Obama: Being an American not a matter of blood or birth, but faith

[fossten]

Not interested in hearsay.

Then why do you constantly post it?

 

[fossten]

Why do you say that? All I ask you to do is provide justification for your accusations.

What you do is make baseless claims and outrageous demands requiring much busywork for whomever you're arguing with - and then when they don't comply you call them names or whine about being personally attacked. That's lazy and amateurish.

Please do point out how my last response was not civil, honest, respectful or objective.

Oh, so we're keeping track of post by post civility now? Funny, because you like to dredge up the past whenever it's convenient for you, as an excuse to be nasty yourself.

I guess there's a double standard: When FIND decides he wants to be snarky, he says he's responding in kind to ANY time anybody else has been snarky to him. But if you call him out for being generally snarky, he demands to know how he was snarky just in the last five minutes.

Once again, you are forming an ad hominem argument instead of addressing the issue. Strange how I have never had a discussion with you in which you did not resort to some petty insult, or other ad hominem argument.

Yes, anytime somebody disagrees with you or is critical of your argument, it's a personal attack.

"But admin, he said I used TEH STRAW MANZ!!1!!!ONE11!!ELEVENTY1!!!!"

Want a tissue? If you can't take it, don't dish it out so much. Or, keep crying wolf about being attacked personally, and nobody will ever take you seriously, not even the mods, because your wittle emotions are on a hair trigger.

Hell, the amount of time you spend whining about people picking apart your arguments and/or 'personally attacking you' could easily be spent doing a little researching and coming up with a decent argument. I guess you've decided you want to be 'Type A' instead of 'Type B' - argumentative and petulant.

 

[fossten]

No, I asked you to post proof. Is hearsay admissible in a court of law? I wonder if there is a reason for that.

You routinely introduce a 'false choice' - either 'proof' or it's a 'baseless opinion'. Despite the fact that evidence has been introduced in several other discussions to back up every point I've made, you dismiss any of it because it doesn't meet your nebulous standard of proof, whatever that is. It's called 'moving the goalposts' - and it indicates a lack of honesty on your part. You demand proof but then dismiss evidence as baseless opinion or hearsay without even addressing the evidence directly - while at the same time linking duplicated articles (literally FILLED with hearsay) as supposed 'mountains of evidence' and sarcastically dismissing all arguments to the contrary.

This comes across very clearly as the position that you have no interest in an actual debate on any subject, but only in harassing and nitpicking someone until they give up talking to you, and then claiming victimhood. That's what foxpaws does. It's another form of ad nauseum. I've known Shag for a long time, and he rarely gives up talking to someone, and only does so when they demonstrate a lack of interest in the topic being discussed, in favor of annoying, snarky, ankle-biting behavior.

It's pathetic, really, how unaware you are of your own hypocrisy in the matter. However, based on your current track record, I doubt that you will be introspective enough to respond in any manner other than immature and petulant. But calling me or Shag a 'poopy head' doesn't win you the argument despite your constant bleatings.

As I've said before - futilely - the ball's in your court.

 

[FIND]

Then why do you constantly post it?

Here you go making accusations you cannot back up with fact again

What you do is make baseless claims and outrageous demands requiring much busywork for whomever you're arguing with - and then when they don't comply you call them names or whine about being personally attacked. That's lazy and amateurish.

Where have I done this? Lazy is introducing an opinion that is unjustified or making a claim, and then telling the other party to go find supporting facts.

Oh, so we're keeping track of post by post civility now? Funny, because you like to dredge up the past whenever it's convenient for you, as an excuse to be nasty yourself.

I find it funny that you continue to make these accusations since you are afraid of facing the issues.

I guess there's a double standard: When FIND decides he wants to be snarky, he says he's responding in kind to ANY time anybody else has been snarky to him. But if you call him out for being generally snarky, he demands to know how he was snarky just in the last five minutes.
Yes, anytime somebody disagrees with you or is critical of your argument, it's a personal attack.

You keep making the accusations. What a wonderful ad nauseum argument.

"Ad nauseam" arguments are logical fallacies relying on the repetition of a single argument to the exclusion of all else. This tactic employs intentional obfuscation, in which other logic and rationality is intentionally ignored in favour of preconceived (and ultimately subjective) modes of reasoning and rationality.​

"But admin, he said I used TEH STRAW MANZ!!1!!!ONE11!!ELEVENTY1!!!!"

Want a tissue? If you can't take it, don't dish it out so much. Or, keep crying wolf about being attacked personally, and nobody will ever take you seriously, not even the mods, because your wittle emotions are on a hair trigger.

When have I complained to the mods? I would REALLY love to see you justify your statements.

Hell, the amount of time you spend whining about people picking apart your arguments and/or 'personally attacking you' could easily be spent doing a little researching and coming up with a decent argument. I guess you've decided you want to be 'Type A' instead of 'Type B' - argumentative and petulant.

You really need to familiarize yourself with the term Ad Hominem. Any argument I have entered, I am generally quite familiar with what I am talking about. Stating ad nauseum that I am not is not going to change that fact.

You routinely introduce a 'false choice' - either 'proof' or it's a 'baseless opinion'.

Either it is a fact or it is not. If you do not offer proof or reasoning to support your opinion then the opinion stands with no grounds. Do you understand the definition of baseless?

Despite the fact that evidence has been introduced in several other discussions to back up every point I've made, you dismiss any of it because it doesn't meet your nebulous standard of proof, whatever that is. It's called 'moving the goalposts' - and it indicates a lack of honesty on your part.

I'd love to see you back this claim up.

You demand proof but then dismiss evidence as baseless opinion or hearsay without even addressing the evidence directly - while at the same time linking duplicated articles (literally FILLED with hearsay) as supposed 'mountains of evidence' and sarcastically dismissing all arguments to the contrary.

I linked duplicate articles so that no one would say it is just "liberal media". Those articles are not hearsay. Besides, in my post, I stated why I felt that the statements by the senator were unreliable.

This comes across very clearly as the position that you have no interest in an actual debate on any subject, but only in harassing and nitpicking someone until they give up talking to you, and then claiming victimhood.

Yeah.... not so much. I love how you guys accuse me of having no interest in actual debate just because I don't share your opinions. Perhaps you should try a dictionary out. You really must not understand what debate is.

That's what foxpaws does. It's another form of ad nauseum.

You don't know what ad nauseum arguments are do you? Well, at least you are good at ad hominem arguments.

I've known Shag for a long time, and he rarely gives up talking to someone, and only does so when they demonstrate a lack of interest in the topic being discussed, in favor of annoying, snarky, ankle-biting behavior.

All I asked was justification for claims. Seems to me every time I ask for that, or disagree, I am subject to ad hominem attacks. You can state this all you want, but ad nauseum argumentation does not work. If your argument had any merit, you would be addressing the issues, not attacking me. Same with shag.

It's pathetic, really, how unaware you are of your own hypocrisy in the matter. However, based on your current track record, I doubt that you will be introspective enough to respond in any manner other than immature and petulant. But calling me or Shag a 'poopy head' doesn't win you the argument despite your constant bleatings.

As I've said before - futilely - the ball's in your court.

Then why don't you attempt to enlighten me instead of just making accusations. As I have told you repeatedly, I would LOVE to see you attempt to justify your claims.

 

[fossten]

Here you go making accusations you cannot back up with fact again

You cannot prove this.

Where have I done this? Lazy is introducing an opinion that is unjustified or making a claim, and then telling the other party to go find supporting facts.

That's exactly what you do.

I find it funny that you continue to make these accusations since you are afraid of facing the issues.

You have no proof of this.

You keep making the accusations. What a wonderful ad nauseum argument.

"Ad nauseam" arguments are logical fallacies relying on the repetition of a single argument to the exclusion of all else. This tactic employs intentional obfuscation, in which other logic and rationality is intentionally ignored in favour of preconceived (and ultimately subjective) modes of reasoning and rationality.​

Describes you to a 'T.'

When have I complained to the mods? I would REALLY love to see you justify your statements.

I didn't claim that you did - I predicted that if you ever do, they won't listen.

You really need to familiarize yourself with the term Ad Hominem. Any argument I have entered, I am generally quite familiar with what I am talking about. Stating ad nauseum that I am not is not going to change that fact.

I'm quite familiar with it considering that your posts are filled with it.

Either it is a fact or it is not. If you do not offer proof or reasoning to support your opinion then the opinion stands with no grounds. Do you understand the definition of baseless?

Yes - and you're misusing the term. Prove that you aren't.

I linked duplicate articles so that no one would say it is just "liberal media". Those articles are not hearsay. Besides, in my post, I stated why I felt that the statements by the senator were unreliable.

Your 'feelings' are not proof.

Yeah.... not so much. I love how you guys accuse me of having no interest in actual debate just because I don't share your opinions. Perhaps you should try a dictionary out. You really must not understand what debate is.

You have not built a foundation to substantiate this. You're just emoting.

All I asked was justification for claims. Seems to me every time I ask for that, or disagree, I am subject to ad hominem attacks. You can state this all you want, but ad nauseum argumentation does not work. If your argument had any merit, you would be addressing the issues, not attacking me. Same with shag.

You have no way to prove this claim.

 

[FIND]

You cannot prove this.

A negative proof rhetorical argument, wow

That's exactly what you do.

and here I will prove your previous statement.

You have no proof of this.

No, that is an assumption on my part, you are correct. However, this assumption is based upon your patters of behavior and logical deduction.

Describes you to a 'T.'

an "I know you are but what am I" response. Priceless.

I didn't claim that you did - I predicted that if you ever do, they won't listen.

I could repost your statement, but, you already know what it is, and it is just 2 posts up.

I'm quite familiar with it considering that your posts are filled with it.

Here you are making an ad hominem argument. Attack me because you perceive me to be an easier target than my statements. Apparently you are not familiar with the definition of hypocrisy either. Also, this is another good example of point one in this post.

Yes - and you're misusing the term. Prove that you aren't.

An attempt at a negative proof rhetoric. However, I have already offered proof. Now you are making the statement that I am misusing the term. Demonstrate where I have. This is another example of an ad hominem attack, instead of addressing my issue, you attempt to attack me. Wow, three fallacies in one statement.

Your 'feelings' are not proof.

No, they are not proof. However you are relying on negative proof rhetoric. You are stating that just because I cannot prove the statement of the senator is false, it must be true. My statement was that since it is likely given the circumstances that they are false, I gave reasoning for coming to that conclusion, and because you cannot prove that is true, it is most likely false.

You have not built a foundation to substantiate this. You're just emoting.

Oh, I have. You are just dismissing this off hand without even making an attempt at being intellectually honest, and are instead focusing on ad hominem arguments and logical fallacies.

You have no way to prove this claim.

Yes I do. I can repost your responses.

Tell me, do you REALLY know what an ad hominem argument or ad nauseum argument is?

Ad hominem in the basic sense means you attack the speaker or the credibility of the speaker as a method of debate, instead of debating the points presented by the speaker.

Ad nauseum argument basically means you are trying to form the foundation of your argument by simply restating your argument continuously without addressing the counterpoints or offering substantiation of your claim. IE proof by assertion