55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Forums: Politics, Conservatism, Truthiness, Conservatives, American Conservatism
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jun, 2009 03:19 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
How am I appealing to extremes?
You claimed that the letter that was unsigned was satire, and that since it was satire you saw nothing wrong with it.

So, I asked a simple question, one that deserves a simple yes or no answer.

Quote:
So ,then anything said or done, as long as its considered satire, is ok with you?

mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jun, 2009 03:20 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I ask because I am interested in YOUR answer.
Unless you are saying that your answer is to parrot whatever I find on google or on "most news media".
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Wed 10 Jun, 2009 03:22 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

How am I appealing to extremes?
You claimed that the letter that was unsigned was satire, and that since it was satire you saw nothing wrong with it.

So, I asked a simple question, one that deserves a simple yes or no answer.

Quote:
So ,then anything said or done, as long as its considered satire, is ok with you?




That's the very definition of Appealing to Extremes.

I say, 'I like this green car.'

To which you respond, 'Oh, you must like all green cars then?'

It doesn't follow logically. And you do this all the time. Please stick to the statements I make, instead of asking leading questions about ones I didn't make.

Just to move things forward, however, yes - I have no problem with Satire being unsourced. It isn't intended to be a serious argument.

Cycloptichorn
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jun, 2009 03:26 pm
@JamesMorrison,
JamesMorrison wrote:


The founders saw no right for health care or education




We have the right to pursue these things and more on our own, but none
of us have or should ever have the right to either health care or education.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jun, 2009 03:32 pm
@H2O MAN,
Quote:
JamesMorrison wrote:
The founders saw no right for health care or education


Why does this type of idiocy continually raise its ugly head. Who gives a rat's ass what a bunch of long dead old men saw or didn't see.
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jun, 2009 03:35 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
I am sticking to the statements you make.

Here are your exact words...

Quote:
The second letter is satire, whereas the first is serious; you are making a false comparison between the two of them.

I agree with the thrust of the second letter; that is to say, that the writer of the first letter is an idiot who needs to do his research.

Cycloptichorn


So therefore, you are saying that you agree with satire, sourced or not.

So, I asked you a simple question...
Is anything that is written, spoken, or drawn, as long as its called satire, OK with you?

Or, is there a line that you think shouldnt be crossed?
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jun, 2009 03:36 pm
@JTT,
Quote:
Who gives a rat's ass what a bunch of long dead old men saw or didn't see.


Since those "long dead old men" are the ones that wrote the Constitution, what they thought about things should be fairly important.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jun, 2009 03:40 pm
@Foxfyre,
Your response to me, Foxfyre, was excellent and quite helpful! I'll think some more about the approach you recommend for saving our Constitutional Republic from Obama's abandonment of the rule of law. In particular, I want to understand the set and sequence of objectives (i.e., the step by step process) you have in mind for how to convince Americans there is a way other than impeachment to defeat Obama's abandonment of the rule of law.

I fear that if we focus on defeating Obama and the rest of the MALs in the 2010 and 2012 elections--instead of impeachment-- our attempted rescue will be too little and too late, even assuming a Reagan-like election victory margin. Too much of the opposition to Obama and the MALs is composed of people like the MALs seeking power instead of seeking justice.through the rule of law.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jun, 2009 03:42 pm
@mysteryman,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I agree with the thrust of the second letter;


mysterman wrote:

So therefore, you are saying that you agree with satire, sourced or not.


There is only a therefore MM if the second letter is where all satire is to be found. Do you think all satire is contained in the second letter mm? I don't think it is. As was already pointed out to you, just because someone likes a green car does not therefore lead to they like all cars or all green cars.

0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jun, 2009 03:43 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

I am sticking to the statements you make.

Here are your exact words...

Quote:
The second letter is satire, whereas the first is serious; you are making a false comparison between the two of them.

I agree with the thrust of the second letter; that is to say, that the writer of the first letter is an idiot who needs to do his research.

Cycloptichorn


So therefore, you are saying that you agree with satire, sourced or not.

So, I asked you a simple question...
Is anything that is written, spoken, or drawn, as long as its called satire, OK with you?

Or, is there a line that you think shouldnt be crossed?


I guess I still don't understand you. I agree with some satire and disagree with other, but I don't expect it to rise to the level of regular arguments when it comes to evidence.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jun, 2009 03:44 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
Who gives a rat's ass what a bunch of long dead old men saw or didn't see.


Since those "long dead old men" are the ones that wrote the Constitution, what they thought about things should be fairly important.


Why? Specifically, why should it be important?

You guys treat the Constitution like a mystical document handed down by God. It is nothing of the sort.

Cycloptichorn
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jun, 2009 03:46 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
So if the constitution isnt important, why does the president swear to uphold it?

If it isnt important, then any preceived violations of it by Bush mean nothing because the constitution isnt important.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jun, 2009 03:49 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

So if the constitution isnt important, why does the president swear to uphold it?

If it isnt important, then any preceived violations of it by Bush mean nothing because the constitution isnt important.


Who said the Constitution wasn't important? I certainly did not.

Cycloptichorn
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jun, 2009 03:51 pm
@mysteryman,
Quote:
So if the constitution isnt important, why does the president swear to uphold it?

If it isnt important, then any preceived violations of it by Bush mean nothing because the constitution isnt important.


The leaps are, how can I phrase this, olympian, quantum, ... ?????
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jun, 2009 03:54 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
Why? Specifically, why should it be important?

You guys treat the Constitution like a mystical document handed down by God. It is nothing of the sort.

Cycloptichorn


You didnt write that?
Then who did?
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jun, 2009 03:56 pm
@mysteryman,
Is there a word bigger than quantum?
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jun, 2009 03:57 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
Why? Specifically, why should it be important?

You guys treat the Constitution like a mystical document handed down by God. It is nothing of the sort.

Cycloptichorn


You didnt write that?
Then who did?


I did. Once again, you are Appealing to Extremes, MM. I didn't say the Constitution wasn't important, I said that the attitudes of those who wrote it really aren't that important.

Once again you are putting words in my mouth; please. Don't engage in this ungentlemanly behavior. If you disagree with something I write, just say so, instead of this constant use of logical fallacies.

Cycloptichorn
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jun, 2009 03:59 pm
@JTT,
I quoted Cyclo exactly, so how can you or anyone think that I am making a leap in logic?

Does it bother you that I used his own words against him?

And if it does, why?
You arent involved, his words werent directed at you, and you are reacting over somethting that doesnt concern you.
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jun, 2009 04:01 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
I did. Once again, you are Appealing to Extremes, MM. I didn't say the Constitution wasn't important, I said that the attitudes of those who wrote it really aren't that important.


It was those attitudes that determined how the constitution was written and WHY it was written.
If those arent important, then you fail to understand the significance of the constitution and how it affected the lives of the very men that wrote it.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jun, 2009 04:01 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

I quoted Cyclo exactly, so how can you or anyone think that I am making a leap in logic?


Your leap in logic wasn't based on my quote, but your attempt to use that quote to show that I believe something which I clearly do not believe.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Fellow Bostonians: How many of us wished we had an assault weapon last night? - Question by maxdancona
What should be first on the agenda of the winner in November? - Discussion by Frank Apisa
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND
  3. » Page 531
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.18 seconds on 01/12/2025 at 05:36:09
▲ ▼