[quote]harris447 wrote:
Are you mocking me or him?[/quote]
Him.
Hmm, I’ll bet that applies to a certain forumite I know…
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Thunderbolt you generally make a lot of sense, but this is a fair point.[/quote]
It is a fair point. One that I concede. Pro X’s occupation has nothing to do with this particular thread and he has not made it an issue.
Harris and GDollars - you are right.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
This is weak. You accuse me of something as blatant as falsifying information that I write…[/quote]
Not falsification, Pro X - bad arguments. I never suggested you falsified anything - perhaps that is part of your problem: you don’t read.
Nope. More later.
Again, where did you get this falsification claim? Not false. Yet again, you get it wrong. But just pulling from recent memory:
-
Your ‘proof’ of institutional journalistic bias at FOXNews because an opinion journalist misquoted Howard Dean, and then your trainwreck defense of it.
-
Your claim that application of ‘pure logic’ inevitably leads to gay marriage.
My point is someone who made these arguments really has no authority to lecture someone else on their misuse of logic. No more, no less.
I am not pissed at all at your writing, nor am I at all worried that I haven’t been ‘on top’ is a discussion between the two of us.
Point is this - folks started piling on Headhunter for things like ‘spelling’ and his use of ‘logic’. Fine. And Headhunter doesn’t need me to defend him, but I decided to do a little piling on myself.
No fun when the self-appointed bullies get bullied?
In the interest of the thread, and I include myself in this, it is time to get back to the issue to be debated and quit making the comments personal.
[quote]CaptainLogic wrote:
ragehonor wrote:
Why don’t we just skip the topics and go straight to the insults? 
Haha seriously, they should just start naming threads ‘Profx vs thunderbolt’ or ‘Rainjack vs Vroom’.[/quote]
Heh. Let me be clear - there is no rivalry between me and Pro X.
Sorry for any confusion.
[quote]vroom wrote:
‘Rainjack vs Vroom’
Oh no. Does this mean I should start “fighting back” or “trying to win” or something?[/quote]
Yes, your cyber honour is at stake. Plus if you win you get to choose between the money and drumroll followed by intriguing music - the MYSTERY box!
If I were devious, I might suspect this Headhunter fellow of deliberately mispelling ‘tenet’, in order to bait liberals – if I were devious. If I were devious, I might suspect this Headhunter fellow of bringing up Ann Coulter, in order to bait liberals – if I were devious.
Forgive me if I boast a little but these guys were just so easy, it is truly laughable.
But now I speak to anyone else reading this: do you see how liberals are really hidden fascists? Do not vote for someone who, no matter how well-intentioned they seem, wants to expand government. The programs they wish to begin are a magnet to vermin who will use that power to enslave millions. Liberalism is simply fascism attempting to trick itself into power. Soon, the ‘noble’ goals are forgotten and then we have a huge, powerful government attempting to put us under its heel.
Remember: “The government that governs least, governs best.”
— Thomas Jefferson
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
If I were devious, I might suspect this Headhunter fellow of deliberately mispelling ‘tenet’, in order to bait liberals – if I were devious. If I were devious, I might suspect this Headhunter fellow of bringing up Ann Coulter, in order to bait liberals – if I were devious.
Forgive me if I boast a little but these guys were just so easy, it is truly laughable.
But now I speak to anyone else reading this: do you see how liberals are really hidden fascists? Do not vote for someone who, no matter how well-intentioned they seem, wants to expand government. The programs they wish to begin are a magnet to vermin who will use that power to enslave millions. Liberalism is simply fascism attempting to trick itself into power. Soon, the ‘noble’ goals are forgotten and then we have a huge, powerful government attempting to put us under its heel.
Remember: “The government that governs least, governs best.”
— Thomas Jefferson[/quote]
I don’t believe you did either of those two things on purpose.
Vote?
[quote]harris447 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
If I were devious, I might suspect this Headhunter fellow of deliberately mispelling ‘tenet’, in order to bait liberals – if I were devious. If I were devious, I might suspect this Headhunter fellow of bringing up Ann Coulter, in order to bait liberals – if I were devious.
Forgive me if I boast a little but these guys were just so easy, it is truly laughable.
But now I speak to anyone else reading this: do you see how liberals are really hidden fascists? Do not vote for someone who, no matter how well-intentioned they seem, wants to expand government. The programs they wish to begin are a magnet to vermin who will use that power to enslave millions. Liberalism is simply fascism attempting to trick itself into power. Soon, the ‘noble’ goals are forgotten and then we have a huge, powerful government attempting to put us under its heel.
Remember: “The government that governs least, governs best.”
— Thomas Jefferson
I don’t believe you did either of those two things on purpose.
Vote?
[/quote]
Everything I do has a purpose. Further, it is my sincerest wish that you realize the mistake you have made in your political philosophy. Long ago, someone convinced you that physical force is acceptable in human relationships (it is, but only in self-defense). Since it is, for example, easier to extort money from individuals (taxes) than to convince them to volunteer their money, this became one of the premises of our government. How many people would volunteer their money for an unpopular war? Thus, we have the mess we’re in now.
In short, Liberalism must degenerate into Fascism, simply because most individuals want to be left alone. Liberalism, and the consequent large government, wants their money. They will therefore opt for force. Because you have adopted a liberalist philosophy, you must therefore become a fascist. You were not joking when you said you would punch an old lady in the throat. When you realize that, you are on the road to recovery and becoming a man.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
harris447 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
If I were devious, I might suspect this Headhunter fellow of deliberately mispelling ‘tenet’, in order to bait liberals – if I were devious. If I were devious, I might suspect this Headhunter fellow of bringing up Ann Coulter, in order to bait liberals – if I were devious.
Forgive me if I boast a little but these guys were just so easy, it is truly laughable.
But now I speak to anyone else reading this: do you see how liberals are really hidden fascists? Do not vote for someone who, no matter how well-intentioned they seem, wants to expand government. The programs they wish to begin are a magnet to vermin who will use that power to enslave millions. Liberalism is simply fascism attempting to trick itself into power. Soon, the ‘noble’ goals are forgotten and then we have a huge, powerful government attempting to put us under its heel.
Remember: “The government that governs least, governs best.”
— Thomas Jefferson
I don’t believe you did either of those two things on purpose.
Vote?
Everything I do has a purpose. Further, it is my sincerest wish that you realize the mistake you have made in your political philosophy. Long ago, someone convinced you that physical force is acceptable in human relationships (it is, but only in self-defense). Since it is, for example, easier to extort money from individuals (taxes) than to convince them to volunteer their money, this became one of the premises of our government. How many people would volunteer their money for an unpopular war? Thus, we have the mess we’re in now.
In short, Liberalism must degenerate into Fascism, simply because most individuals want to be left alone. Liberalism, and the consequent large government, wants their money. They will therefore opt for force. Because you have adopted a liberalist philosophy, you must therefore become a fascist. You were not joking when you said you would punch an old lady in the throat. When you realize that, you are on the road to recovery and becoming a man.[/quote]
Yeah…once again, not buying it in the slightest. It’s cute that you came up with tin-foil hat nonsense to cover up the fact that you don’t understand jokes the first, second, or third time that you see them, but…
Nope. Not buying it.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
This is weak. You accuse me of something as blatant as falsifying information that I write…
Not falsification, Pro X - bad arguments. I never suggested you falsified anything - perhaps that is part of your problem: you don’t read.[/quote]
And you don’t lie…well. You wrote this:
Gee, what does the word “fallacy” mean? The dictionary lists as its very first definition:
A false notion.
Yet, you didn’t accuse me of falsifying anything? I quoted you. You did say this. Now you are lying about it. Not only that, but you are doing it poorly.
[quote]
Again, where did you get this falsification claim? [/quote]
From your own post.
[quote]
Not false. Yet again, you get it wrong. But just pulling from recent memory:
- Your ‘proof’ of institutional journalistic bias at FOXNews because an opinion journalist misquoted Howard Dean, and then your trainwreck defense of it.[/quote]
My trainwreck defense of it? Unless you can prove to me that no one in this country believes that O’Reilly speaks the truth and that his news can be trusted as up to date info, then you have no point. The only trainwreck is that this concept ran right over you.
[quote]
2. Your claim that application of ‘pure logic’ inevitably leads to gay marriage.[/quote]
That is NOT what was claimed. I wrote that gay marriage is being fought mostly from illogical standpoints, not that logic leads to gay marriage. The difference between the two is monstrous yet I am the one who can’t read? Go back and read what was actually written instead of what you would like for me to say.
[quote]
My point is someone who made these arguments really has no authority to lecture someone else on their misuse of logic. No more, no less.[/quote]
You don’t even seem to grasp the majority of the concepts I present as evidenced by this post. You are the last person who needs to be correcting someone. Correct your own FALLACIES first. You lied in this post. You lied big and you lied for everyone to see. yet you want to label me as presenting false info? Please.
[quote]
Point is this - folks started piling on Headhunter for things like ‘spelling’ and his use of ‘logic’. Fine. And Headhunter doesn’t need me to defend him, but I decided to do a little piling on myself.
No fun when the self-appointed bullies get bullied?[/quote]
You thought you just bullied someone? Dear Sweet Aunt Moses, have you suffered a head injury?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
harris447 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
If I were devious, I might suspect this Headhunter fellow of deliberately mispelling ‘tenet’, in order to bait liberals – if I were devious. If I were devious, I might suspect this Headhunter fellow of bringing up Ann Coulter, in order to bait liberals – if I were devious.
Forgive me if I boast a little but these guys were just so easy, it is truly laughable.
But now I speak to anyone else reading this: do you see how liberals are really hidden fascists? Do not vote for someone who, no matter how well-intentioned they seem, wants to expand government. The programs they wish to begin are a magnet to vermin who will use that power to enslave millions. Liberalism is simply fascism attempting to trick itself into power. Soon, the ‘noble’ goals are forgotten and then we have a huge, powerful government attempting to put us under its heel.
Remember: “The government that governs least, governs best.”
— Thomas Jefferson
I don’t believe you did either of those two things on purpose.
Vote?
Everything I do has a purpose. Further, it is my sincerest wish that you realize the mistake you have made in your political philosophy. Long ago, someone convinced you that physical force is acceptable in human relationships (it is, but only in self-defense). Since it is, for example, easier to extort money from individuals (taxes) than to convince them to volunteer their money, this became one of the premises of our government. How many people would volunteer their money for an unpopular war? Thus, we have the mess we’re in now.
In short, Liberalism must degenerate into Fascism, simply because most individuals want to be left alone. Liberalism, and the consequent large government, wants their money. They will therefore opt for force. Because you have adopted a liberalist philosophy, you must therefore become a fascist. You were not joking when you said you would punch an old lady in the throat. When you realize that, you are on the road to recovery and becoming a man.[/quote]
I seriously laughed out loud when I read this. I hope this post brings joy and laughter to all the people on T-Nation for the Holidays.
Happy Thanksgiving, and Goodnight!
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
If I were devious, I might suspect this Headhunter fellow of deliberately mispelling ‘tenet’, in order to bait liberals – if I were devious. If I were devious, I might suspect this Headhunter fellow of bringing up Ann Coulter, in order to bait liberals – if I were devious.
Forgive me if I boast a little but these guys were just so easy, it is truly laughable.
[/quote]
Lmao, referring to yourself in the third person and then trying to claim it was all part of your master plan? Sorry to break it to you but that stuff doesn’t work past the 6th grade.
And now liberalism = fascism? Wow, you’re right, there is no middle ground. So conservatism must = anarchism then, right?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
This is weak. You accuse me of something as blatant as falsifying information that I write…
Not falsification, Pro X - bad arguments. I never suggested you falsified anything - perhaps that is part of your problem: you don’t read.
And you don’t lie…well. You wrote this:
Professor X has made an art form out of fallacies
Gee, what does the word “fallacy” mean? The dictionary lists as its very first definition:
A false notion.
Yet, you didn’t accuse me of falsifying anything? I quoted you. You did say this. Now you are lying about it. Not only that, but you are doing it poorly.[/quote]
To ‘falsify information’ means to intentionally lie or misrepresent, as in to say the sun rises in the West.
To commit a logical fallacy is not to intentionally lie, but to get the argument wrong. Like a strawman, or a red herring. Or to get the proof wrong - I ask for X, you give me Y and claim it is X.
I accused you of the second, not the first. The phrase ‘falsify information’ was the wrong choice of words by you. I don’t think you ‘falsfied any information’ - I think you have poor arguments, not lies.
Got it?
So your proof that FOXNews engages in institutional lying is the fact that someone, somewhere thinks O’Reilly is objectively reporting the news?
How ridiculous.
FOX also employs Alan Colmes - an unabashed liberal news analyst - if someone somewhere takes his analysis as straight news, is FOX therefore engaging in a liberal agenda?
Your proposed question is pathetic. O’Reilly is a news analyst - he weighs in on current affairs with his opinion. That is all he does, that is what he is paid to do. He does not report the news.
You ever read the paper? You ever see right below the byline on an editorial that says “the author’s views do not necessarily represent that of the newspaper…” That is all O’Reilly is - a permanently paid editorialist who is on TV instead of print.
So, your ‘proof’ is nothing more than a beef with O’Reilly’s viewpoints. Maureen Dowd and Paul Krugman are rabid leftists on the NY Times editorial page - is the existence of their opinion ‘proof’ that the Times can’t report objectively? I am gonna bold the answer for you: no.
You see, in order to prove that there is institutional dishonesty, you must show that a straight news program reported something erroneously in order to advance an agenda.
You think that so long as someone, somewhere thinks O’Reilly is straight news, you have proven that FOX is institutionally dishonest. Awful. If these same yahoos read an editorial in the paper and don’t see at the end that the editorial is not straight news reporting and is considered an opinion piece, is that evidence that the newspaper is biased and institutionally dishonest with regards to the truth?
See how stupid that is?
You have no proof, but you keep asserting the fact that Bill O’Reilly has a job at FOX as an editorialist as proof. It is not proof. Patting yourself on the back does not make it so.
And don’t get confused - I am perfectly willing to say that FOX institutionally misrepresents the straight news to advance an agenda. I simply asked for proof. What an opinion journalist says is not proof, so you failed.
Professor X wrote:
“If logic alone was the guiding force in even this country’s policies, there wouldn’t even be a discussion about gay marriages.”
Yes, of course, pure logic does not dictate all of our policy choices, we can all agree.
But why would there not ‘even be a discussion about gay marriages’ assuming that logic was our guiding force? Certainly you must have an explanation?
You are right on the money with this, but for all the wrong reasons.
Really? The last person?
Sadly, no. I didn’t lie. See above.
Wow, your panties are in a twist. This is quite entertaining.
Actually I think I did suffer a head injury - banging my head against a wall trying to make sense out of your tortured discussion.
Here is a Wall Street Journal editorial written by former Democratic Presidential candidate and current Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean:
Under Professor X’s theory, Dean’s opinion editorial is proof that the straight news reporting in the Wall Street Journal outside the editorial page - as in front page reporting, business news, etc. - is advancing a liberal agenda.
The Wall Street Journal. Liberal. I report. You decide.
Wow.
Have you actually read the Patriot Act or perhaps looked at the ballooning government occuring within the current administration.
According to you this must be a period of liberalization!
Bad bye.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
But now I speak to anyone else reading this: do you see how liberals are really hidden fascists?
.[/quote]
From Wikipedia-
“Fascism generally attracted political support from big business, landowners, and patriotic, traditionalist, conservative, far-right, populist and reactionary individuals and groups.”
Sounds like a bunch of bledding-heart liberals to me.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Your proposed question is pathetic. O’Reilly is a news analyst - he weighs in on current affairs with his opinion. That is all he does, that is what he is paid to do. He does not report the news.
You ever read the paper? You ever see right below the byline on an editorial that says “the author’s views do not necessarily represent that of the newspaper…” That is all O’Reilly is - a permanently paid editorialist who is on TV instead of print.[/quote]
I can ramble off the chemical structures of some of the compounds that make up the supplements I take. How many average income housewives do you think can do the same? I know that anabolics aren’t the devil because I don’t get my knowledge base from the evening news. Do you think the majority of the people in the country are the same way? You may not WANT to believe it, but I dare you to respond to this post stating that no one in this country believes O’Reilly is giving a truthful load of good 'ole right winged news.
[quote]
You see, in order to prove that there is institutional dishonesty, you must show that a straight news program reported something erroneously in order to advance an agenda.[/quote]
Case in point of you, yourself, performing bait and switch with your info while accusing me of it. You wrote before, “1. Your ‘proof’ of institutional journalistic bias at FOXNews because an opinion journalist misquoted Howard Dean, and then your trainwreck defense of it.”
Now, wait a second, we went from a news show that shows a bias to a news show that shows institutional dishonesty? Do you even know the difference between the two? Until you wrote this post, our argument had NOTHING to do with what news source shows institutional dishonesty…now it is? Nice try, but anyone looking at FOX news can see the right winged slant on their news info.
For instance, in looking for a slant towards either the right or the left, you obviously must look for subtle detail instead of the ridiculously blatant “we hate democrats” that you apparently expect to find.
To those reading this, let’s take a fairly popular recent news story and look at the information given in both:
From CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/20/bush.murtha/index.html
From FOX news
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,176132,00.html
I picked this one for the following reasons.
Look at how FOX begins their commentary on the same story, “Democrats accused Republicans”. Alone this is fairly benign, however, anyone who even looks at ads in newspapers can tell that this immediately paints Democrats as the ones performing the act.
The following statement by McClellan was completely left out of the FOX news report:
from CNN
Why? I sure thought that was some interesting news that CNN reported on but Fox didn’t. To me it shows just how viscous it got in that room and that democrats weren’t the only ones “acting” in there.
You won’t find blatant tactics of bias…unless they make a mistake. The more subtle biases are present, however, and as always, are open to debate. But don’t pretend as if there is no bias present at all and that it NEVER affects news. This is why anyone with any sense would get their news from multiple sources, not just one.
[quote]
You think that so long as someone, somewhere thinks O’Reilly is straight news, you have proven that FOX is institutionally dishonest. Awful. If these same yahoos read an editorial in the paper and don’t see at the end that the editorial is not straight news reporting and is considered an opinion piece, is that evidence that the newspaper is biased and institutionally dishonest with regards to the truth?
See how stupid that is?[/quote]
No, what is stupid is that you continued onward in your post and changed bias to dishonesty. That shows a little “dishonesty” in you.
[quote]
Professor X wrote:
“If logic alone was the guiding force in even this country’s policies, there wouldn’t even be a discussion about gay marriages.”
Yes, of course, pure logic does not dictate all of our policy choices, we can all agree.
But why would there not ‘even be a discussion about gay marriages’ assuming that logic was our guiding force? Certainly you must have an explanation?[/quote]
Because logic would lead the way excluding the need for random discussion if all policies were purely based in logic. There would be nothing to debate but pure logical fact.
[quote]
Actually I think I did suffer a head injury - banging my head against a wall trying to make sense out of your tortured discussion.[/quote]
Next time, perhaps you should bang harder?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Ha! I knew that if I said I was leaving the thread, certain life-forms would crawl out from under their rocks!
We caught another liberal who gives Harriss a free pass about punching a little old grandmother in the throat (since he said ANYONE who likes Ann Coulter should be punched there) and attacks me. Deanosumo attacks me because I’m EDUCATED! Wow, what a brilliant attack!! “Ha, ha, you misspelled a word so everything you said is false!” What an absolute clown!!
Harriss, we’re still waiting for you to explain about punching all people who disagree with you in the throat. Wasn’t that a popular strategy in Germany of the 1930’s??
Do all liberals have this fascist tendency?[/quote]
Me is wishin I was educadified…
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
If I were devious, I might suspect this Headhunter fellow of deliberately mispelling ‘tenet’, in order to bait liberals – if I were devious. [/quote]
Whatever…LOL