THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

Ticomaya wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Whereas your primary goal is...? To act like a condescending jerk as much as possible, while avoiding the substance of your opponent's argument?

As much as I disagree with Ican at least he has the decency to actually respond to his opponent's points, rather then just denigrate their entire argument, provide no evidence why it is incorrect, and smugly restate the validity of one's own argument. You do this continually.

Cycloptichorn

What you don't like about my posts, Cyclops, is that I am often highly critical of your posts. I may be condescending (actually, no "may" about it, I often AM condescending), but I do not personally denigrate you, or call your thinking "witless," "clueless," or "brainless," nor do I call your posts "horsey-poop," or call you "stupid" or your brain "calcified."

I call you a "peacenik," and a "leftist," and believe you have a "Euroweenie" mentality, but those are all just terms of endearment.

This is incorrect, and also, I wasn't just referring to my posts, but other's posts. What I 'don't like' about your posts is your refusal in many cases to actaully discuss the merits of your opponents position, or to even discuss the opponent's position at all.

Instead, you denigrate the entire thing and circle back to your assumption; you ignore what was written and instead substitute it with your 'interpretations,' which are always more helpful to your argument then they are connected to reality; or you pick a single line of the argument, often one not centrally connected to the issue, and choose to contend that point. When the opponent responds negatively to your refusal to debate the meat of the argument, you turn to denigration and insult.

The sad part about all this is that you are, and always have been, one of my favorite posters here at A2K. The fact that we disagree politically has not stopped me from enjoying our and other arguments that you have advanced. Lately, though, you seem to have fallen off somewhat. I think it is due to the fact that you, and other Republicans, aren't really very good at playing defense at all; when issues arise requiring you to defend the Republican party (and the corruption inherent to it these days), you unconciously shift into an attack mode when you realize that you are defending a weak position.

You should try and stop this trend before it gets worse; especially given the fact that the next few months are more likely to be better for the Dems then they are for the Republicans.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Good! It's settled then!

In Iraq there is a war on a malignancy.

The malignancy is mass murdering civilians.

The anti-malignancy forces are mass murdering malignancy forces.

0 Replies

Ican big arse

0 Replies

McG, You don't understand the meaning of "ad hominem." When it's the truth, there's nothing ad hominem about it.

0 Replies

Then saying you were an antiquated, malevolent synchophant would be ok then.

0 Replies

McG, You're describing Wolfowitz. Try again.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Good! It's settled then!

In Iraq there is a war on a malignancy.

The malignancy is mass murdering civilians.

The anti-malignancy forces are mass murdering malignancy forces.

nawww, that sounds too much like doctor kildaire to me.

0 Replies

A rose by any other name is still a rose, call it "civil war" or "sectarian strife" it is still violence outside of the insurgency violence which only adds to the trouble in Iraq today and why there is still no government formed after the last election.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

McG, You don't understand the meaning of "ad hominem." When it's the truth, there's nothing ad hominem about it.

I bet, cice, that you do understand why that is so funny!

For those who do not, here's the dictionary definition of ad hominem:
www.m-w.com

Quote:

Main Entry: 1ad ho·mi·nem
Pronunciation: (')ad-'hä-m&-"nem, -n&m
Function: adjective
Etymology: New Latin, literally, to the person
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2 : marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

By the way, cice, one's use of ad hominem is commonly interpreted as tantamount to one's admission that either one's argument is false, or that one is incapable of responding with a rational argument: that is, it is a way of capitulating.

0 Replies

What the hell is a a syncophant? Is that someone inordinately fond of syncopation?

I do get tired of the rightwing making sh!t up . . .

0 Replies

ican, You never learn. 1. my statement has nothing to do with "appealing to feelings."
2. It has everything to do with the intellect; it's the truth.
A apponent's character is open to criticism if it's the truth. When I say "Bush is a liar," it's the truth. How else do we ascribe people without who are liars and cheats? The only contention made are your misapplication of the term.

I know, truth hurts.

0 Replies

revel wrote:

A rose by any other name is still a rose, call it "civil war" or "sectarian strife" it is still violence outside of the insurgency violence which only adds to the trouble in Iraq today and why there is still no government formed after the last election.

Call the war in Iraq a rose war, a sectarian war, a guerilla war, a gorilla war, an orangutan war, a civil war, a malignancy war, or even a damn war, if you like. What one calls it doesn't change what it is.

The war in Iraq is a war on a malignancy.

The malignancy forces in Iraq are mass murdering civilians in Iraq.

The anti-malignancy forces in Iraq are mass murdering malignancy forces in Iraq.

I'm betting the anti-malignancy forces will win!

0 Replies

ican needs to get a grip; he's telling everybody else how to call a war, then provides his own that makes very little sense - except to himself. If a poll was taken on this thread to see who made more sense, the thumb's down for ican would be overwhelming! LOL

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

ican, You never learn. 1. my statement has nothing to do with "appealing to feelings."
2. It has everything to do with the intellect; it's the truth.
A apponent's character is open to criticism if it's the truth. When I say "Bush is a liar," it's the truth. How else do we ascribe people without who are liars and cheats? The only contention made are your misapplication of the term.

I know, truth hurts.

cice, the definition is as written, not as you choose to interpret it.

What you choose to write about Bush's character is outside the context of what we were discussing. We were discussing what participants in this forum write about each other instead of about each other's contentions.

www.m-w.com

Quote:

Main Entry: 1 ad ho·mi·nem
Pronunciation: (')ad-'hä-m&-"nem, -n&m
Function: adjective
Etymology: New Latin, literally, to the person
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2 : marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

When one appeals to feelings or prejudices instead of intellect, one is making an ad hominem argument.

AND

When one attacks truely or falsely one's opponent's character rather than gives answer to one's opponent's contentions, one is making an ad hominem argument.

-------------------------------

Now let's discuss Bush. When you say "Bush is a liar," it may or may not be the truth. To determine whether it is the truth, one requires evidence. Based on that old fashioned concept that one is innocent until proven guilty, until such evidence is provided, I say Bush tell's falsities that he does not know at the time of his telling are falsities.

Some make the strange accusation that Bush is a dummy yet knew the truth was other than what he said it was. If Bush is truly a dummy, then surely, it is more probable that Bush did not know at the time of his telling that falsities he told were false.

I hasten to add that I do not possess the ability to read minds. You have, I think inadvertently, provided me a preponderance of evidence that you cannot read my mind. Why then should I believe you can read Bush's mind? I'm easy! I, right or wrong, tell you (except the ad hominem I'm thinking) exactly what I think about the arguments you make.

0 Replies

When a criminal is called a "killer or a crook," it has nothing to do with feelings or prejudice. It's called factual. As for intellectual, I'll let you figure out that one all by yourself. I know you'll struggle with it.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

...
If a poll was taken on this thread to see who made more sense, the thumb's down for ican would be overwhelming! LOL

I'm just guessing, but I think that you actually think that what is true is determined by the latest poll. If polls truly did tell us what is true, then what is true generally varies poll to poll.

The earth is flat when a poll says it is flat, and the earth is spherical when a poll says it is spherical.

The speed of light is infinite when a poll says it is infinite, and the speed of light is finite when a poll says it is finite.

America will win the war in Iraq when a poll says we will win the war in Iraq, and America will lose the war in Iraq when a poll says we will lose the war in Iraq.

Alas, I am skeptical about the veracity of polls.

0 Replies

ican, I didn't say what you are saying. Can't you get anything straight? I'm talking about ican and your credibility on a2k.

Your skipticism about the veracity of polls taken on a2k on ican is well justified, but Bush doesn't look at polls either. LOL

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

When a criminal is called a "killer or a crook," it has nothing to do with feelings or prejudice. It's called factual. ...

When a person is called a "killer or a crook," it may or may not have nothing to do with feelings or prejudices. If a jury calls a person a killer or a crook, it is very likely, but not at all certain, that the person is a criminal who is truly a killer or a crook. A non-prejudicial jury reserves judgment until it has heard and discussed all the evidence and argument presented by the prosecution and the defense. It does this to avoid making an error in judgment.

What do you do to avoid making an error in judgment?

0 Replies

That's right, ican. Look at the "evidence."

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

ican, I didn't say what you are saying. ... I'm talking about ican and your credibility on a2k.

Your skipticism about the veracity of polls taken on a2k on ican is well justified, ... . LOL

cice, you wrote:

Quote:

If a poll was taken on this thread to see who made more sense, the thumb's down for ican would be overwhelming!

I guessed you thought such a poll would tell the truth about my veracity. If that isn't the meaning of your statement, what is its meaning?

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know