Conservatives more likely to read opposing viewpoints than liberals?!

[shagdrum]

So when I post from NBC, AP, NYT, MSNBC, CBS, et al, that counts? Ok, then your premise is proven false.

Good point. We post from many liberals sources. If you are limiting it to simply "blogs" you are effectively cherry picking and creating a false impression.

 

[foxpaws]

Well, back to the subject at hand - Why do you think the Ohio State research study used only college students?

 

[shagdrum]

Well, back to the subject at hand - Why do you think the Ohio State research study used only college students?

I am still waiting to see the full research that you pulled your quote from (you linked only to the abstract).

 

[foxpaws]

I am still waiting to see the full research that you pulled your quote from (you linked only to the abstract).

Check out post #14 - I explained how to get to the full paper - so the authors get 'credit'... It is pretty easy- and, you might want to root around in SSRN - they have a lot of interesting research posted - could be useful for school.

So, why do you think only college kids - convenience? And that study probably skewed pretty far left, there aren't that many conservative college students - as you know Shag...

 

[Marcus]

What fossten is reacting to is the fact that, more often then not, people come in here with a misunderstanding of the conservative POV on a given issue. This is usually due to the strawman mischaracterizations given of conservative positions in the liberal dominated aspects of our culture. However, most conservatives can articulate the liberal position as well as most liberals, and still have reason to reject it.

...coming from someone who posts five right-wing articles a day including this fourth grade-level diatribe. And you want to lecture the rest of us about straw men?

 

[shagdrum]

...coming from someone who posts five right-wing articles a day including this fourth grade-level diatribe. And you want to lecture the rest of us about straw men?

"Fourth grade level diatribe" from an attorney that is factually backed up and accurate. You stay classy Marcus.

 

[Marcus]

"Fourth grade level diatribe" from an attorney that is factually backed up and accurate. You stay classy Marcus.

The fact that you consider anything in that article "factually backed up and accurate" is absolutely stunning. It is one long string of straw men followed by another. You know damn well that if a "liberal" had posted something similar, you'd be all over it with your wikipedia links.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Most of you don't read what we post. I stand by my statement.

Because most of what you right wing whackos post are pointless attack pieces that have been worn-out like a 5$ whore over the last 8 years. Maybe if the right had some actual new ideas to offer you might have a chance to regain some offices in 2010.

Poll: Most don't know who speaks for GOP

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washin..._N.htm?poe=HFMostPopular&loc=interstitialskip

By Susan Page, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Republicans, out of power and divided over how to get it back, are finding even the most basic questions hard to answer.
Here's one: Who speaks for the GOP?

The question flummoxes most Americans, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, which is among the reasons for the party's sagging state and uncertain direction.

A 52% majority of those surveyed couldn't come up with a name when asked to specify "the main person" who speaks for Republicans today. Of those who could, the top response was radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh (13%), followed in order by former vice president Dick Cheney, Arizona Sen. John McCain and former House speaker Newt Gingrich. Former president George W. Bush ranked fifth, at 3%.

So the dominant faces of the Republican Party are all men, all white, all conservative and all old enough to join AARP, ranging in age from 58 (Limbaugh) to 72 (McCain). They include some of the country's most strident voices on issues from Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court to President Obama's policies at home and abroad. Two are retired from politics, and one has never been a candidate.

Only McCain holds elective office, and his age and status as the loser of last year's presidential election make him an unlikely standard bearer for the party's future.

"It's a problem," says Douglas Holtz-Eakin, an adviser to McCain's 2008 presidential campaign who this month is filing the papers to create a think tank aimed at generating new ideas for conservatives. "We need the perceived leadership of the party to be those who are the future."

"We cannot be a party of balding white guys," says former Republican Party national chairman Ed Gillespie, a White House counselor for George W. Bush. "We have to have a broader appeal, but there's time for us to make that change."

Republicans have seen an erosion of support across almost all demographic groups — the steepest decline since World War II, even bigger than in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal in the 1970s. Since 2004, Republicans have gone from a 3 percentage point advantage in party identification over Democrats in USA TODAY polls to a 7 point disadvantage.

In that time, the GOP has lost control of the White House, the House of Representatives and the Senate. It is struggling to forge a united response to the popular new Democratic president. The result has been to give Obama "an extension" to his political honeymoon, Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg says.

No surprise, then, that a debate rages over what to do next.

The annual Congressional Republican fundraising dinner Monday prompted weeks of political drama over who would deliver the keynote address. Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's name was announced, but when questions arose over her schedule Gingrich was tapped. Then a last-minute kerfuffle developed over whether Palin, McCain's running mate, would attend after all.

In the end, she showed up at the Washington Convention Center, walked across the stage and waved but didn't speak. He delivered an hour-long, policy-laden address that castigated Obama for having "already failed" on the economy and called for a "majority Republican Party" that would tolerate disparate views.

In recent days, the party's divisions over Sotomayor have played out in public.

At one end of the spectrum, Limbaugh labeled the appellate judge a racist and Gingrich said she should be forced to withdraw, although he later backed away from his harshest words. At the other, Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, praised the nominee's judicial philosophy and defended Sotomayor's temperament after meeting with her last week.

"We're undergoing, obviously, an identity problem, both in terms of the issues and what we represent as Republicans, what the Republican brand is all about," Snowe says. One of the few moderate Republicans left in the Senate — their ranks shrank when Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania switched to the Democrats — she worries her party has "lost its way."

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele, who declined to be interviewed about the GOP's future, has been caught in the crossfire between Limbaugh and others. (In the USA TODAY/Gallup Poll, only 1% said Steele spoke for the GOP.)

USA TODAY asked whether Republicans, to succeed, should either do a better job arguing for conservative views or change positions on some issues to appeal to moderates — an ongoing debate within the party. Cheney sparked headlines last month when he said on CBS' Face the Nation that he would rather have a GOP defined by the conservative Limbaugh than the moderate former secretary of State, Colin Powell.

A majority of those surveyed said the party should make changes to draw moderates. Among Republicans, however, nearly two-thirds said the party would be better off by holding a conservative line and advocating it more effectively — as Limbaugh advocates.

"They're disorganized, they don't have a leader, and they're trying to be too moderate," Kim Lowe, 43, of Charlotte, says. The conservative stay-at-home mom and interior designer, who was among those surveyed, predicts that a message of fiscal responsibility ultimately will prevail with voters.

"I believe they'll come back once America sees what Obama is doing," she says.

'Politics is self-correcting'

Political fortunes are cyclical, of course. Republicans were crushed in Lyndon Johnson's 1964 landslide but regained the White House four years later amid turmoil over civil rights and the Vietnam War. In the 1980s, Democratic liberals and centrists faced off, sometimes bitterly, over welfare, crime and other issues until Bill Clinton won the presidency in 1992.

"When you have a party out of power, especially after you've lost an election, it's not surprising there would be many voices competing to speak," says Frank Donatelli, who was political director in the Reagan White House and helped run the Republican National Committee for the McCain campaign last year.

Republican opportunities will come in response to Democratic excesses, Donatelli says: "Politics is self-correcting."

In time, the GOP will be defined and led by its presidential nominee, he says. Several prospects are laying the groundwork for potential runs in 2012.

Last week, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty announced he wouldn't seek a third term, stoking speculation that he is interested in the White House. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee and Gingrich have been making appearances in key primary states.

Republican candidates also are competitive in this year's two gubernatorial races, in New Jersey and Virginia, for seats now held by Democrats. Winning either would help Republicans argue they are making a comeback.

Still, some see the GOP's immediate plight as perilous.

"We're in the basement of a 100-story building," says Ed Rollins, a Republican strategist who advised the presidential campaigns of Ronald Reagan in 1984, independent Ross Perot in 1992 and Huckabee in 2008.

Rollins says next year's congressional and state legislative elections are crucial. If Republicans don't make significant gains in the House, he says, the redrawing of congressional district lines after the 2010 Census could lock in Democratic advantages for a decade.

Then there are the demographics of the GOP's decline.

From Bush's inauguration in 2001 to Obama's inauguration in 2009, Republicans lost significant support among nearly every major demographic group, according to a Gallup analysis — among men and women, Americans at all income levels, residents of every region and those ages 18-64.

The losses were particularly steep among those under 30, the rising Millennial generation. Support for the GOP among college graduates fell by about 10 percentage points. Surveys of voters as they left polling places also showed a significant decline among Hispanics, the nation's fastest-growing ethnic group.
Republicans maintained support among seniors, conservatives and frequent churchgoers.

To win elections, Gillespie says, the party needs to make more inroads among the rapidly expanding parts of the population. "I was not a math major, but I know that getting an increasing share of a decreasing percentage of the overall vote is not a good thing," he says. "That's what we're doing now."

"The world has changed, and they cannot be staying in the same place where they've been for the last 200 years," says Erika Quinteros, 63, an independent from suburban Philadelphia who was called in the survey. The retired doctor sometimes votes for Republicans — she liked former Pennsylvania governor Tom Ridge— but says the current GOP seems "too radical" for her.

In the poll, 34% had a favorable impression of the Republican Party, matching the lowest level in more than a decade. In comparison, 53% had a favorable impression of the Democratic Party.

Dissatisfaction with the GOP extends to within its own ranks. Among Republicans, 33% had an unfavorable impression of their own party. In contrast, 4% of Democrats had an unfavorable impression of their party.

The GOP's electoral setbacks, policy divisions and image problems make it harder for the party to influence the national debate.

"It's as if the Republican Party is in a time-out chair," says Charlie Cook, editor and publisher of the non-partisan Cook Political Report. "Nobody's really listening to them. Nobody's caring what they think. The question is when they're asked to rejoin the class, are they going to have something new or different to say?"

"I don't think people know what they stand for," says Troy Collett, 39, a Republican from Shelbyville, Ind., who was surveyed. In the 2008 election, he says, "all they knew was there was a war in Iraq that most people disagreed with, and spending was out of control, and gas prices were high."

A GOP 'wilderness'

Asked by Gallup "what comes to mind when you think of the Republican Party," 25% said "unfavorable" and another 1 in 4 offered negative assessments including "no direction," "close-minded" and "poor economic conditions." Sixteen percent said "conservative" and 7% "favorable."

For the Democratic Party, the most dominant impression was "liberal," mentioned by 15%. One in 3 used positive phrases such as "for the people" and "socially conscious." The most prevalent negative judgments saw the Democrats as "big spending" (8%) and "self-centered" (4%).

The survey of 1,015 adults, taken by land line and cellphone May 29-31, has a margin of error of +/– 3 percentage points.

Like the Democrats or not, there was a broad consensus about who speaks for the party. Obama was named by 58%. He was followed by 11% who cited House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and 3% who cited Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. Twenty-one percent couldn't come up with a name.

And Obama's popularity — 67% had a favorable opinion of him — is boosting his party. Even the 14-year-old daughter of Rollins, the Republican strategist, has put up posters of the president in her bedroom.

Some analysts say a stumble by the president and the Democrat-controlled Congress would give Republicans their best opportunity to recover.

"Republicans are counting on the Obama administration to disintegrate, to disappoint, very rapidly and very spectacularly, and a big popular movement of unhappiness with the administration to coalesce," says David Frum, a speechwriter in the Bush White House.

Frum, who says the party hasn't yet come to terms with its problems, has launched a website called newmajority.com to encourage a debate.

"There's a lot of time and nothing wrong with the Republican Party that health care reform or the cap-and-trade (energy plan) or something like that blowing up wouldn't help fix," Cook says.

At the moment, though, "Republicans are going through a wilderness period, and it may take a while to come out of it."

:bowrofl: It is HILARIOUS to watch the GOP and the conservative movement self-destruct under the "leadership" of loud-mouths like "Oxycotin" Limbaugh and "We have proof of Iraq's WMDs" Cheney. Maybe this will turn out to be an opportunity for a Libertarian movement to push aside conservatives and BE the 2nd major political party.

 

[shagdrum]

The fact that you consider anything in that article "factually backed up and accurate" is absolutely stunning. It is one long string of straw men followed by another. You know damn well that if a "liberal" had posted something similar, you'd be all over it with your wikipedia links.

If that were the case, then you could point to specifics and refute it with facts and logic. If it truly was a "long string of straw men" you could show that.

 

[aztecknight]

If that were the case, then you could point to specifics and refute it with facts and logic. If it truly was a "long string of straw men" you could show that.

I'm gonna regret getting into the middle of this, as it will never end but...

He doesn't have to. You've committed two fallacies in your defense of this article.

1. Appeal to authority - He is a lawyer..... so what, does that make him an expert socialogist?
2. Burden of proof - your shifting it to Marcus, rather than proving the assertions the article makes.

As for the article itself, I'll touch on a few points:

1. Hasty Generalization - this article does this a lot, it lumps the actions of a few, in some cases 1 individual and attributes them to all liberals.
2. Straw man - "support exterminating babies in the womb;" Really? Really? I think its called pro-choice, not pro-exterminating babies in the womb.
3. Guilt by association - "like a thuggish Third World dictatorship" , "consciously employ the sinister tactics of radical Saul Alinsky"
4. Straw man - "promote a secular humanist worldview that considers government a quasi-deity that can perfect the human condition"... clear distortion
5. Straw man - "have so little faith in their fellow human beings that they diminish their dignity by expanding the welfare state and increasing man's learned dependency on government" ... again a distortion.

There are many examples of straw man.

6. Ad hominem tu quoque - "oppose vouchers to keep inner-city minorities trapped in inferior schools while pretending to be their caretakers and while sending their own children to elite private schools"

These are just some examples but there are more. I really don't see how this article can be defended as a legitimate proof of anything.

 

[Marcus]

Thank you aztecknight, you just saved me the trouble, and did more than I would have. I would have just stuck to "shifting burden of proof" and moved on.

 

[shagdrum]

Appeal to authority - He is a lawyer..... so what, does that make him an expert socialogist?

My argument is only an "appeal to authority" if I am arguing that he is right because he is an authority. If you read the post in which I respond to Marcus' claim (post #31), I am disproving the notion that it is a "fourth grade diatribe". Pointing out the fact that he is a lawyer is very relevant and logically disproves that notion; you cannot be a lawyer unless you have passed fourth grade and in fact graduated H.S., graduated college, graduated law school and passed the bar exam.

So, my argument is only an appeal to authority if you assume a mischaracterization of my argument.

Burden of proof - your shifting it to Marcus, rather than proving the assertions the article makes.

I have done no such thing. For a criticism to be valid, it has to be disprovable. And before someone says that is wrong because it would mean the claim is false; that is not what disprovable means. Disprovable simply means that the argument is verifiable as either right or wrong and thus able to be reasonably challenged.

His claims are vague and not disprovable because of that. There is no specific argument.

The fact is, due to the vague nature of his claim, it is unable to be challenged. So the burden of proof is still on him to make his claim valid by making it specific and disprovable.

To expect me to have to go back every single claim in that article is absurd and nothing short of moving the goalposts. If he is relying on the vagueness of his claim to force me to have to back up so much that it is overwhelming and impractical, it is nothing more then a dishonest means to avoid a counter just like hrmwrm's "wall 'o' text" posts.

Hasty Generalization - this article does this a lot, it lumps the actions of a few, in some cases 1 individual and attributes them to all liberals.

Again, specifics? What claim(s) are hasty generalizations? Frankly you are talking in generalizations here that make you claim so vague as to not be valid.

Straw man - "support exterminating babies in the womb;" Really? Really? I think its called pro-choice, not pro-exterminating babies in the womb.

Ahh, this has been discussed ad nauseum in this forum; Obama actions show that he supports infanticide (specifically, allowing a baby born in a botched abortion to die outside the womb). If he supports that, it is pretty clear that he supports partial birth abortion as well (which could also be called "exterminating a baby in the womb".

Precisely what abortion is; exterminating a baby in the womb. Just because he doesn't call it "pro-choice" does not mean he is mischaracterizing it. What you are doing is making a distinction without a difference.

Guilt by association - "like a thuggish Third World dictatorship" , "consciously employ the sinister tactics of radical Saul Alinsky"

...where is the association? There needs to be an association for there to be guilt by association.

Straw man - "promote a secular humanist worldview that considers government a quasi-deity that can perfect the human condition"... clear distortion

No, that is precisely what the ideology of socialism (egalitarianism, progressivism, "democratic" socialism, whatever you want to call it) tries to do; to perfect the human condition. There is also a dedicated effort to remove religion from the public sphere; secular humanism (another philosophical idea).

It is only a "straw man" if you are ignorant of the philosophies involved.

Straw man - "have so little faith in their fellow human beings that they diminish their dignity by expanding the welfare state and increasing man's learned dependency on government" ... again a distortion.

No, again accurate if you have an understanding of the philosophies/ideologies involved and an understanding of the historical track record of those philosophies/ideologies.

In short, they view humans as generally good, which is not realistic. When reality meets there idealistic views, they lose faith in humanity and start to impose their agenda to change human nature to fit their view so that their agenda can work. You see this very dramatically in most any modern totalitarian country (socialist countries, fascist countries). You see a much more "pleasant" version of this in the socialist democracies of Europe. And we are seeing it here in this country as well.

Ad hominem tu quoque - "oppose vouchers to keep inner-city minorities trapped in inferior schools while pretending to be their caretakers and while sending their own children to elite private schools"

Here is the definition of a tu quoque argument:

Tu quoque 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.​

What claim is Mr. Limbaugh, specifically, trying to disprove by showing that it applies equally to the person(s) making it? If that is not there, then this claim is simply meant to show both the disingenuousness of the actions of the dems as well as their unjustifiable double standard.

 

[fossten]

Somebody found the logical fallacy website and is throwing them all against the wall in the hopes that some will stick.

 

[fossten]

Thank you aztecknight, you just saved me the trouble, and did more than I would have. I would have just stuck to "shifting burden of proof" and moved on.

Aww...aren't you the cute cheerleader. Too bad your hero's arguments have been put down.

 

[Marcus]

Aww...aren't you the cute cheerleader. Too bad your hero's arguments have been put down.

...said the head cheerleader.

Somebody found the logical fallacy website and is throwing them all against the wall in the hopes that some will stick.

No that would be your hero.

 

[aztecknight]

My argument is only an "appeal to authority" if I am arguing that he is right because he is an authority. If you read the post in which I respond to Marcus' claim (post #31), I am disproving the notion that it is a "fourth grade diatribe". Pointing out the fact that he is a lawyer is very relevant and logically disproves that notion; you cannot be a lawyer unless you have passed fourth grade and in fact graduated H.S., graduated college, graduated law school and passed the bar exam.

So, my argument is only an appeal to authority if you assume a mischaracterization of my argument.

Let's break it down, Marcus never asserted that Limbaugh didn't graduate fourth grade, nor did he say this diatribe was written by a 4th grader. So you've successfully disproven something that isn't there... can we say strawman. Furthermore the mere fact that Limbaugh is a lawyer and therefore mastered the 4th grade along with his other academic achievements would only support his ability to create a "4th grade-level' diatribe. If you had said something to the effect that he never even got passed 3rd grade, then I would say you disproved the fact that this is a 4th grade level diatribe. If you never mastered 3rd grade then its unlikely you can operate at a 4th grade level.

Let's get real now though, Marcus was attacking the veracity of the article, calling the article a 4th grade-level diatribe. You defend said 4th grade level diatribe's veracity by saying no way he is a lawyer. If you had read a little further down the page on your source you would have seen the following:

Believing something because it is attributed to an honored profession. So yes, appeal to authority.

I have done no such thing. For a criticism to be valid, it has to be disprovable. And before someone says that is wrong because it would mean the claim is false; that is not what disprovable means. Disprovable simply means that the argument is verifiable as either right or wrong and thus able to be reasonably challenged.

His claims are vague and not disprovable because of that. There is no specific argument.

The fact is, due to the vague nature of his claim, it is unable to be challenged. So the burden of proof is still on him to make his claim valid by making it specific and disprovable.

Again, Marcus attacks the veracity of the article. You can question the way he did it, but not the fact that he did. It is not up to him to prove the article wrong, it is up to the author to defend the assertions made in the article.

To expect me to have to go back every single claim in that article is absurd and nothing short of moving the goalposts. If he is relying on the vagueness of his claim to force me to have to back up so much that it is overwhelming and impractical, it is nothing more then a dishonest means to avoid a counter just like hrmwrm's "wall 'o' text" posts.

Yet you expect this from him?

Again, specifics? What claim(s) are hasty generalizations? Frankly you are talking in generalizations here that make you claim so vague as to not be valid.

My bad. You got me here. Here is an example though:

"apologize the world over for America; or gut the military and missile defense because of some dangerously egotistical notion that they have the magic to turn evil into goodness with their charisma and eloquence or, even worse, because they refuse to recognize evil in the world, except as emanating from the United States."

I'm liberal and I haven't apologized the world over for American nor did I gut the military and missile defense. Last time I checked I didn't have the egotistical notion that I could turn evil into good with my charisma or eloquence. Sounds like he is talking about Obama. So yes, hasty generalization. You could even take it further and say its the fallacy of composition: The fallacy of Composition is committed when a conclusion is drawn about a whole based on the features of its constituents when, in fact, no justification provided for the inference.

Ahh, this has been discussed ad nauseum in this forum; Obama actions show that he supports infanticide (specifically, allowing a baby born in a botched abortion to die outside the womb). If he supports that, it is pretty clear that he supports partial birth abortion as well (which could also be called "exterminating a baby in the womb".

Precisely what abortion is; exterminating a baby in the womb. Just because he doesn't call it "pro-choice" does not mean he is mischaracterizing it. What you are doing is making a distinction without a difference.

Sorry wrong again. Being pro-choice does not mean supporting only infanticide or only abortion for that matter. It supports the freedom of choice. Amongst those choices is life. So to say they support exterminating babies in the womb is an exaggeration and a distortion, like it or not. On the positive side it does appear that you agree with me that at least some portions of this article attribute claims about Obama to all liberals.

...where is the association? There needs to be an association for there to be guilt by association.

"Guilt by association as an ad hominem fallacy

Guilt by association can sometimes also be a type of ad hominem fallacy, if the argument attacks a person because of the similarity between the views of someone making an argument and other proponents of the argument.

This form of the argument is as follows:

A makes claim P.
Bs also make claim P.
Therefore, A is a B. "

Liberals are extreme because they like thuggish Third World dictatorship – prosecute previous administration officials... Liberals are extreme because they employ the sinister tactics of radical Saul Alinsky. These are associations. The attacks make an association/link between liberals and Saul Alinsky and thuggish third world dictatorships.

No, that is precisely what the ideology of socialism (egalitarianism, progressivism, "democratic" socialism, whatever you want to call it) tries to do; to perfect the human condition. There is also a dedicated effort to remove religion from the public sphere; secular humanism (another philosophical idea).

It is only a "straw man" if you are ignorant of the philosophies involved.

Please prove to me that we liberals consider government a quasi-deity. Sorry, its a distortion. By the way, your little remark at the end is a personal attack, a fallacy.

No, again accurate if you have an understanding of the philosophies/ideologies involved and an understanding of the historical track record of those philosophies/ideologies.

In short, they view humans as generally good, which is not realistic. When reality meets there idealistic views, they lose faith in humanity and start to impose their agenda to change human nature to fit their view so that their agenda can work. You see this very dramatically in most any modern totalitarian country (socialist countries, fascist countries). You see a much more "pleasant" version of this in the socialist democracies of Europe. And we are seeing it here in this country as well.

Prove that liberals diminish the dignity of our fellow human beings. You have data that shows that people on any kind of welfare feel their dignity has been diminished. Please show me the data.

You contradict yourself as well. How can an individual view humans as generally good yet have lost faith in humanity? How can liberals change human nature, better yet, why would liberals change human nature if they view humans as generally good? Your position also contradicts the article. The article states liberals have little faith in their fellow humans, but you say they see humans as generally good?

Here is the definition of a tu quoque argument:

Tu quoque 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.

What claim is Mr. Limbaugh, specifically, trying to disprove by showing that it applies equally to the person(s) making it? If that is not there, then this claim is simply meant to show both the disingenuousness of the actions of the dems as well as their unjustifiable double standard.

If only you had read a little further. From your wiki source:

Inconsistency version

This form of the argument is as follows:

A makes claim P.
A has also made claims which are inconsistent with P.
Therefore, P is false.

This is a logical fallacy because the conclusion that P is false does not follow from the premises; even if A has made past claims which are inconsistent with P, it does not necessarily prove that P is either true or false.


Yet a more complete definition which is the one I'm using:

Description of Ad Hominem Tu Quoque

This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that a person's claim is false because 1) it is inconsistent with something else a person has said or 2) what a person says is inconsistent with her actions. This type of "argument" has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
3. Therefore X is false.

Liberals according to the article claim that vouchers are not a good idea and this of course is an extreme point of view, the article says liberals actions aren't consistent with their claims. This of course leads to the conclusion:

Also, the fact that a person's claims are not consistent with his actions might indicate that the person is a hypocrite but this does not prove his claims are false.

The article tries to prove how extreme not supporting vouchers is by pointing out that the dems actions aren't consistent with their stance.

 

[aztecknight]

Somebody found the logical fallacy website and is throwing them all against the wall in the hopes that some will stick.

Throwing them all against the wall? That's a bit of a stretch.

Don't worry though, I provided more details so that even you can understand them. Though you might give me the dreaded 'tl;dnr'.

 

[fossten]

...said the head cheerleader.

No that would be your hero.

Aww...how cute, two "NO U!" ripostes in the same response.

Grow up TommyB.

 

[shagdrum]

Let's break it down, Marcus never asserted that Limbaugh didn't graduate fourth grade, nor did he say this diatribe was written by a 4th grader. So you've successfully disproven something that isn't there... can we say strawman. Furthermore the mere fact that Limbaugh is a lawyer and therefore mastered the 4th grade along with his other academic achievements would only support his ability to create a "4th grade-level' diatribe. If you had said something to the effect that he never even got passed 3rd grade, then I would say you disproved the fact that this is a 4th grade level diatribe. If you never mastered 3rd grade then its unlikely you can operate at a 4th grade level.

So, first it was an appeal to authority, and now it is a straw man as well?

Is seems fossten was right and that you are simply throwing any fallacy claim you can against the wall to see if it sticks.

I will admit that you do have a point here, though. I may have been a little hasty in responding and wrongly interpreted what he said.

However, there are two points you have to consider...

First, the interpretation I went with was the only way, IMO, that his comment is at all disprovable and, thus, valid.

Second, I WAS BEING FACETIOUS!!! Notice the smiley?

Let's get real now though, Marcus was attacking the veracity of the article, calling the article a 4th grade-level diatribe.

Calling it a "4th grade level diatribe" only "attacks the veracity" through fallacious reasoning; specifically judgmental language:

Judgmental language is a subset of Style over substance fallacy and Red herring fallacies. It employs insultive, compromising or pejorative language to influence the recipient's judgement.​

Marcus in no way tries to logically discredit the substance of the article.

You defend said 4th grade level diatribe's veracity by saying no way he is a lawyer. If you had read a little further down the page on your source you would have seen the following:

Believing something because it is attributed to an honored profession.​

So yes, appeal to authority.

So now you are mischaracterizing what an appeal to an authority argument is by quoting from the wiki page out of context. Here is what the page says an appeal to authority is.

appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative.

...This is a fallacy because the truth or falsity of the claim is not necessarily related to the personal qualities of the claimant, and because the premises can be true, and the conclusion false (an authoritative claim can turn out to be false).

...There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true, the fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism: It can be true, the truth can merely not be proven, or made probable by attributing it to the authority, and the assumption that the assertion was true might be subject to criticism and turn out to have actually been wrong. If a criticism appears that contradicts the authority's statement, then merely the fact that the statement originated from the authority is not an argument for ignoring the criticism.​

I never argued that what he said was correct BECAUSE he was a lawyer. Simply citing an authority and/or pointing out that he is an authority is not an appeal to authority argument. You have to claim that what the authority says is true BECAUSE they are an authority for the argument to be an appeal to authority.

In fact, as I had already pointed out, Marcus never attacked the substance of the article, so there was no need for me to defend the substance by making an appeal to authority argument. I was simply countering his fallacious, substanceless and, frankly, petulant point.

You are, by implication, mischaracterizing what I was saying; a straw man fallacy on your part.

Again, Marcus attacks the veracity of the article.

If he is attacking the veracity of the article, he is doing so through fallacious means. He is not attacking the substance of the article.

Yet you expect this from him?

The burden of proof is on the person making the initial critique. He has to make a substantive and valid critique; necessitating that the critique attack the substance of the article and that the critique be both logical and disprovable. Until he does so that (and he still hasn't), the burden of proof is on him.

That is all I expect. If he wants to go line by line, or simply point out a few specifics that is his prerogative. But he didn't offer any substance, only smearing.

My bad. You got me here. Here is an example though:

"apologize the world over for America; or gut the military and missile defense because of some dangerously egotistical notion that they have the magic to turn evil into goodness with their charisma and eloquence or, even worse, because they refuse to recognize evil in the world, except as emanating from the United States."

I'm liberal and I haven't apologized the world over for American nor did I gut the military and missile defense. Last time I checked I didn't have the egotistical notion that I could turn evil into good with my charisma or eloquence. Sounds like he is talking about Obama. So yes, hasty generalization. You could even take it further and say its the fallacy of composition: The fallacy of Composition is committed when a conclusion is drawn about a whole based on the features of its constituents when, in fact, no justification provided for the inference.

Is he talking about liberals? He is pointing out what conservatives are not. It seems he is talking about conservatives, not liberals. He is pointing out what side of the isle extremism comes from, and in doing that it is relevant to point out examples from the other side of the isle. That doesn't mean that he is saying all liberals or even all liberal politicians.

And, in the context of the article, it is abundantly clear that he is referring to the actions of politicians. So, in pointing to yourself as a liberal you are citing a red herring and mischaracterizing what he is saying.

Sorry wrong again. Being pro-choice does not mean supporting only infanticide or only abortion for that matter. It supports the freedom of choice. Amongst those choices is life. So to say they support exterminating babies in the womb is an exaggeration and a distortion, like it or not. On the positive side it does appear that you agree with me that at least some portions of this article attribute claims about Obama to all liberals.

Abortion is exterminating a baby in the womb. It seems you are trying to deny that, which is nothing more then spin. If you want to justify that as a necessary evil at times that is one thing, but to deny the facts is irrational.

And, in talking about the infanticide thing, I am talking about a specific bill that Obama voted against in the Illinois Senate that would have prevented doctors from letting a baby die after being born in a botched partial birth abortion. So the infanticide I am talking about is directly tied to the attempt to kill a viable baby inside the womb.

And no, I am not agreeing with you that portions of the article attribute claims about Obama to all liberals. That is a false premise that you are attempting to inject to mischaracterize the article, as I have already pointed out.

Liberals are extreme because they like thuggish Third World dictatorship – prosecute previous administration officials... Liberals are extreme because they employ the sinister tactics of radical Saul Alinsky. These are associations. The attacks make an association/link between liberals and Saul Alinsky and thuggish third world dictatorships.

More straw man mischaracterization.

First, it doesn't matter who they "like" (punctuation is important).

Second, Limbaugh is not arguing that the tactics are radical or thuggish because they are used by these people, which is how you are mischaracterizing it. Here is what guilt by association as an ad hominem is:

Guilt by association can sometimes also be a type of ad hominem fallacy, if the argument attacks a person because of the similarity between the views of someone making an argument and other proponents of the argument​

Limbaugh is not attacking the tactics because of there similarity to anything.

It the case of the third world thing, he is simply citing the most obvious example of those thuggish tactics as a means of explaination.

In the case of Alinsky, he is point out where those tactics stem from; specifically his Rules for Radicals and his activities in Chicago. Again a means of explanation by citing the history of those tactics.

The tactics are radical and/or thuggish on their own and Limbaugh isn't arguing otherwise.

Please prove to me that we liberals consider government a quasi-deity. Sorry, its a distortion. By the way, your little remark at the end is a personal attack, a fallacy.

Can you say "shifting the burden of proof"?

Considering your ignorance when it comes to the various philosophies here (that is not a personal attack, it is an observation based on your arguments here), it would take way to long to bring you up to speed to be able to explain it to you.

Basically, they work to make government into into the provider/caregiver for everyone, the arbiter and ultimate authority of truth and justice, the ultimate authority and planner of society and the means of changing human nature.

And no, that last comment wasn't a personal attack. Actually it was a kind gesture toward you. Given your comment you are either A) ignorant of the philosophies involved here or, B) unwilling to consider what is being said. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you were simply ignorant in this area as opposed to being irrational.

FYI: a personal attack is not, in and of itself, fallacious. It is only fallacious if it is aimed at discrediting an argument or idea.

Prove that liberals diminish the dignity of our fellow human beings. You have data that shows that people on any kind of welfare feel their dignity has been diminished. Please show me the data.

Again, shifting the burden of proof as well as raising the goalposts. Your standard is completely arbitary and is nothing more then busy work aimed at avoiding rebuttal. Also, no quote at all, let alone in context, so I have no idea what he is talking about.

You contradict yourself as well. How can an individual view humans as generally good yet have lost faith in humanity? How can liberals change human nature, better yet, why would liberals change human nature if they view humans as generally good?

Again, a lack of understanding of basic political philosphy. ALL political philosophies make certain key assumptions about human nature. In fact, it can be argued that is the core of any philosophy and what the rest of the philosophy stems from. Modern liberalism assumes that humans are generally good and (depending on the specific philosophy) can improve or "evolve". When those assumptions about human nature are shown to be wrong, there is a cognitive dissonance between the ideology and reality. Ideologues become jaded with humanity and attempt to force humanity to fit their false notions of humanity. This is where totalitarian regimes come from.

Liberals according to the article claim that vouchers are not a good idea and this of course is an extreme point of view, the article says liberals actions aren't consistent with their claims. This of course leads to the conclusion:

Also, the fact that a person's claims are not consistent with his actions might indicate that the person is a hypocrite but this does not prove his claims are false.

The article tries to prove how extreme not supporting vouchers is by pointing out that the dems actions aren't consistent with their stance.

Limbaugh is not trying to disprove their claims. He is simply showing them to be hypocrites (not toward the end of disproving their claim).

Your claims of fallacy in this thread (other then that one point) are based in either a mischaracterization of what is being said, or of the fallacy you are claiming (straw man fallacy) and/or an ignorance of what is being said or the fallacy you are claiming.

 

[fossten]

Jeez, you guys are discussing Marcus' "4th grade diatribe" comment as though it were something other than an immature, idiotic, pejorative blatt from an angry knee-jerk.

 

[aztecknight]

Denial, denial, denial. If you believe it, it is so. You seriously want to criticize my lack of punctuation? C'mon, and yes I saw the smiley face.

So you admit to being facetious, or should I say, FACETIOUS!!! In other words, you were appealing to ridicule, another fallacy. Then you further admit to "First, the interpretation I went with was the only way, IMO, that his comment is at all disprovable and, thus, valid."

So you mischaracterize and distort his claim in order to dismiss it. Sure sounds like a strawman.

Calling it a "4th grade level diatribe" only "attacks the veracity" through fallacious reasoning; specifically judgmental language:

Judgmental language is a subset of Style over substance fallacy and Red herring fallacies. It employs insultive, compromising or pejorative language to influence the recipient's judgement.

Marcus in no way tries to logically discredit the substance of the article.

Isn't that what I said? I said you can question the way he went about attacking the veracity of the article, but not that fact that its what he was doing. Furthermore, and most importantly he doesn't have to logically discredit the substance of the article. The article makes a bunch of claims you so boldly stated were "factually backed up and accurate". Where are the facts and proof of their accuracies. You know the burden of proof is on the article not Marcus.

In fact, as I had already pointed out, Marcus never attacked the substance of the article, so there was no need for me to defend the substance by making an appeal to authority argument. I was simply countering his fallacious, substanceless and, frankly, petulant point.

You are, by implication, mischaracterizing what I was saying; a straw man fallacy on your part.

Examples of appeals to authority

[edit] Arguments

* Referring to the philosophical beliefs of Aristotle: "If Aristotle said it was so, it is so."
...
* Believing something because it is attributed to an honored profession, as in: "This doctor recommends (brand-name) aspirin" or "Bankers recommend that people have six months' wages in a savings account".


As I've established, Marcus attacked the veracity of the article with his comment. Then you replied "Fourth grade level diatribe from an attorney that is factually backed up and accurate". Clearly you are attempting to persuade individuals to believe something because it is attributed to an honored profession. Limbaugh is a lawyer, article is factually backed up and accurate (which we have yet to see), it can't be a pile of horse manure.

I never argued that what he said was correct BECAUSE he was a lawyer. Simply citing an authority and/or pointing out that he is an authority is not an appeal to authority argument. You have to claim that what the authority says is true BECAUSE they are an authority for the argument to be an appeal to authority.

See the example above from your source that I put in bold. Where in those examples is something claimed to be true because the authority says its true? Nowhere. You don't have to "...argued that what he said was correct BECAUSE he was a lawyer.", in order for it to be an appeal to authority. You simply have to "therefore claim B is true, or has its credibility unduly enhanced as a result of the proximity and association. "Fourth grade level diatribe from an attorney that is factually backed up and accurate"... sure sounds like an appeal to authority. If it walks like a duck and sounds like one....

Here, I'll break it down further using your definition:

If a criticism appears (Marcus calling it a P.O.S article full of fallacies) that contradicts the authority's statement (all the unproven claims in the article), then merely the fact that the statement originated from the authority(limbaugh is a lawyer) is not an argument for ignoring the criticism (its a pile of horse manure).

If he is attacking the veracity of the article, he is doing so through fallacious means. He is not attacking the substance of the article.

Correct, but attacking the veracity of the article is exactly what Marcus is doing.

The burden of proof is on the person making the initial critique. He has to make a substantive and valid critique; necessitating that the critique attack the substance of the article and that the critique be both logical and disprovable. Until he does so that (and he still hasn't), the burden of proof is on him.

That is all I expect. If he wants to go line by line, or simply point out a few specifics that is his prerogative. But he didn't offer any substance, only smearing.

No, the burden of proof is not on the person making the initial critique. The burden of proof is on the individual making the claims. C'mon you know this. I've seen you use it before. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof

Outside a legal context, "burden of proof" means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this." Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, either positive or negative, it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the responsibility of the person who is making the bold claim to prove it. In short, X is not proven simply because "not X" cannot be proven

Further, what you are trying to do now is this which I've seen you throw around here before so you should be familiar, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof:

"The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ("appeal to ignorance" [1]), argument by lack of imagination, or negative evidence, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true."

Bottom line, Marcus has to prove nothing. The article makes bold claims that must be backed up, and they clearly aren't, otherwise I suspect you would've already inundated us with links to the facts.

Is he talking about liberals? He is pointing out what conservatives are not. It seems he is talking about conservatives, not liberals. He is pointing out what side of the isle extremism comes from, and in doing that it is relevant to point out examples from the other side of the isle. That doesn't mean that he is saying all liberals or even all liberal politicians.

And, in the context of the article, it is abundantly clear that he is referring to the actions of politicians. So, in pointing to yourself as a liberal you are citing a red herring and mischaracterizing what he is saying.

Let the back-pedaling begin. "Conservatives aren't the extremists"... who is then? "Mainstream conservatives are routinely mischaracterized as extreme by liberals and squishy Republicans, when it is America's liberals who are, by any fair measure, more extreme."

Another way to interpret what you are saying is that Limbaugh makes an argument from ignorance then?

Commonly in an argument from personal incredulity or argument from ignorance, the speaker considers or asserts that something is false, implausible, or not obvious to them personally and attempts to use this gap in knowledge as "evidence" in favor of an alternative view of his or her choice.

Abortion is exterminating a baby in the womb. It seems you are trying to deny that, which is nothing more then spin. If you want to justify that as a necessary evil at times that is one thing, but to deny the facts is irrational.

And, in talking about the infanticide thing, I am talking about a specific bill that Obama voted against in the Illinois Senate that would have prevented doctors from letting a baby die after being born in a botched partial birth abortion. So the infanticide I am talking about is directly tied to the attempt to kill a viable baby inside the womb.

And no, I am not agreeing with you that portions of the article attribute claims about Obama to all liberals. That is a false premise that you are attempting to inject to mischaracterize the article, as I have already pointed out.

I never attempted to define abortion. Good job of building that strawman. I clearly stated that Pro-choice does not equal pro abortion. Here you go, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro_choice:

Pro-choice describes the political and ethical view that a woman should have complete control over her fertility and the choice to continue or terminate a pregnancy. This entails the guarantee of reproductive rights, which includes access to sexual education; access to safe and legal abortion, contraception, and fertility treatments; and legal protection from forced abortion.

The claim in the article is an exaggeration and distortion of the pro-choice view.

It the case of the third world thing, he is simply citing the most obvious example of those thuggish tactics as a means of explaination.

In the case of Alinsky, he is point out where those tactics stem from; specifically his Rules for Radicals and his activities in Chicago. Again a means of explanation by citing the history of those tactics.

The tactics are radical and/or thuggish on their own and Limbaugh isn't arguing otherwise.

What? Huh? Where does he cite an example of thuggish tactics? Didn't see it, please show me the third world country and its leaders Limbaugh cites as an example. Why is there a need to point out where those tactics came from if they are as you say radical on their own? You are correct about one thing though, he is not attacking the tactics, he's attacking the views of American liberals as extreme by attempting to associate them with thuggish 3rd world countries and Alinsky.

Can you say "shifting the burden of proof"?

Considering your ignorance when it comes to the various philosophies here (that is not a personal attack, it is an observation based on your arguments here), it would take way to long to bring you up to speed to be able to explain it to you.

Basically, they work to make government into into the provider/caregiver for everyone, the arbiter and ultimate authority of truth and justice, the ultimate authority and planner of society and the means of changing human nature.

And no, that last comment wasn't a personal attack. Actually it was a kind gesture toward you. Given your comment you are either A) ignorant of the philosophies involved here or, B) unwilling to consider what is being said. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you were simply ignorant in this area as opposed to being irrational.

FYI: a personal attack is not, in and of itself, fallacious. It is only fallacious if it is aimed at discrediting an argument or idea.

Can you be more wrong? Considering your ignorance of fallacies, clearly demonstrated by your lack of understanding and implementation, I guess you can. This is not a personal attack, just an observation from the arguments you make.

No, I'm not shifting the burden of proof, as established earlier, a claim is made in the article which you state is factually backed up and accurate. It is on you to prove this, at a minimum the author of the article is required to prove it.

The explanation you give in no way supports that liberals view government as a quasi-deity. This is an exaggeration and distortion.

You are also wrong about a personal attacking only being fallacious "if it is aimed at discrediting an argument or idea." It does a pretty good job of "poisoning the well".

Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a logical fallacy where adverse information about a target is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say.

In your response to "Prove that liberals diminish the dignity of our fellow human beings. You have data that shows that people on any kind of welfare feel their dignity has been diminished. Please show me the data." You said:

Again, shifting the burden of proof as well as raising the goalposts. Your standard is completely arbitary and is nothing more then busy work aimed at avoiding rebuttal. Also, no quote at all, let alone in context, so I have no idea what he is talking about.

Again, didn't shift proof of burden, the claim in the article is not backed up. Your understanding of the burden of proof fallacy is really lacking.

Now you say you have no idea what he is talking about? How can you not know what he is talking about, yet defend it. Where is the accuracy you so boldly claimed this article possessed? It is a clear distortion.

Again, a lack of understanding of basic political philosphy. ALL political philosophies make certain key assumptions about human nature. In fact, it can be argued that is the core of any philosophy and what the rest of the philosophy stems from. Modern liberalism assumes that humans are generally good and (depending on the specific philosophy) can improve or "evolve". When those assumptions about human nature are shown to be wrong, there is a cognitive dissonance between the ideology and reality. Ideologues become jaded with humanity and attempt to force humanity to fit their false notions of humanity. This is where totalitarian regimes come from.

Huh? Modern liberalism assumes that humans are generally good when those assumptions are proven false they become jaded with humanity and force it to fit what they already assume to status quo? Makes no sense. I believe 1+1=2 but the reality is 1+1=3, so I become jaded and I try to force 3 to be 2 though I know for a fact that 3 is not 2, but I believe it is. I believe humans are good by nature, but I know they are not. Wow, it is so clear, you can know something yet believe something completely different. Thanks for the lesson.

Regardless, your argument contradicts the article. The article assumes liberals to have little faith in humans, you assume that liberals have the opposite view, yet know otherwise... a paradox if you will.

Limbaugh is not trying to disprove their claims. He is simply showing them to be hypocrites (not toward the end of disproving their claim).

Wrong again. He is not trying to show them to be hypocrites, he is attempting to prove that the views are extreme. Did you read the article, that is the whole premise. Let's break it down again:

Also, the fact that a person's claims(vouchers suck) are not consistent with his actions(sending their kids to elite private schools) might indicate that the person is a hypocrite but this does not prove his claims are false.(or extreme in this case)

Your claims of fallacy in this thread (other then that one point) are based in either a mischaracterization of what is being said, or of the fallacy you are claiming (straw man fallacy) and/or an ignorance of what is being said or the fallacy you are claiming.

Just keep saying to yourself "There's no place like home, there's no place like home..."

 

[Marcus]

Just for the record, the "fourth grade-level diatribe" was aimed at Limbaugh's style, i.e., "Conservatives aren't the ones who...". It's very much akin to a child's "I know you are but what am I" taunt. How educated Limbaugh is is irrelevant.

The "strawman" statement was aimed at the substance of the "article". That is, his mischaracterizing the motives of "liberals", as in they are evil, America-hating, terrorist-cheering, child-killers. That is indeed the substance of his diatribe.

I could have easily disputed the entire thing by just listing each accusation out and appending the phrase "and neither are liberals" to each one, and used the same exact amount of evidence as Limbaugh did. But I didn't feel the need to waste my time.

By the way, I'd like add another logical fallacy to the long list that applies to most of your posts Shag, as evidenced in this thread:

Argumentum verbosium

Proof by verbosity is also used colloquially in forensic debate to describe a logical fallacy (sometimes called "argumentum verbosium") that tries to persuade by overwhelming those considering an argument with such a volume of material that the argument sounds plausible, superficially appears to be well-researched, and that is so laborious to untangle and check supporting facts that the argument is allowed to slide by unchallenged. It is the fallacy epitomized by W. C. Fields' quote: "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull."​

 

[fossten]

Just for the record, the "fourth grade-level diatribe" was aimed at Limbaugh's style, i.e., "Conservatives aren't the ones who...".

We're aware. It's still a stupid comment.

It's very much akin to a child's "I know you are but what am I" taunt. How educated Limbaugh is is irrelevant.

You just gave me a 'NO U!' in this thread. Funny you didn't notice your own childish taunt.

 

[aztecknight]

Just for the record, the "fourth grade-level diatribe" was aimed at Limbaugh's style, i.e., "Conservatives aren't the ones who...". It's very much akin to a child's "I know you are but what am I" taunt. How educated Limbaugh is is irrelevant.

The "strawman" statement was aimed at the substance of the "article". That is, his mischaracterizing the motives of "liberals", as in they are evil, America-hating, terrorist-cheering, child-killers. That is indeed the substance of his diatribe.

I could have easily disputed the entire thing by just listing each accusation out and appending the phrase "and neither are liberals" to each one, and used the same exact amount of evidence as Limbaugh did. But I didn't feel the need to waste my time.

By the way, I'd like add another logical fallacy to the long list that applies to most of your posts Shag, as evidenced in this thread:

Argumentum verbosium

Proof by verbosity is also used colloquially in forensic debate to describe a logical fallacy (sometimes called "argumentum verbosium") that tries to persuade by overwhelming those considering an argument with such a volume of material that the argument sounds plausible, superficially appears to be well-researched, and that is so laborious to untangle and check supporting facts that the argument is allowed to slide by unchallenged. It is the fallacy epitomized by W. C. Fields' quote: "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull."​

Thanks for clarifying your intentions, looks like Shag and I misinterpreted them, or as Shag would say "mischaracterized, distorted" your intentions.

Shag bullying people around with his fallacies gets old, especially when he is often guilty of doing the same. He always says he's in search of the truth or some crap like that, yet the only ones he ever calls out are those he disagrees with. If you truly are in search of truth call everyone out. Don't hold those you disagree with to standards you yourself and those you agree with don't follow.

Personal attacks are also a trademark in Shag's counter arguments. He claims that they aren't a fallacy unless they are intended to disprove something. What a load of crap, they clearly attempt to discredit an individual in future debates.

Regardless, I'm done. THERE IS NO WAY FOR AN INDIVIDUAL TO DEFEND THIS ARTICLE AS A LEGITIMATE FORM OF DEBATE OR PROOF OF ANYTHING.

I'll try to keep things short in the future. I was just trying to highlight the bull Shag uses to baffle us.

 

[fossten]

Shag bullying people around with his fallacies gets old, especially when he is often guilty of doing the same. He always says he's in search of the truth or some crap like that, yet the only ones he ever calls out are those he disagrees with. If you truly are in search of truth call everyone out. Don't hold those you disagree with to standards you yourself and those you agree with don't follow.

At least Shag knows how to identify the fallacies properly.

THERE IS NO WAY FOR AN INDIVIDUAL TO DEFEND THIS ARTICLE AS A LEGITIMATE FORM OF DEBATE OR PROOF OF ANYTHING.

Oh, I see, using the argumentum capitalizatium fallacy.

Hey, let me try:

LIBERALS ARE ALL STUPID.

Wow, that's really effective, aztec. I never realized it was so easy to win a debate. Thanks for teaching me that.