So now, let me get this straight. First Dys said:
Quote:"Fortunately, Truman's assurances were credible"
Then fishin said:
Quote:Which is more than can ever be said for Krugman's attempts at controlling his biases.
And then Blatham said:
Quote:fishin,
Naughty. The accusal of bias functions as an ad hominem here, and the point remains unaddressed.
Meaning that saying that Krugman didn't make an attempt to control his biases was a logical fallacy, one labeled "ad hominem fallacy" in which the content of the argument is not addressed but rather the person's (the one presenting the argument) character is attacked. Or some aspect of the person delivering the argument is mentioned. And the argument goes unaddressed.
But then fishin said:
Quote:And? Since when is there any limit on ad hominems towards people who aren't even on the board? If it were against the TOS half this thread would have been gone long ago (along with a lot of others).
The article I posted the link to addresses Krugman's comments. He's whining and crying about the lack of progress on infrastructure and luxuries of a high level society. None of those are going to come about in any meaningful manner until the Iraqis figure out a process to to settle their own basic internal disagreements.
But who mentioned the TOS before fishin mentions it here? What does logical argument have to do with the TOS?
Isn't Blatham saying that fishin is reasoning by use of a logical fallacy? What does the TOS have to do with this?
Which then Blatham addresses:
Quote:fishin
Are you and I in enemy status suddenly?
It wasn't a TOS point, it was a logical point. To the claim made by the administration (Rice) and supporters that what the administration is up to in Iraq is the same as the Marshall Plan, it's quite relevant to point out the differences. And it is no small difference that Krugman points out. How much more trust and credibility might Bush have achieved, thus support for his goals and administration, had he proceded as has Truman? And, of course the related question is, why didn't he? Which is what the second link addresses.
That Iraq is a mess in terms of institutions, and that constituing them will be no easy task, is a quite different issue.
So then, what about the logically fallacious reasoning? fishin, would you address the question above? which is:
Quote:How much more trust and credibility might Bush have achieved, thus support for his goals and administration, had he proceded as has Truman? And, of course the related question is, why didn't he? Which is what the second link addresses.
I am interested in your point of view on it, but please address the issue presented or the question asked in some other way than to put down the source. Putting down each other's sources gets us no where. I do notice that this type of response is common in these discussions. And I think it's the reason we go round and round in circles so much. Surely we can respect each other enough to attend to each others points and address them rather than skirting around them with ad hominem reasoning.
Do I have this right?
:wink: 
:razz: 