Roxxxanne wrote: Quote:I demonstrated why I thought his analogy was spot on.
You did? I must have missed it, can you point me to it?
I must have used a half a dozen examples in my opening post, with plenty of questions to prompt you to consider your errors. You've still answered none of them, nor seemingly made any attempt to understand anything I've written. Why I bother responding to such drivel, I have no idea.
Roxxxanne wrote: Your strawman picked out the actions of a few and attempted to apply it it to all those who oppose war. That is textbook strawman.
Show me one paragraph that illustrates where I did this. Nowhere on this entire thread did I even address "all those who oppose war". Making up arguments is beyond fallacious. What you will probably find is that whatever you misconstrued to justify your false accusation creates the Strawman example you're searching for. Go ahead and try and prove this false. I triple
dog-dare you!
Roxxxanne wrote: I find it laughable that the one who turned this thread into "one big ad hominem" is the one who continues to decry it.
Anon isn't here to decry anything. He's suspended, remember?
Roxxxanne wrote: Quote:Argumentum ad antiquitatem (the argument to antiquity or tradition). This is the familiar argument that some policy, behavior, or practice is right or acceptable because "it's always been done that way." This is an extremely popular fallacy in debate rounds; for example, "Every great civilization in history has provided state subsidies for art and culture!" But that fact does not justify continuing the policy.
OB you don't do pseudo-intellectual claptrap well.
Yes, I know
that's why I avoid it at all costs. That's also why I rely heavily on textbook definitions instead specious logic when ever possible. Thanks for noticing.
Roxxxanne wrote: I merely pointed out that the issue has been around for ages. I didn't point to this as justification.
BS. What other purpose does pointing out the obvious history serve? I doubt it was new news to anyone.
cicerone imposter wrote:OB wrote:
This entire thread is an extrapolation of an Ad Hominem attack and serves mostly to promote flaming and derision, as opposed to rational debate.
Whether OB sees this as not an ad hominem attack is his personal bias and misunderstanding of the term. He accused all participants, but excluded himself from doing same. How arrogant!
That would be a handy condensation of Roxanne's BS, CI, but bears no more resemblance to the truth. I provided both the definition to the term and a learning link for you to further your education on logical fallacies. I can't hold your hand any further than that. "Personal bias" is irrelevant (see the definition of Ad Hominem again), and the misunderstanding isn't mine. I accused "all participants" of nothing. (I'll give you partial credit for
arrogant. :wink:)
mysteryman wrote:OB,
I posted those quotes from anon,and I was attacked and vilified.
You post them,and you are believed.
I wonder why?
I would guess that my history of over 6,000 posts, without ever once being caught in a lie, seldom ever contradicting myself (and recognizing it when I do), admitting ignorance and wrongness on numerous occasions, etc., lends me a bit of credibility to my (
reasonable) frequent political adversaries as well as those who tend to concur. I also have the benefit of towing neither "party line" on a good deal of issues, so it's difficult to villify me as hyper-partisan. While I'd say a majority of A2Kers disagree with my positions at least as often as not; I think very few doubt my integrity. That's my guess. Thanks again for providing me the opportunity to verify those quotes for myself. Had I not done so; I wouldn't feel at liberty to use them.
