This is the vile hatred that the Democrats and leftists are encouraging

[shagdrum]

But, in the meantime – because you posted your little snippets of the left talking about the bonuses… here are a couple more examples of the right’s indignation over this little AIG snafu…

So you can find some Republican dupes who were to cowardly and/or wrapped up in group think and emotion to take the time to think things through and stand on principle. Congratulations. You have these useful idiots on both sides of the isle.

It does not counter the point that the Dems were in the power positions in the legislature heading up committees, drafting the legislation, running the House and Senate) as well as in control of the executive branch. The dems created this bill, pushed it through the legislature and signed it into law. Then, when the bonuses were paidout they acted outraged when they knew full well of the bonus payout before hand and had no problem with it then.

Pointing out that some Republicans supported this and were outraged does nothing to counter any of that. All it does is obfuscate things.

My reason is more plausible because it makes far more sense shag – people are angry because of economic strife.

Your reason does not in any way counter the claim laid out in the original headline; That the dems and the left are encouraging this hatred. Your reasoning can be valid and the left can still be encouraging that hatred at the same time. They are not mutually exclusive.

As a counter to the claim that the left is encouraging this hatred, it is nothing more then a red herring.

an argument, given in reply, that does not address the original issue. Critically, a red herring is a deliberate attempt to change the subject or divert the argument​

And if you define your points of debate one more time shag, I will depart – I know them, and I also know why you insert them.

Oh? Why do I insert them?

All I expect is that people be reasonable and honest. When they are not honest, I call them on it in a very specific way. If you cannot maintain honesty and reasonableness in a debate (and you have habitually shown that you can't), then don't let the door hit you on the way out. I will continue to call people on fallacious, deceptive and generally dishonest arguments when they use them. You don't seem to be able to use anything but dishonest and deceptive arguments. If you don't like getting called on it, then leave. But there is nothing wrong, or absurd with calling people on those tactics.

I haven’t moved the goalpost – you set the goalpost and can’t back it up with the article that you used in post 1. There is not one thing in that article that backs your claim that the left is encouraging vile hatred. Not one thing. There is far more in that article that supports the fact that these people are angry because of their economic situation.

Where did I set the goalposts? The article was cited as an example of the hatred the left is encouraging, not as proof that they are encouraging it. I never "set the goalpost" such that the article proved that the left was encouraging the hatred. I provided other sources for that.

When I introduced class warfare (your labeled ‘red herring’) I was doing it to show that there is a far simpler and more logical reason – people are mad because they are out of work and they are seeing their tax dollars support huge, and what appears to them, unjustifiable bonuses. There isn’t any fanning going on here.

The "reasoning" you cited doesn't prove that their is no fanning going on here. As a means to prove or disprove that claim, it is nothing more then an irrelevant conclusion fallacy:

Ignoratio elenchi (also known as irrelevant conclusion or irrelevant thesis) is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question​

In the context of this debate, it serves as a red herring.

What is going on is typical political posturing. Those politicians need to be re-elected every 2 (or 6) years. Both sides have spoken out against this. That is part of the reason I believe that this isn’t a politics issue, but an economic issue.

Again, another fallacious irrelevant conclusion. The political posturing is how they are fanning the flames. The two are not mutually exclusive.

The politicians have an opportunity to vilify someone (in this case the execs at AIG) and then set themselves up as the savior. It is posturing based in political opportunism that is fanning the flames of the populist anger.

Both sides have articulated their anger over the bonuses at AIG. Even though it seems rather hypocritical from the right.

Yes, but conservatives are not angry so much at AIG as at the democrat controlled government. You cannot equate that to being outraged at AIG for the bonus payouts. They are two different things.

There are also some republicans that are going against their supposed conservative principles and expressing outrage at AIG, but that is not based in conservatism and is not reflective of the ideology. However, the leftist outrage at AIG is reflective of the ideology. Again, the two are different and not really a valid comparison.

I mean, they were the ones that insisted that no compensation restrictions be put into place when the TARP funds were first voted in under Bush/Paulson.

got any proof? or is this simply an assumption on your part?

And then you must ask what the reasoning was behind it? You are oversimplifying to claim hypocrisy when it is not clear that is the case. As it stand, that seems to be a hasty generalization. Not too consistent with your imploring of prudence in post #5 when you said, "how about waiting - it is the prudent thing to do".

 

[shagdrum]

More shag hole double standard

Where is the double standard on my part? I have been nothing but honest and you have been dishonest, so I call you on it.

You, on the other hand, habitually mischaracterize and lie about me and my arguments. That is dishonest. Then you accuse me of dishonest (without any valid evidence, I might add). That is the definition of hypocrite:

a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings​

Unless you feel it is perfectly fine to be dishonest...

 

[fossten]

Wiser? Why Shag? Actually I was out being a good capitalist – earning money – traveling for work, and buying a pair of shoes that probably cost more than you make in a week, heck maybe 2 weeks (the cutest John Galliano red sling backs – if you guys would see my shoe closet, yes, I have a closet for shoes – it alone would convince you I am no Marxist )

Snarky, and childish to boot.

Nice non sequitur. I'll bet Kim Jong-Il spends more on clothes in one day than any of his citizens make in a week. Does that mean he's not a Marxist?

 

[hrmwrm]

Snarky, and childish to boot.

Nice non sequitur. I'll bet Kim Jong-Il spends more on clothes in one day than any of his citizens make in a week. Does that mean he's not a Marxist?

the troll returns.

 

[foxpaws]

So you can find some Republican dupes who were to cowardly and/or wrapped up in group think and emotion to take the time to think things through and stand on principle. Congratulations. You have these useful idiots on both sides of the isle. Pointing out that some Republicans supported this and were outraged does nothing to counter any of that. All it does is obfuscate things.

No Shag – it shows that it isn’t a political issue but rather an economic issue – I am not trying to complicate things – I am trying to show that since the issue goes across the aisle in Washington that this is an economic issue.

Your reason does not in any way counter the claim laid out in the original headline; That the dems and the left are encouraging this hatred.

Shag – I don’t even need to counter. You have never linked those people’s reactions (the phone calls and the emails) to the fact that they were inflamed by left wing/democrat rhetoric. Not one quote, not one shred of evidence. All you are going by is they must be reacting to what the Democrats/Left are saying, or their actions in congress. However, that is pure assumption on your part. Not one quote has turned up that the poor in San Francisco are going to go up into Marion county and spray paint the gates on rich peoples’ homes because Nancy P. said that the rich are bad people. Not one email that tells everyone to meet at the cul-de-sac of the AIG executives and throw eggs at the BMWs that drive by because Barney Frank said that the bonuses are unfair.

All assumption on your part shag.

Oh? Why do I insert them?

All I expect is that people be reasonable and honest. When they are not honest, I call them on it in a very specific way. If you cannot maintain honesty and reasonableness in a debate (and you have habitually shown that you can't), then don't let the door hit you on the way out. I will continue to call people on fallacious, deceptive and generally dishonest arguments when they use them. You don't seem to be able to use anything but dishonest and deceptive arguments. If you don't like getting called on it, then leave. But there is nothing wrong, or absurd with calling people on those tactics.

Why do you insert points of debate… In this case you hope to distract people by saying ‘no fair, they aren’t playing by my rules – and look, here is the rule, as stated by that great debate source wiki…”

If I state that there is another, far more plausible reason that these people are angry – it isn’t a red herring – it is informing people of other opinions and options. If you are a creationist and you come in here just claiming "creationism is the only correct viewpoint on how the world and man was created" I am allowed to state, “Nope, I think evolution is a far better answer to the question – ‘where do we come from?’” In this case – I believe that a far better answer to the question – “Why are these people angry?” – is because they feel they are being unfairly treated. Not because the left has riled up the masses. And once again, since you have no hard proof, only assumption – your statement about the hatred is spurred on by the left is also a ‘belief’.

And, as far as moving the goalposts. Once again shag – you set them this time. I have never asked for anything more than proof that the article you posted is an example of the vile hatred that the left is causing. And, you did set that goalpost. You stated that this story was an example of the hate the left is inciting. That is a goalpost. You make a statement, you need to back it up. Not once do you state anything concrete – just supposition. Heck, my quote from Republican Senator Grassley is probably far more damning than anything you have posted – the man said “then either do one of two things — resign, or go commit suicide.” Commit suicide – wow – talk about wanting a violent end to come to the people who were getting the bonuses…. Those are words with a lot of hate behind them. Maybe the people who were making those phone calls were from Iowa shag, and their republican senator was the reason that they were making those phone calls. His hateful words could be the flame beneath the kindling.

got any proof? or is this simply an assumption on your part?

And then you must ask what the reasoning was behind it? You are oversimplifying to claim hypocrisy when it is not clear that is the case. As it stand, that seems to be a hasty generalization. Not too consistent with your imploring of prudence in post #5 when you said, "how about waiting - it is the prudent thing to do".

Have waited - this was back in September/October when the TARP legislation was first introduced - the Republicans were reluctant to place restrictions on compensation. Which is actually very 'Republican'.

This is from a bailout story on Sept 22, 2008 – note that administration (Bush) at that time was ‘Republican’ and that only ‘some’ Republicans were willing to compromise on the wording that would limit compensation.

Democrats want the federal government to restrict big salaries and severance packages for executives at troubled firms helped by the federal bailout. "If we have bought your assets," Frank said, "no golden parachutes while we own your paper."

While the administration has resisted this, some Republicans appeared willing to compromise. One, Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla., said he thought some constraints on executive compensation were appropriate and that it would be difficult to explain opposing such limits to voters.​

Here we have opposition from Paulson – who is a republican (no matter what Foss says), regarding the restrictions on compensation.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, who has spent two days opposing demands for compensation restrictions in the bailout plan, Wednesday conceded reforms will be added to the package.
​

Oh, Shag – are you going to go after Foss like you did hrmwrm and Ford Nut? He is also just ‘trolling,’ isn’t he? You need to be fair, if you attack one group of trolls, all trolls need to be addressed.

Plus – his new avatar looks very ‘trollish’, in that creepy sort of way.

 

[shagdrum]

No Shag – it shows that it isn’t a political issue but rather an economic issue – I am not trying to complicate things – I am trying to show that since the issue goes across the aisle in Washington that this is an economic issue.

Here is what you said in post #99, "What is going on is typical political posturing". So...political posturing...is not political?

You are now trying to make two separate options where there are not; a fallacy called denying the correlative.

The logical fallacy of denying the correlative is an attempt made at introducing alternatives where there are none​

The fact is that the issue is both economic and political. It involved taxpayer money, which more then anything else, makes it political. You are dishonestly trying to claim that in can only be one or the other. Also...how can it "go across the isle in Washington" and not be political?

Again you are obfuscating things by trying to claim that it goes across both sides of the isle. It may go across both sides of the isle in a superficial way; when it comes political posturing. But when it comes to substance ideology, it does not cut across both sides of the political isle. Stoking this anger is based exclusively in the ideology of the left; egalitarianism. The whole class warfare talking point you are trying to inject shows, in part, how it decidedly plays to leftist ideology. In short, you are making another logical fallacy; this time a red herring fallacy called style over substance.

Shag – I don’t even need to counter. You have never linked those people’s reactions (the phone calls and the emails) to the fact that they were inflamed by left wing/democrat rhetoric.

You don't need to counter it [the claim laid out in the original headline]?! Then you cannot honestly disprove it! That is an absurd statement.

And, again, I don't need to link the emails specifically to the leftist and democrats. All I need to do is link both the leftist/democrats and those threats, emails, etc to the populist anger. The article clearly connects those actions to the populist anger, and I have laid out overwhelming evidence that Democrat knowingly allowed for the bonus payments which created the populist anger and then, through political posturing, fanned the flames of that anger.

As usual, you can only argue through blatant dishonesty by constantly trying to move the goalpost.

Moving the goalpost, also known as raising the bar, is an informal logically fallacious argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded​

Why do you insert points of debate… In this case you hope to distract people by saying ‘no fair, they aren’t playing by my rules – and look, here is the rule, as stated by that great debate source wiki…”

That is your argument?! That trying to keep arguments honest is somehow an attempt to "distract" people?! You really have no integrity do you.

No, dishonest and fallacious arguments are aimed at deceiving people into believing something is true when it isn't. Calling people on those dishonest tactics keeps those distractions to a minimum and allows for honest debate. It only serves to distract from a debate when someone, like you, cannot argue except through using those distractions. In that case, the problem does not lie with the person pointing out the dishonest and deceptive arguments, it lies in the person using those arguments.

You have shown countless times that you are incapable of making any honest argument. All you know is how to deceive and obfuscate. Those are the only methods I have ever seen you use to argue here. You thrive on dishonesty in a debate, and cannot function when debates are kept honest.

Even now, you are spinning things 180 degrees and trying to say the distraction comes from me in countering you fallacious arguments, when the distraction comes from your habitual use of those arguments. You gave lip service to the idea of prudence in post #5, but at every turn you reject prudence in favor of propagandizing and rashness in your arguments.

Answer me these questions:

• Do you think fallacious arguments are a valid form of debate?
• Do you think fallacious arguments should go unchallenged (as to their logical nature) in a debate?

If I state that there is another, far more plausible reason that these people are angry – it isn’t a red herring – it is informing people of other opinions and options

It can be informing people of other "options and opinions" and still be a red herring in the context of this debate. Now you are making the same type of fallacious argument that you were earlier in the thread; specifically a denying the correlative fallacy.

The logical fallacy of denying the correlative is an attempt made at introducing alternatives where there are none​

If you are a creationist and you come in here just claiming "creationism is the only correct viewpoint on how the world and man was created" I am allowed to state, “Nope, I think evolution is a far better answer to the question – ‘where do we come from?’”

Now that is a false analogy.

The the two arguments of evolution and creationism are both trying to answer the same question; where does life and the diversity of life come from?

However, the two arguments being made concerning the populist anger are not answering the same thing. The question to be answered in this case is dictated by the original headline as that is what is being challenged. Here is the original headline:

This is the vile hatred that the Democrats and leftists are encouraging​

So the question to be answered is this; Are the democrats and leftist encouraging this hatred?

My answers have been aimed proving that the democrats/leftists are in fact encouraging this hatred.

Your argument here is aimed at proving that their is some legitimacy to the anger. You admit as much when you claim that your argument is a far better answer to the question, "Why are these people angry?".

This is a classic red herring argument:

an argument, given in reply, that does not address the original issue. Critically, a red herring is a deliberate attempt to change the subject or divert the argument​

Your argument does not confront the original question of weather or not the democrats/leftists are in fact encouraging this hatred. It does dishonestly change the focus to the legitimacy of their anger, which allows you to inject the Marxist class-struggle formulation that is assumed by the left.

In short, you are making a red herring argument, but you are a very good propagandist for the left.

Now, you have two questions to answer:

• Do you think fallacious arguments are a valid form of debate?
• Do you think fallacious arguments should go unchallenged (as to their logical nature) in a debate?

These are both simple yes/no questions. Don't redefine and change the questions.

 

[ford nut]

828504997[/ATTACH]"]

 

[shagdrum]

 

[foxpaws]

Here is what you said in post #99, "What is going on is typical political posturing". So...political posturing...is not political?Here is what you said in post #99, "What is going on is typical political posturing". So...political posturing...is not political?

Shag – the politicians are addressing a concern that the people have – that is not ‘fanning the flames’. Here, the politicians are trying to find a solution to the awarding of the AIG bonuses that their voters feel are unfair. It is no different than politicians finding solutions for other problems. They are in the job of creating laws. If you say that by creating and debating law that they are fostering vile hatred, then every time some nutcake goes out and causes havoc, regarding an issue that is related to federal law, it is the fault of congress. That is just silly…

The action – political posturing – is a direct cause of the people being angry about the inequality of compensation. Not the other way around shag. The politicians didn’t cause the people to be angry- the atmosphere of ‘entitlement’ on wall street caused the people to be angry.

You don't need to counter it [the claim laid out in the original headline]?! Then you cannot honestly disprove it! That is an absurd statement.

Yes, I all I need to do is show you can’t prove your claim. I don’t have to counter it, I did, with another option, but I could have left this with just ‘prove it’. You can’t prove it. You have drawn in source that you say backs your assumption, but, it remains an assumption. There is absolutely nothing you have shown that states ‘the people who are making threatening phone calls to AIG executives are doing this because they claim the left and the Democrats have fostered an atmosphere of hate with their actions in congress.’

Do you think fallacious arguments are a valid form of debate?
Do you think fallacious arguments should go unchallenged (as to their logical nature) in a debate?

I am not being fallacious – you are shag. So, obviously you are comfortable with fallacious argument as a form of debate. And you appear to be upset that I have challenged you on your false statement. You are saying that this is a fact – the actions of the people in this article are the direct result of the actions of the left and the democrats in congress. You have not proved this. It is a supposition, a hateful supposition, one that you keep trying to foster on this board.

Obviously by challenging you on this point – your false claim that the actions by the people against the AIG executives are a direct result of the left and the Democrats - I don’t think that fallacious arguments are a valid form of debate. I disagree with both of those statements.

Prove your headline shag – hard, direct proof. Not supposition, or some weird ‘if this has happened, of course you must assume this’ form of argument (which is what you are currently using). I want a direct line.

 

[shagdrum]

Shag – the politicians are addressing a concern that the people have – that is not ‘fanning the flames’.

More dishonesty. You are now ignoring what I was originally responding to; your claim in post #105 that this issue is not political. This is something else you do. You make a claim, someone responds to that claim and then you take that response out of the context of responding to your claim and make some other point from that.

Have you ever tried to argue honestly in your life? Why can't you do it?

Your claim now that the politicians are "addressing a concern that the people have" inherently makes it political! You just disproved your own assertion in post #105 that this issue is not political! I'll give you a second to remove the foot from your mouth...


They can very well be trying to address what they perceive as, "the concerns of the people" and fanning the flames. You are once again making a "denying the correlative" fallacy.

Here, the politicians are trying to find a solution to the awarding of the AIG bonuses that their voters feel are unfair.

A myopic view of fairness as an overriding everything else is no justification for action. Life is not fair and you cannot artificially make it fair unless you make everyone suffer. Just because some voters view it as unfair is no justification for legislative action. The fact that these representatives and Senators are actually considering some action here legitimizes and perpetuates that anger; it fans the flames.

Yes, I all I need to do is show you can’t prove your claim.

If you are trying to do that then you are, as is your norm, using dishonest tactics to do so. You have not provided any logical counter to that claim or any honest argument that I cannot prove it. All you have do is mischarcterizing, talking in circles and misdirecting by move the goalposts:

Moving the goalpost, also known as raising the bar, is an informal logically fallacious argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded​

I am not being fallacious – you are shag. So, obviously you are comfortable with fallacious argument as a form of debate. And you appear to be upset that I have challenged you on your false statement. You are saying that this is a fact – the actions of the people in this article are the direct result of the actions of the left and the democrats in congress. You have not proved this. It is a supposition, a hateful supposition, one that you keep trying to foster on this board.

If I am making a fallacious argument, it doesn't justify your making fallacious arguments. However, it is rather interesting that all you can do is claim I am being fallacious but cannot show specifically where and how I am making a fallacious argument. You are clearly throwing out the accusation without any basis.

You still haven't answered the questions (let alone honestly answered them).

• Do you think fallacious arguments are a valid form of debate?
• Do you think fallacious arguments should go unchallenged (as to their logical nature) in a debate?

I really didn't expect you to answer those questions; can't afford to take a position that you may contradict later. The thing is, an honest person would give a simple, straight answer to those questions. A dishonest person, like you, cannot honestly answer those questions.

You have shown that you will stoop to any level and say anything to to defend your position. You habitually obfuscate, make fallacious arguments, mischaracterize and misdirect, deceive and out and out lie to defend your point of view. There is no sense of "fair play" or "good faith" in any debate with you. Any info or argument presented in contradiction to your view is either manipulated, dishonestly dismissed or flat out ignored in your "by any means necessary" defense of your views and those holding your views. You have shown that you can only argue by talking in circles using these dishonest techniques until you are able to prove your point. That is why their can be no honest debate with you.

In this thread you have lied and said I didn't prove my point when I have. To defend that indefensible claim of yours, you have resorted to fallacious and dishonest tactics to perpetuate that lie; mischaracterizing my arguments, misdirected through red herring arguments and generally talking in circles.

You have avoided answering any honest questions so people can understand where you stand. In order to avoid those questions, you have redefined the questions, ignored them, lied about the person asking the question (attacking the messenger) and generally dodged the questions.

When someone has no decency and honesty in a debate, there can be no honest debate.

 

[fossten]

Well argued, Shag.

I would like to emphasize one of your points:

It is NOT the place of the government to legislate fairness.

PERIOD.

 

[PetesSweets86]

lol......this :q:q:q:q's too funny to read :-D

 

[ford nut]

You call me a troll shag but then you show the same behavior.

But its ok because I did it first right?

 

[foxpaws]

You still haven't answered the questions (let alone honestly answered them).

• Do you think fallacious arguments are a valid form of debate?
• Do you think fallacious arguments should go unchallenged (as to their logical nature) in a debate?

I really didn't expect you to answer those questions; can't afford to take a position that you may contradict later. The thing is, an honest person would give a simple, straight answer to those questions. A dishonest person, like you, cannot honestly answer those questions.

You have shown that you will stoop to any level and say anything to to defend your position. You habitually obfuscate, make fallacious arguments, mischaracterize and misdirect, deceive and out and out lie to defend your point of view. There is no sense of "fair play" or "good faith" in any debate with you. Any info or argument presented in contradiction to your view is either manipulated, dishonestly dismissed or flat out ignored in your "by any means necessary" defense of your views and those holding your views. You have shown that you can only argue by talking in circles using these dishonest techniques until you are able to prove your point. That is why their can be no honest debate with you.

I answered in #109 - what part didn't you understand Shag - last I looked it was in english
Obviously by challenging you on this point – your false claim that the actions by the people against the AIG executives are a direct result of the left and the Democrats - I don’t think that fallacious arguments are a valid form of debate. I disagree with both of those statements.

In this thread you have lied and said I didn't prove my point when I have. To defend that indefensible claim of yours, you have resorted to fallacious and dishonest tactics to perpetuate that lie; mischaracterizing my arguments, misdirected through red herring arguments and generally talking in circles.

You have avoided answering any honest questions so people can understand where you stand. In order to avoid those questions, you have redefined the questions, ignored them, lied about the person asking the question (attacking the messenger) and generally dodged the questions.

When someone has no decency and honesty in a debate, there can be no honest debate.

I'll ask my 'honest' question again - in very simple terms. One I have been asking since the very beginning of this thread. Where is the evidence that the people in the article are making phone calls and writing emails because the left is encouraging this specific behavior. Direct, not anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence, which you are using gets thrown out.

In other terms - show me the money shag.

 

[shagdrum]

You call me a troll shag but then you show the same behavior.

But its ok because I did it first right?

You have some specific examples to back this up? Or is this like you claims of me being fallacious; baseless assertions?

Here, I will help you out:

• In post number 14 of this thread, you mischaracterize me and lie and imply that I have yet to provide proof for my claim when I already had.
• In post #19, you accuse me of attempting to simply smear, when I had provided evidence for what I said (not what you distorted my argument to say)
• You mischaracterize my argument again in post #28 to draw the conclusion that I, "have proved nothing but your never ending dislike for the left."
• in post #32 you ignore the proof I have provided to perpetuate the lie that,"there is nothing that supports your premise"
• You claim that, "foxpaws [was] slapping [me] around like a red haired stepchild" a comment clearly aimmed at inflaming me. You also continue to lie mischaracterize my argument when you say, "The only thing this thread proves is the unfounded hate you have for the left Shaggie"
• In post #46, you mischaracterize and smear me when you claim, "Its not worth it hrmwrm....he will never man up. He has no point.... only hate."
• In post #50 you mischaracterize me when you say, "If anybody disagrees with your hard right view points you accuse them of being dishonest and full of fallacies". I showed how that was a mischaracterization in post #51.

You have a history in this thread of lying and mischarcterizing without attempting to prove or disprove anything in the debate. You actions are inconsistent with attempting to voice an honest disagreement or have an honest debate. But, your actions are consistent with trying to inflame, provoke and emotional response and generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion. Here is the definition of an internet troll:

An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion​

There, does that help? That is how you show someone is a troll.

Oh! You seem to be forgetting that I started this thread. Can you really troll in your own thread?

 

[fossten]

Shag, stop feeding the troll. He obviously has nothing better to do than try to annoy you.

 

[ford nut]

You have some specific examples to back this up? Or is this like you claims of me being fallacious; baseless assertions?

Here, I will help you out:

• In post number 14 of this thread, you mischaracterize me and lie and imply that I have yet to provide proof for my claim when I already had.
• In post #19, you accuse me of attempting to simply smear, when I had provided evidence for what I said (not what you distorted my argument to say)
• You mischaracterize my argument again in post #28 to draw the conclusion that I, "have proved nothing but your never ending dislike for the left."
• in post #32 you ignore the proof I have provided to perpetuate the lie that,"there is nothing that supports your premise"
• You claim that, "foxpaws [was] slapping [me] around like a red haired stepchild" a comment clearly aimmed at inflaming me. You also continue to lie mischaracterize my argument when you say, "The only thing this thread proves is the unfounded hate you have for the left Shaggie"
• In post #46, you mischaracterize and smear me when you claim, "Its not worth it hrmwrm....he will never man up. He has no point.... only hate."
• In post #50 you mischaracterize me when you say, "If anybody disagrees with your hard right view points you accuse them of being dishonest and full of fallacies". I showed how that was a mischaracterization in post #51.

You have a history in this thread of lying and mischarcterizing without attempting to prove or disprove anything in the debate. You actions are inconsistent with attempting to voice an honest disagreement or have an honest debate. But, your actions are consistent with trying to inflame, provoke and emotional response and generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion. Here is the definition of an internet troll:

An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion​

There, does that help? That is how you show someone is a troll.

Oh! You seem to be forgetting that I started this thread. Can you really troll in your own thread?

There all facts Shag, and the truth.

The whole reason to post this garbage is to Troll and you know it Mr double standard.

 

[shagdrum]

There all facts Shag, and the truth.

The whole reason to post this garbage is to Troll and you know it Mr double standard.

 

[shagdrum]

I answered in #109 - what part didn't you understand Shag - last I looked it was in english
Obviously by challenging you on this point – your false claim that the actions by the people against the AIG executives are a direct result of the left and the Democrats - I don’t think that fallacious arguments are a valid form of debate. I disagree with both of those statements.

More distortion and misdirection. Here are the questions you were asked:

• Do you think fallacious arguments are a valid form of debate?
• Do you think fallacious arguments should go unchallenged (as to their logical nature) in a debate?

Here was what you wrote in response to those questions:

I am not being fallacious – you are shag. So, obviously you are comfortable with fallacious argument as a form of debate. And you appear to be upset that I have challenged you on your false statement. You are saying that this is a fact – the actions of the people in this article are the direct result of the actions of the left and the democrats in congress. You have not proved this. It is a supposition, a hateful supposition, one that you keep trying to foster on this board.

Obviously by challenging you on this point – your false claim that the actions by the people against the AIG executives are a direct result of the left and the Democrats - I don’t think that fallacious arguments are a valid form of debate. I disagree with both of those statements.​

The questions were simple yes or no questions. You took two paragraphs to answer. In order to answer, you had to first shift the focus to me and your baseless assertion that I am somehow being fallacious... by...making a false claim?

There is no logical fallacy called a "false claim". If a claim is false, it is dispoven, not invalidated due to bad logic. You are simply throwing the claim out there without any basis.

Are you trying to claim that I am basing my argument on a false premise? That is still not a type of logical fallacy. The premise can be false and the argument still be logical

A false premise is an incorrect proposition that forms the basis of a logical syllogism. Since the premise (proposition, or assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may be in error. It is important to note, however, that the logical validity of an argument is a function of its internal consistency, not the truth value of its premises.​

A false premise (or false claim) is not a logical fallacy.

When you say, "Obviously by challenging you on this point...I don’t think that fallacious arguments are a valid form of debate" you are effectively redefining what a fallacy is. So you are, once again, redefining the question.

Here is the definition of a logical fallacy:

A fallacy is an argument which seems convincing but is not logically sound​

So, you still need answer these simple, honest questions:

• Do you think fallacious arguments are a valid form of debate?
• Do you think fallacious arguments should go unchallenged (as to their logical nature) in a debate?

I'll ask my 'honest' question again - in very simple terms. One I have been asking since the very beginning of this thread. Where is the evidence that the people in the article are making phone calls and writing emails because the left is encouraging this specific behavior. Direct, not anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence, which you are using gets thrown out.

Your question is not honest. It is a deceptive and misleading loaded question:

[A]Loaded question...is an informal fallacy or logical fallacy. It is committed when someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved.​

Your question presupposes that I am arguing that "the left is encouraging this specific behavior". It is based on a mischaracterization of what I said in the original headline. A mischarcterization that your argument hinges on. Again, you cannot argue honestly.

Since your question is a loaded, dishonest and deceptive one, I will not answer it. If you could ask an honest question, I would answer it. But you have yet to do so.

Also, your mischaracterization is what leads to the false premise that the proof I have provided is Anecdotal. If the proof is ment to show that the left encouraged these specific actions, then it is anecdotal. On the other had, if the evidence is simply ment to show that the left encouraged the hateful sentiment that the actions stem from (which is a different argument), then it is not anecdotal. The evidence I have provided is a mixed bag of circumstantial evidence and direct evidence in reference to the original claim in the headline. You are mischaracterizing that claim to reach the conclusion that the evidence I have provided is "anecdotal".

And before you try and claim it, the questions I asked are not loaded. There are no assumptions in the question.

This is simply more proof that you cannot argue through reason and honesty. All you have offered is more obfuscation, mischaracterization, equivocation (attempting to redefine what a fallacy is) and attempts at deceit (asking a loaded question). Have you ever even tried to have an honest political debate? Are you scared of having an honest debate?

FYI, you still have two honest, straightforward questions to answer:

• Do you think fallacious arguments are a valid form of debate?
• Do you think fallacious arguments should go unchallenged (as to their logical nature) in a debate?

 

[fossten]

Shag - want to point out the evidence in that article? The evidence that points to the Dems and the left? Maybe a bit of cut and paste is in order.

It certainly isn't being encouraged by the right.

 

[foxpaws]

So, you still need answer these simple, honest questions:

• Do you think fallacious arguments are a valid form of debate?
• Do you think fallacious arguments should go unchallenged (as to their logical nature) in a debate?

I answered your questions – what more do you want Shag? What part of I don’t think that fallacious arguments are a valid form of debate, I disagree with both of those statements is beyond your comprehension shag? However, I would be a poor debater if I didn’t take the opportunity you gave me to point out how you obviously use fallacious arguments, and that you are upset when I challenged your fallacious argument. That is the ‘why’ for my two paragraph answer. I know an opening when I see one, and if I want to go for the jugular, I do…

Fallacious – logically unsound, deceptive, misleading… Your headline is wonderfully complete within the definition – it is logically unsound (you have yet to prove it), it is extremely deceptive, and obviously misleading. Gosh – a triple (baseball season just started – and since the Rockies will be going to the Series this year – I had to get in a baseball reference… )

Your question presupposes that I am arguing that "the left is encouraging this specific behavior". It is based on a mischaracterization of what I said in the original headline. A mischarcterization that your argument hinges on. Again, you cannot argue honestly.

So, shag, you headline states that the left is encouraging vile hatred, and then you used the article to illustrate the point. So, now you are saying that the left didn’t encourage this specific behavior? The phone calls and the emails? Then why use it as an illustration?

The evidence I have provided is a mixed bag of circumstantial evidence and direct evidence in reference to the original claim in the headline.

Show me the money shag- show me the ‘direct’ evidence that supports that the actions taken by the people in the article are the result of the left.
It is all anecdotal and you know it.

 

[hrmwrm]

Your question presupposes that I am arguing that "the left is encouraging this specific behavior". It is based on a mischaracterization of what I said in the original headline.

what's mischarachterising about this

"THIS IS THE VILE HATRED THAT THE DEMOCRATS AND THE LEFT ARE ENCOURAGING"

then you refer to this article

http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/AIG-Threats-We-will-get-your-children.html


which has nothing to do with left, right, upside down or sideways, and you have been asked to prove your stance on the headline from that story.
but you can't, and then start adding articles and circular arguements, and just being dishonest.
you've really lost credibility.

for this i give you the award.

 

[shagdrum]

Fallacious – logically unsound, deceptive, misleading… Your headline is wonderfully complete within the definition – it is logically unsound (you have yet to prove it), it is extremely deceptive, and obviously misleading.

At first I simply thought you were intentionally being dishonest and trying to redefine "fallacy" as broadly as possible. But, for the sake of argument, I will assume you are just ignorant of what a fallacy is and is not. However, I will acknowledge that your claim here is better then your last post. In the last post, you tried to argue that a premise or claim is fallacious. a premise can only be true or false, not logical or fallacious. Arguments are the only thing that can be logical or fallacious. Let me see if I can clarify here...

An argument can have true premises and/or true conclusions and still be fallacious. Here is an example:

I have a dachshund. Therefore, the sky is blue.​

This argument has two claims that are both true; "I have a dachshund", and, "the sky is blue". However, the argument itself is fallacious. Weather or not I have a dachshund is irrelevant as to weather or not the sky is blue.

An argument can also have false premises and/or false conclusions but still be logical:

I have no internet connection. Therefore, I cannot post on this message board.​

I am posting on this message board, so I obviously have an internet connection. It is rather clear that both the premise and the conclusion are false. However, the argument is logical; If I have no internet connection, then I cannot post on this message board.

So, when you claim that my headline is logically unsound (fallacious) because (according to you) I "have yet to prove it", you are effectively equating "false" with "fallacy". Weather or not you realize it, your argument that my assertion is fallacious is, in and of itself, false (unsound), due to being based on a false premise (a flawed definition of the word "fallacy").

FYI; a fallacious argument is "misleading" and/or "deceptive" as a consequence of being illogical. My assertion is logical, and it is therefore, not misleading or deceptive. It may have been a little vague. But, when you first asked about it, I made sure to clear that up. I pointed out that the article was meant as an example of the hatred being encouraged by the left, not an example of actions being encouraged by the left.

So, to honestly discredit and argument, you have two ways to go about it. Either disprove the premises and/or conclusion (showing the argument to be unsound), or show that the argument is illogical. The methods are not one in the same.

If you don't understand what a fallacy is, and is not, then you are unable to give an honest and informed answer to my questions. Can you give the same "negative" response to those questions now that you understand (hopefully) what a fallacy is and isn't?

• Do you think fallacious arguments are a valid form of debate?
• Do you think fallacious arguments should go unchallenged (as to their logical nature) in a debate?

So, shag, you headline states that the left is encouraging vile hatred, and then you used the article to illustrate the point. So, now you are saying that the left didn’t encourage this specific behavior? The phone calls and the emails? Then why use it as an illustration?

You are oversimplifying my assertion. There are two points in the headline; 1)that these actions are based in vile hatred and, 2) that the left is encouraging that hatred. The article was only ever meant as an illustration of the first point (that these actions are based in hatred). The second point, as I have spelled out countless times here, was taken for granted. When you asked for proof of that assumption, I provided it.

Show me the money shag- show me the ‘direct’ evidence that supports that the actions taken by the people in the article are the result of the left.
It is all anecdotal and you know it.

You are continuing a straw man mischaracterization of my assertion. I never said (or implied) that these specific actions are a direct result of encouragement by the left. In fact, when you first asked about that, I made it abundantly clear that the article was meant as an example of the hatred that is being encouraged by the left.

 

[shagdrum]

what's mischarachterising about this

"THIS IS THE VILE HATRED THAT THE DEMOCRATS AND THE LEFT ARE ENCOURAGING"

then you refer to this article

http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/AIG-Threats-We-will-get-your-children.html


which has nothing to do with left, right, upside down or sideways, and you have been asked to prove your stance on the headline from that story.
but you can't, and then start adding articles and circular arguements, and just being dishonest.
you've really lost credibility.

for this i give you the award.

So, we have mischaracterization, lies, and irrelevant smears. What does that sound like?

An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion​

Guess what...

 

[ford nut]

...

You are oversimplifying my assertion. There are two points in the headline; 1)that these actions are based in vile hatred and, 2) that the left is encouraging that hatred. The article was only ever meant as an illustration of the first point (that these actions are based in hatred). The second point, as I have spelled out countless times here, was taken for granted. When you asked for proof of that assumption, I provided it.



You are continuing a straw man mischaracterization of my assertion. I never said (or implied) that these specific actions are a direct result of encouragement by the left. In fact, when you first asked about that, I made it abundantly clear that the article was meant as an example of the hatred that is being encouraged by the left.

:bsflag: :bsflag: :bsflag: :bsflag: :bsflag: :bsflag: :bsflag: :bsflag: :bsflag: :bsflag: :bsflag: :bsflag: :bsflag: