blatham wrote:MC said
Quote:An example would be calling people slimers and making comments about putting lipstick on pigs falls under this fallacy of logic. When all else fails, call names is the credo for this behavior.
No, actually the previous instances of folks referring to you and LSM here are not instances of ad hominem. They are accurate descriptors of what you two have done. Your claims that Pelosi is connected to Nambla were addressed logically and carefully by perhaps a dozen posters here. They did not attempt to avoid or discount the claim/argument through shifting attention to an irrelevant attack on something about you.
There were claims that go back as far as page 13 on this thread which state that MC and LSM are trolls, with a definitive refusal to answer them. That clearly isn't the case.
dlowan brings us:
"Ach...they are not worth wasting ire or debate on." They are stupid, insane, or trolls.
On page 16:
...proof of the lack of quality and validity of his thought.I found it hilarious, and did not deem it worthy of rebuttal. His words will be enjoyed by those who know both spelling and me, though, as they are so completely and gloriously wrong.
And again
here, on page 23
here and
here.
It has been my experience that there is a direct relationship drawn here between the length of time a poster has been on this board and whether or not their argument would therefore be deemed valid.
I make this comment to you blatham as you tend to debate the ideas not the person.
Every time words like "troll" are thrown out there, please consider that this same friendly banter cannot be returned in kind by a new poster. I was equally impressed to learn that a poster had moved MC's residence to the state of Texas, thus creating a rather difficult long distance marriage.
At what point does the troll argument become a thing of the past, and how does the label of troll tie into the argument that a position has been addressed logically and carefully?
I agree that LSM and MC are responsible for their own posts, but the same rules apply to everyone else without exception.
Okay, I feel better.
I found
this article on Pelosi in the LA Weekly.
From the article:
Quote:Her opponent was San Francisco Supervisor Harry Britt, who'd been picked by the gay community as successor to the assassinated Harvey Milk. Pelosi buried Britt in money, and ran a nasty campaign that portrayed him as a "gay socialist." (Years later, her money-raising practices sometimes get her in trouble. Last month, she was forced to shut down one of ä her two political-action committees, which had been operating illegally as a double-dipping laundry, and candidates were asked to return its contributions.)
Quote:Most profiles of Pelosi note her advocacy of AIDS issues and gay civil rights, and her bucking the Clinton administration by opposing most-favored-nation trade status for China on human-rights grounds. But given the huge Chinese-American and gay populations in her district (and lingering resentment in the latter over her defeat of Britt), these positions were a nearly obligatory reflection of local politics
I have one criticism with respect to this article; it mixes fact with opinion.
