Reply to Thread

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Freedom@AnyCost" data-source="post: 2218596" data-attributes="member: 29628">So your response to a pretty well thought out post laying out a logical indictment of the current political paradigm was:A. Nobody is taking the time to read what you write (as evidenced by?)B. You're using "Propaganda catch phrases" (really, which ones?)C. that "Reads like a Ron Paul book" (as I understand it, he writes a pretty good book so thank you)D. The language is awkward coming from you (what does that even mean?)E. And that I am pretentious (at least look up the definition of the word before using it in a personal attack - at least misusing the word didn't make YOU seem pretentious though it may well leave people with other impressions)Really WessonOil, really? Logical fallacies incorporated above:A. Argumentum ad numerum (argument or appeal to numbers). This fallacy is the attempt to prove something by showing how many people think that it's true. But no matter how many people believe something, that doesn't necessarily make it true or right. Example: "At least 70% of all Americans support restrictions on access to abortions." Well, maybe 70% of Americans are wrong!B, C, D, E: Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!"), but this is actually not that common. A more typical manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a source of information -- for example, responding to a quotation from Richard Nixon on the subject of free trade with China by saying, "We all know Nixon was a liar and a cheat, so why should we believe anything he says?" Argumentum ad hominem also occurs when someone's arguments are discounted merely because they stand to benefit from the policy they advocate -- such as Bill Gates arguing against antitrust, rich people arguing for lower taxes, white people arguing against affirmative action, minorities arguing for affirmative action, etc. In all of these cases, the relevant question is not who makes the argument, but whether the argument is valid.And in almost every reply, and a broad category under which all the above apply, your favorite, The Red Herring: The term red herring is sometimes used loosely to refer to any kind of diversionary tactic, such as presenting relatively unimportant arguments that will use up the other debaters' speaking time and distract them from more important issues.I would enjoy an intelligent conversation to discuss areas where we disagree and hopefully find common ground on others, but the dodging, evading, personal attacks, vague references to "Something I said elsewhere" and various other diversionary tactics, which seem to make up at least 70% of your responses to well thought out arguments, make having an intelligent discussion with you quite difficult, if not impossible. Let's stop the toxic stuff and talk like mature adults. If you would like to actually address the substance of what I said in my initial reply instead of just attacking the form, I will be happy to listen and discuss it with you or anyone else for that matter.</blockquote>

Verification