[quote]lixy wrote:
Ah…the elusive left wing specimen. The same one TB speaks of in his three volumes work “Voyages in black and white”.[/quote]
Hahahahahahahaha…
hahahahahahahaha…
hahahahahahahaha…
[quote]TQB wrote:
rainjack wrote:
TQB wrote:
Lixy, isn’t that exactly the stereotyping you denigrate?
“Logical fallacy #41”
It would make discussion easier on this website if we could agree to use the index in the link.
You make the mistake of assuming the little pedophilic ass raper would know logic if it came flying out of her vagina.
She wouldn’t. She has proved it over and over.
It’s funny. I had just deleted “Then we could simply reply #1 or #32 to Rainjack’s posts” before I uploaded my last post as I thought it might detract from my point…
PS. Lixy’s statement is not a reductio ad absurdum, but a straw man. A reductio ad absurdum would require a logical link of arguments leading up to an impossible outcome. [/quote]
I don’t think I do ad hominems. But there is never anything wrong with good old #32. Hell look around - there wouldn’t be a political forum at all if it weren’t for #32.
I don’t know if you meant it to be funny, but that link made me laugh. Lifty is the pre-eminent #37.
ProfessorX wrote the book on #36.
You should start a thread about this. It could be fun, and allow me to exercise my #32-ness.
[quote]TQB wrote:
PS. Lixy’s statement is not a reductio ad absurdum, but a straw man. A reductio ad absurdum would require a logical link of arguments leading up to an impossible outcome. [/quote]
Since I’m in the mood…
Straight from Dr. Labossiere’s page:
“In order to understand what a fallacy is, one must understand what an argument is. Very briefly, an argument consists of one or more premises and one conclusion. A premise is a statement (a sentence that is either true or false) that is offered in support of the claim being made, which is the conclusion (which is also a sentence that is either true or false).”
There was no argument nor conclusion in my post. All I did was sarcastically bash those who divide the world in two monolithic blocks (Us and them, and after all were only ordinary men.).
So there was no fallacy since there was no argument to begin with.
And you are right, in that it would technically be a strawman if there was an argument. But it can also be called an “appeal to ridicule” or “reductio ad absurdum” (despite being a weak reductio).
[quote]lixy wrote:
"In order to understand what a fallacy is, one must understand what an argument is… "
[/quote]
This sums up the entirety of Lixy’s existence on this site.
She has yet to understand what an argument is. It’s hilarious that she uses it in a post to defend herself.
Chushin, you post here solely to engage the Islam issue?
Speak up on the myth of the “gallant soldier” or open up your own threads.
@rainjack,
silence, moron.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Do not argue relativism if you don’t understand how to apply it. Relativism does not mean there is no truth or morality.[/quote]
What is the basis of that morality then? For example, some Christians will state that the basis of morality is the Bible. Some Conservatives will argue that we should look to tradition as a basis of morality. So, what do you see as the basis of morality? I am not attacking you. Actually, I really want to know since it is a question I ask myself (since I belong to no organized religion and cannot go along with putting “tradition” on a pedestal).
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Chushin, you post here solely to engage the Islam issue?
Speak up on the myth of the “gallant soldier” or open up your own threads.
@rainjack,
silence, moron.[/quote]
Why? Who made you Mr. Bossy Pants?
Moron is the best you can do? Try harder, or maybe it should be you who needs to be quiet.
[quote]entheogens wrote:
So, what do you see as the basis of morality?
[/quote]
The Golden Rule – aka the ethics of reciprocity. It is the only logical code of ethics.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
entheogens wrote:
So, what do you see as the basis of morality?
The Golden Rule – aka the ethics of reciprocity. It is the only logical code of ethics.[/quote]
Good answer.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
entheogens wrote:
So, what do you see as the basis of morality?
The Golden Rule – aka the ethics of reciprocity. It is the only logical code of ethics.[/quote]
That obviously isn’t everyone’s moral truth. So, it’s relative.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
That obviously isn’t everyone’s moral truth. So, it’s relative.[/quote]
Good point. Anyone who acts against my ethical standards can expect reciprocal treatment at worst; or at least a good shunning.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sloth wrote:
That obviously isn’t everyone’s moral truth. So, it’s relative.
Good point. Anyone who acts against my ethical standards can expect reciprocal treatment at worst; or at least a good shunning.[/quote]
Awesome!
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sloth wrote:
That obviously isn’t everyone’s moral truth. So, it’s relative.
Good point. Anyone who acts against my ethical standards can expect reciprocal treatment at worst; or at least a good shunning.[/quote]
A good shunning?! You beast!
Edit: Of course, they’d have had to leave you alive in order to face your reciprocal treatment and/or shunning.
First of all the service men and women from all of the countries who support GWOT have sacrificed more and have givne up more than your average citizen will ever dream of sacrificing and giving up. We do it because of the men to our right and left who wear a uniform.
Ive personally been through events overseas that would make a grown man cry. We dont do it for glory, we dont do it for money, we simple do because we belive in our country, we do it because of our patriotic duty to our country!!!
[quote]jawara wrote:
Here’s somthing I dont understand about you left wing types. You don’t like the military or the police. Most of you would LOVE to cut our funding and use it help out some illegal’s from Mexico. I also notice that alot of the libs want US forces to go to Darfur.
.[/quote]
Can I make a suggestion? Could we stop speaking to hypothetical Leftists and address issues? The reason is that, as I tried to explain in my other thread on “Leftists” is that it makes very little sense to generalize about Leftists or Rightists.
For example, Lift is a Libertarian and therefore would be categorized as on the Right. However, his position on war, for example, is quite opposite to what that of a Neocon is.
Your statement about Leftists position on illegal Mexicans is a nice rhetorical swipe, but skirts the complexity of the issue. After all, seeing as a lot of Big Business benefits from the cheap labor, many Rightwing Republicans are not so enthusiatic about getting rid of illegal aliens.
Of course, other Rightwingers DO want to get rid of them, so we can’t generalize about people on the Right on this question, can we?
Yes, almost ALL “Leftists” were against invading Iraq. However, a lot of “Leftists” supported the incursion against Afghanistan. Not all Leftists want an invasion of Darfur. I, for one, do not.
As for LOVING to cut YOUR funding, you are partially right, at least as regards this Leftist. I want more funding for taking care of the wounded soldiers and their families but I want the funding for the Iraq war cut…cut to shreds.
Anyway, my point in all of the above is that many on here seem to enjoy attacking this imaginary Leftist, but it is a generalization, if not a distortion. BTW, I willingly admit that many Leftists do the same type of generalizing about the Right. In either case, it’s just ridiculous and simplistic.
What do you expect, a person who acts like a child will be treated as such.
You brag about how i’s your style to personally attack others. Then you decide for yourself that a political dicussion can’t go without personal attacks; How primitive are you?
There are some guys I seldom agree with but who do contribute. If you refuse to engage in an actual debate, leave the thread.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
@rainjack
What do you expect, a person who acts like a child will be treated as such.
You brag about how i’s your style to personally attack others. Then you decide for yourself that a political dicussion can’t go without personal attacks; How primitive are you?
There are some guys I seldom agree with but who do contribute. If you refuse to engage in an actual debate, leave the thread.[/quote]
How long have you been on the rag? Dude - you are way too whiny to do anyone any good. Go take some midol, borrow one of your sister’s tampons, and come back in 5-7 days when your hormones are back to normal.
Honestly - you are going to tell me what to do and expect me to do it?
Right, leave the left-right stereotype thinking and get back to the discussion.
I ask the especially the soldiers who are or were in Iraq:
If the tactical and strategical advantges wouldn’t have been that drastically in your favour, would you have still gone?
So, if large parts of the republican army was trained and equipped with, say T-90s, air superiority was 50-50, your satellites would have been occasionally shot down, your tanks and soldiers attacked by Frogfoots etc…
In short, if the enemy would have been a real threat and the danger tenfold, how much would the situation change, you believe?
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Right, leave the left-right stereotype thinking and get back to the discussion.
I ask the especially the soldiers who are or were in Iraq:
If the tactical and strategical advantges wouldn’t have been that drastically in your favour, would you have still gone?
So, if large parts of the republican army was trained and equipped with, say T-90s, air superiority was 50-50, your satellites would have been occasionally shot down, your tanks and soldiers attacked by Frogfoots etc…
In short, if the enemy would have been a real threat and the danger tenfold, how much would the situation change, you believe?
[/quote]
Have you ever played Risk? How many times did you attack a country containing equal troops?
In the real world - name a country who has ever invaded in a offensive strike knowing they were outnumbered, or even 50/50?
I can think of maybe two in the 20th century: Israel in 1967, and Germany’s move on Russia in WWII.
What does this have to do with anything?