William F. Buckley Jr.: Bush is evil

Italgato wrote:

The left wing seems to feel that ideas that are not constructive are ideas that do not agree with their prejudices.

Strawman argument.

Italgato wrote:

I love to meet you mano a mano.

A common error: "mano" means "hand," not (as is commonly misunderstood), "man."

Italgato wrote:

An addemdum to code borg RE: misspellings.

"Addemdum"? That's too funny!

Italgato wrote:

I am entirely capable of hewing to the no spelling mistakes allowed routine but I must insist that everyone else follow along.

You're the one who introduced the "no spelling mistakes allowed routine." No one is asking you to hew to it: they're asking you to be a little less hypocritical. "Addemdum" indeed!

Italgato wrote:

.Misspelled names? Would you care to review the spellings given to my name, Code Borg??

Tu quoque argument.

Italgato wrote:

.Again, Code Borg, list my posts that are not constructive ideas( you are obliged to tell me why they are not constructive) and check to see how my name was spelled.

Tu quoque argument redux.

0 Replies

Joe from Chicago is fond of alluding to the Strawman arguement tactic. I am sure that Joe from Chicago is aware that a strawman argument is an argument intended to divert from the real issues.

If Joe from Chicago doesn't know by know, after reading the posts by the left wing that ideas that are viewed as not constructive by the left are ideas that do not agree with their prejudices, I would say that my post does not agree with his prejudices so he falsely terms it a "strawman".

Is Joe from Chicago hung up on "The Wizard of Oz"?

I am well aware that "mano" means hand. I meant to meet him "hand to hand"- "close to one;s adversary"- "hand to hand combat"

I am beholden to you in pointing out my spelling error- Addemdum. It is, of course, addendum. Thank you. You will find, if you choose, that I use the word frequently and have used and spelled it correctly in several posts in the last three weeks.

Your Tu quoque is erroneous. Tu quoque, of course, refers to a person charged with a crime.

I am unaware of being charged with any crime.

Would you be so good as to specifically state the crime you refer to.

The definition of "tu quoque" is of course, "a retort by one charged with a crime accusing an opponent who has brought the charges with a similiar crime"

Please do not try to muddy the waters. I hope that you received a good enough training in Law that your are aware that you must be specific and cannot transmute an "error" into a "crime"

That would not be a "tu quoque on your part, but it would be the highest form of sophistry.

0 Replies

Again, I would respectfully request Code Borg to specify the posts in which I have not provided constructive ideas. I find that many persons use words which do not apply.

A constructive idea is one which "helps to improve"

I again assert that a constructive idea provided by a conservative may indeed not be viewed as one which 'helps to improve" by one who does not agree with conservative ideas.

That does not necessarily negate the constructiveness of an but may merely point out the partisan nature of the person who views it as non constructive.

I will show Code Borg that, if he is interested, I can refer to many of my posts, indeed more than the average person posts , which utilize documentation and evidence. If Code Borg wishes to label those posts as not being constructive, he may, but, I am afraid he will be wrong.

0 Replies

The fourth paragraph abouve should read-'The constructiveness of an idea"

0 Replies

Italgato wrote:

Joe from Chicago is fond of alluding to the Strawman arguement tactic. I am sure that Joe from Chicago is aware that a strawman argument is an argument intended to divert from the real issues.

No, as I explained elsewhere, that's not the definition of a "strawman argument." Rather, it is an argument based on a mischaracterization of an opponent's argument or position. You contended that the "left wing seems to feel that ideas that are not constructive are ideas that do not agree with their prejudices." That is not the left's position (unless you can come up with some proof that it is), that is your mischaracterization of the left's position. Hence, yours is a strawman argument.

Italgato wrote:

If Joe from Chicago doesn't know by know, after reading the posts by the left wing that ideas that are viewed as not constructive by the left are ideas that do not agree with their prejudices, I would say that my post does not agree with his prejudices so he falsely terms it a "strawman".

I'll admit: I have a strong prejudice in favor of logical arguments. In that respect, gato, your statements clearly did not agree with my prejudice.

Italgato wrote:

Is Joe from Chicago hung up on "The Wizard of Oz"?

Well, I wouldn't say "hung up."

Italgato wrote:

I am well aware that "mano" means hand. I meant to meet him "hand to hand"- "close to one;s adversary"- "hand to hand combat"

This cracks me up. I've rarely seen such a blatant post hoc justification for an idiotic mistake.

Italgato wrote:

I am beholden to you in pointing out my spelling error- Addemdum. It is, of course, addendum. Thank you. You will find, if you choose, that I use the word frequently and have used and spelled it correctly in several posts in the last three weeks.

Honestly, I wasn't paying very close attention.

Italgato wrote:

Your Tu quoque is erroneous. Tu quoque, of course, refers to a person charged with a crime. I am unaware of being charged with any crime.

A "tu quoque argument" involves the target of an argument accusing the opponent of something equivalent: it's an "oh yeah, well so are you" type of argument.

Italgato wrote:

The definition of "tu quoque" is of course, "a retort by one charged with a crime accusing an opponent who has brought the charges with a similiar crime"

No, not really.

Italgato wrote:

Please do not try to muddy the waters. I hope that you received a good enough training in Law that your are aware that you must be specific and cannot transmute an "error" into a "crime"

Well, I'd bet that if anyone can do it, it would be you gato (that, by the way, was an example of an "ad hominem argument": I offer it gratis for your enjoyment).

0 Replies

"Gratis." That means Gato grates on one, Joe, right??!! This gets me wondering about other latinisms and their interpretations which Gato and others might come up with.

0 Replies

Ego te exerciso! Wink

0 Replies

Italgato wrote:

Dean will find, as Buckley has suggested, that the raving maniacs on the far left only represent, at most, 3 and a half percent of the American Voting Public.

I am very much afraid that only someone who much more centrist than Dean has a chance against Bush.

Au 1929 got it right in the bullseye. Dean will appeal only to "dyed in the wool Democrats."

As strongly as I disagree with these statements, and as strongly as I support Dean and dislike Bush, I fail to see how they are not significant issues that warrants discussion.

I note however that not everyone need be sold on Dean's positions. Bush has given plenty of reasons for people to prefer just about anyone over him. These reasons simply need to be brought into the lime light.

0 Replies

BS
These I can piss further than you comments are a waste o cyber space.

If Dean will be the candidate, I feel that he is already on the course to outline his policies and programs. I have heard him speak and answer questions. The Right Wing, as usual is telling lies that Dean is left wing. He is not. This will be a tough fight because the American people have been lied to so often by the Neocons that they are confused.

It will be Dean's job to unconfuse them and in simple terms lay out the platform. There are many issues that are important but I feel that the most important issue to the American people will be making a living. Dean must explain in direct terms how Dubya and his gang of bungling thieves have been destroying and will further destroy the Middle Class.

0 Replies

Centroles

Quote:

I note however that not everyone need be sold on Dean's positions. Bush has given plenty of reasons for people to prefer just about anyone over him. These reasons simply need to be brought into the lime light.

With Dean the cure may be worse than the disease I find myself faced with the dilemma of having to choose between the lesser of two evils

0 Replies

Au, I am not (yet) a Dean supporter. How, in your view, is he a cure worse than the disease?

0 Replies

I have the feeling that he will cut and run. The reasons for invading Iraq may have been bogus however, now that we have to leave with the job unfinished would be a disaster.

0 Replies

William F. Buckley Jr.: Bush is evil

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know