Calling Jimmy out

[Kathianne]

starting the thread off with an insult to bush supporters is not an adhom? .... are you kidding me ...

Manu, you just don't understand. Loose wishes to make the parameters, then he just adjusts them for himself. Please get with his plan.

[manu1959]

Manu, you just don't understand. Loose wishes to make the parameters, then he just adjusts them for himself. Please get with his plan.

i will not stand for this i was here first

[loosecannon]

starting the thread off with an insult to bush supporters is not an adhom?

Correct, it is NOT an adhom.

It is not directed at any person in particular. Ad hom means against the person in Latin. It is an attack against a specific person.

Speaking generally or about groups will usually NOT be adhominems.

[Yurt]

A debater commits the Ad Hominem Fallacy when he introduces irrelevant personal premisses about his opponent. Such red herrings may successfully distract the opponent or the audience from the topic of the debate.




You introduced irrelevant premisses about your opponent(s). Thus you committed a logical fallacy. Deal with it.

[-Cp]

Probably. The Clinton and previous Bush admin had reasons to justify the costs of the sanctions. And they had to have a policy to justify the sanctions otherwise they could not maintain them.

Bush 41 essentially broke Iraq and neither himself or Clinton were willing to resolve it so they contained Saddam behind sanctions.

They had to have a public excuse for doing so.

If you say all those people lied then as well - howcome you weren't posting on forums back then about Clinton lying about WMD's when he bombed some Asprin Factories in Iraq?

[shattered]

If you say all those people lied then as well - howcome you weren't posting on forums back then about Clinton lying about WMD's when he bombed some Asprin Factories in Iraq?

Cuz she was about 8?

[loosecannon]

A debater commits the Ad Hominem Fallacy when he introduces irrelevant personal premisses about his opponent. Such red herrings may successfully distract the opponent or the audience from the topic of the debate.

That is how it was originally explained to me, tho I am not sure if that is technically true.

An example of the rationale you are expressing goes like this:

"you are a traitor (therefore implying that what you say can not be trusted)"

The literal meaning is "against the person", and it appears as if most boards use the definition as attacks against a person.

You introduced irrelevant premisses about your opponent(s). Thus you committed a logical fallacy. Deal with it.

I was dealing with it, just fine. I never said i wasn't introducing a logical falacy. I said I wasn't engaging in adhominem attacks.

They are not the same.

[loosecannon]

If you say all those people lied then as well - howcome you weren't posting on forums back then about Clinton lying about WMD's when he bombed some Asprin Factories in Iraq?

How do you know i wasn't?

I never posted about the lies of the VN war, do you have any idea why not?

Why aren't you in the streets of mogadishu protesting the violence happening there today?

Or why aren't you in deep space collecting litter from 40 years of space programs?

[-Cp]

How do you know i wasn't?

I never posted about the lies of the VN war, do you have any idea why not?

Why aren't you in the streets of mogadishu protesting the violence happening there today?

Or why aren't you in deep space collecting litter from 40 years of space programs?

Because unlike you I'm not poltizing those issues... unlike you, I don't condemn a war just because I don't like the sitting president at the time.. .

An unlike you, I use my brain to decide what's right and wrong, you (as with all libs) use emotion.

[loosecannon]

Because unlike you I'm not poltizing those issues... unlike you, I don't condemn a war just because I don't like the sitting president at the time.. .

JimmyC chose the topic.

And believe me I do not condemn the war because I do not like the sitting president.

George Bush owns this war and he made that clear himself. He called himself the war president and ran on that in 04.

Bush is about all that keeps this war going.

An unlike you, I use my brain to decide what's right and wrong, you (as with all libs) use emotion.

get real. Calm your emotions and chill the accusations.

If you were making good use of your brain you would realize that you diverted attention away from your original point that the last admin also lied about Iraq's WMD.

Your response that I wasn't railing against Clinton somehow supported your assertions? How?

So I repeat, how do you know I wasn't railing against Clinton for his role in Iraq?

How do you know that in 4 years I won't be railing against another Clinton for her role in Iraq?

[Yurt]

That is how it was originally explained to me, tho I am not sure if that is technically true.

An example of the rationale you are expressing goes like this:

"you are a traitor (therefore implying that what you say can not be trusted)"

The literal meaning is "against the person", and it appears as if most boards use the definition as attacks against a person.








I was dealing with it, just fine. I never said i wasn't introducing a logical falacy. I said I wasn't engaging in adhominem attacks.

They are not the same.

An Argumentum ad Hominem is a logical fallacy.

[loosecannon]

An Argumentum ad Hominem is a logical fallacy.

It makes no difference.

All logical falacies are not adhominem attacks, in fact hardly any are.

A bicycle is a wheeled vehicle too.

But just because i am driving a car does mean I am driving a bicycle or any other wheeled vehicle other than a car.

[Yurt]

It makes no difference.

All logical falacies are not adhominem attacks, in fact hardly any are.

A bicycle is a wheeled vehicle too.

But just because i am driving a car does mean I am driving a bicycle or any other wheeled vehicle other than a car.

This is the most absurd use of logic I have ever come across. In fact, it is not logic, it is stupidity masquerading as logic.

It makes no difference? Of course it does. I never said all logical fallacies are adhominem, I said:

adhominem is a logical fallacy


Big difference. Your analogy has absolute no place in what I said. But I will try to reason with you. Using your analogy, what I said is:

A bicycle has two wheels.


Period.

[glockmail]

"many rightwingbots" is not an adhom.

Of course it is, dip shit. "Bot" insinuates "robot", insinuating that conservatives don't think for themselves. It is the Liberals who are incapable of thinking.

[loosecannon]

This is the most absurd use of logic I have ever come across. In fact, it is not logic, it is stupidity masquerading as logic.

It makes no difference? Of course it does. I never said all logical fallacies are adhominem, I said:

adhominem is a logical fallacy


Big difference. Your analogy has absolute no place in what I said. But I will try to reason with you. Using your analogy, what I said is:

A bicycle has two wheels.


Period.

OK back onto the offtopic tangent.

I may have presented a logical falacy by speaking about rightwingtards on the board.

But it still was not ad adhom, which is what I said originally to Manu and it appeared you were refuting.

All adhoms are not necesarily logical falacies and all logical falacies are not adhoms.

The most common use of the word is in reference to attacks against persons not groups.

Unless you have more to add to that lets get back on the topic of Iraq.

What the thread was started to discuss.