about the film and it's producer. In particular, he appears to be a ghost, and the actors in the film had several key lines dubbed and had no idea what they were filming:

Quote

The entire cast and crew are extremely upset and feel taken advantage of by the producer. We are 100% not behind this film and were grossly misled about its intent and purpose. We are shocked by the drastic re-writes of the script and lies that were told to all involved. We are deeply saddened by the tragedies that have occurred.

The whole thing is just bizarre and tragic.

Edited by process, 12 September 2012 - 07:57 PM.

[Vanguard319]

yeah, I found that article on Gawker myself, and it seems to suggest that "Sam Bacile" is neither jewish, nor american, but most likely Coptic Egyptian. Why does it sound like someone trying to provoke a war?

Also I take offense at the accusation that I generalized all Libyans, I specifically stated radical muslims in my previous post, I generalized nothing, and you only need to look at history to see that Islam overreacts to even the slightest criticism. Obviously this incident wasn't slight, but not even you can deny the response was extreme.

[process]

Vanguard319, on 12 September 2012 - 09:31 PM, said:

Also I take offense at the accusation that I generalized all Libyans, I specifically stated radical muslims in my previous post, I generalized nothing, and you only need to look at history to see that Islam overreacts to even the slightest criticism. Obviously this incident wasn't slight, but not even you can deny the response was extreme.

Fair enough, although I'm confused why you expect an analog between radical Muslims and (regular?) Christians and Jews. We label them as such in part because of their extreme responses.

[mechasword]

[SilentWolff]

[Kirkland Langue]

Obama:
In 2008, Obama laid out his plans for his Presidency. As of 2012, the Majority of those stated plans have been achieved.
In 2012, Obama wants to continue working on the plans he laid out in 2008.

Romney:
In 2012, Romney hasn't laid out any plans for his Presidency, should he win.


Yea, regardless of what I'd want to see the candidates talk about - it's pretty simple to see which candidate is autodisqulified in my book. I've never gone to a job interview and refused to tell the interviewer why I wanted the job.

[Swazi Spring]

I'm not sure if I shold post this here or make a new thread, as it has absolutely nothing to do with the presidential election, or even American politics at all. But in the UK, what does everyone think of the libertarian UK Independence Party possibly entering an electoral alliance with the left-wing "fake conservative" Tory Party (led by David Cameron)? Would you support or oppose such a coalition?
I am a long-time UKIP supporter and would be opposed to any such alliance, as the Tories have proven time and time again that they cannot be trusted and I would view any UKIPper who supports such a coalition to be a sell-out, but that's just my two cents.

[Gremlich Johns]

It comes down to does the US electorate want Socialism (which always fails) or does it want draconian measures to rein in spending and reduce the debt.

Either be sheep or be wolves.

[Catamount]

Gremlich Johns, on 22 September 2012 - 11:14 AM, said:

It comes down to does the US electorate want Socialism (which always fails) or does it want draconian measures to rein in spending and reduce the debt.

Either be sheep or be wolves.

Well since Europe would tell you that massive austerity programs fail about as reliably as socialism (at least such as been the result post-2008 for them; austerity has been a catastrophe), I find both choices in your false dichotomy to be unencouraging.

Fortunately, no one running for any position of government of note that I'm aware of has any interest in turning the United States into a fundamentally socialist nation and tossing out our market economy; the closest thing getting any traction is a more socialized health care system which works better than our system, hence why basically everyone else uses such a system (paying less and getting better average outcomes). And while there are people foolish enough to want to take us down the road to Europe's dead economy, where huge spending cuts have ground their already-hurting economies to a halt, and go even further by abolishing basically every part of the federal government except the department of defense, polls aren't really favoring those people right now.

So the moral of the story is that neither form of extremism will likely take hold, and we'll probably find a middle ground between the two, and if people can be adults and discuss and compromise and actually, you know, govern, we'll probably end up coming out of this just fine, no radical restructuring of the US required.

Edited by Catamount, 22 September 2012 - 11:48 AM.

[Rorik Thrumsalr]

Pht, on 10 September 2012 - 10:53 AM, said:

Nah.

I wonder if he is even on these forums. Now just throw in Vipersbite and it would be just like old times.

[Loc Nar]

Depressing to see how much these threads smell like Fox News...

[Stormgage]

If you want to know who Obama is read his 2 autobiographies...shocking....if the mainstream media had vetted Obama like the vet republican candidates, Obama would be pounding sand... He attends 43% of his national security briefings, no wonder he's clueless. One of the first things he did when he entered office was return the bust of Winston Churchill.. How you like that UK. That was payback for your colonization of Kenya by the way. He's had his face and his logo put in place of the stars on the American flag at events.. He's a disgrace. His braintrust, Biden, is a gaffe machine... Romney and Ryan are a monumental upgrade. I'll accept apologies from those who voted for him the first time around...The hope he promised was hollow and the change he's provided will go down in history as what not to do to revive an economy, His incompetency on every political topic is profound.... Future historians will be very hard on him as ithey should be.