ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags logical fallacies

Reply
Old 28th December 2016, 09:25 PM   #441
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,098
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Very well, so you refuse to discuss the snippet that began this conversation. Let us look at the original discussion.





Far as I can tell, sts60 is venting. He does not suggest that we should dismiss the claims of Trump voters regarding Hillary just because they don't complain about similar behavior by Powell, et al. He says that they are hypocrites and this annoys him considerably.

This is not a tu quoque fallacy. It would be a tu quoque only if he concluded (implicitly or explicitly) that the Trump voters' argument that Hillary's email server was a bad thing can be dismissed since they don't apply this argument equally to other cases. He did not do this.

Therefore, it just is not the fallacy you claim it is.

Of course, if you really wanted to know whether this was his point and perhaps he left it unstated, just ask sts60. That's about the best way to figure out what someone meant.
Venting.

Well thanks for checking in.

He said venting.

11 pages and the response is:

Venting.

Venting.

Umm, you probably could have read literally any post in this thread and declared the post in question venting.... "Venting.... Before we hit 11 pages.

Venting.

and thus goes critical thinking.

Venting.
__________________
Congress shall make no law abridging the free exercise of Religion.

Last edited by The Big Dog; 28th December 2016 at 09:57 PM. Reason: Doctorate in Venting
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2016, 11:17 PM   #442
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,174
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Venting.

Well thanks for checking in.

He said venting.

11 pages and the response is:

Venting.

Venting.

Umm, you probably could have read literally any post in this thread and declared the post in question venting.... "Venting.... Before we hit 11 pages.

Venting.

and thus goes critical thinking.

Venting.
How does letting people vent on this site damage critical thinking?
mijopaalmc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2016, 01:28 AM   #443
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 11,307
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
No, of course not, they are flippant, frivolous off topic nonsense
Not at all. I think both of them inform the 'debate' excellently and your refusal to answer is deeply telling.


Can I also just check that you're not standing by the below? I presume you're withdrawing the lie "asked and answered"?

Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
No, really, have you ever been wrong?
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
asked and answered.
__________________
Some seem to think the UK leaving the EU is like Robbie leaving Take That.
In reality it's more like Pete leaving The Beatles.

We are lions, not tigers.

Last edited by 3point14; 29th December 2016 at 01:35 AM.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2016, 06:02 AM   #444
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 7,058
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Venting.

Well thanks for checking in.

He said venting.

11 pages and the response is:

Venting.

Venting.

Umm, you probably could have read literally any post in this thread and declared the post in question venting.... "Venting.... Before we hit 11 pages.

Venting.

and thus goes critical thinking.

Venting.
The fact that you are annoyed that it took so long to get an answer about that post does not indicate that my answer is incorrect. Either give evidence to refute my interpretation of the post or admit that you were mistaken about it being a fallacy (indeed, about it being a rebuttal to Trump voters' arguments at all).
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2016, 06:07 AM   #445
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 11,307
He has no rebuttal which, when combined with a psychological inhibition against admitting error means he has nothing to actually say.

Of course, that's unlikely to stop him from saying anything...
__________________
Some seem to think the UK leaving the EU is like Robbie leaving Take That.
In reality it's more like Pete leaving The Beatles.

We are lions, not tigers.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2016, 07:30 AM   #446
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,098
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
The fact that you are annoyed that it took so long to get an answer about that post does not indicate that my answer is incorrect. Either give evidence to refute my interpretation of the post or admit that you were mistaken about it being a fallacy (indeed, about it being a rebuttal to Trump voters' arguments at all).
Rebut your speculation that he was venting?

Sorry, I don't bother with completely made up responses such as that, particularly given that you do not appear to understand what a tu quoque fallacy is.

Based on the definitions I have posted and hearing no substantive response, my analysis of the post in question stands.

Venting, Christ....
__________________
Congress shall make no law abridging the free exercise of Religion.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2016, 07:34 AM   #447
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 11,307
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
No, really, have you ever been wrong?
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Rebut your speculation that he was venting?

Sorry, I don't bother with completely made up responses such as that, particularly given that you do not appear to understand what a tu quoque fallacy is.

Based on the definitions I have posted and hearing no substantive response, my analysis of the post in question stands.

Venting, Christ....

Okay, let's see if you'll answer this question:

Is there any academic person or organisation from whom you would accept a statement that you are wrong?

For instance, if I were to get an Oxbridge or Ivy League Professor of Logic to tell you you were wrong, would you pay it any mind?
__________________
Some seem to think the UK leaving the EU is like Robbie leaving Take That.
In reality it's more like Pete leaving The Beatles.

We are lions, not tigers.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2016, 07:40 AM   #448
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 7,058
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Rebut your speculation that he was venting?

Sorry, I don't bother with completely made up responses such as that, particularly given that you do not appear to understand what a tu quoque fallacy is.

Based on the definitions I have posted and hearing no substantive response, my analysis of the post in question stands.

Venting, Christ....
Speculation that he was venting? Let's have a look, highlighting mine.

Originally Posted by sts60 View Post
What gets me is the sheer hypocrisy of Trump fans who fume about Clinton's emails. Where were these people when the Bush Administration used RNC servers and "lost" orders of magnitude more messages than were endlessly bloviated about in Clinton's case? Where were they when Colin Powell used private servers for State Dept. emails? And where were they when Donald Trump and his crew deleted messages and data relevant to legal proceedings?

What Clinton did with her email setup was wrong, and her stories about it contained some clumsy lies. I'm not defending that. It's just that one has to marvel at the blatant, unadulterated, shameless hypocrisy of Trump fans preaching at us about why they had to vote for him because they couldn't trust her.
Whatever else sts60 is doing, he is clearly expressing frustration, so at least in part, he is venting.

Of course, it could be that he is also engaged in a tu quoque, but only if he is dismissing the claim that Clinton did something wrong on the basis that the proponents of this claim are hypocrites. Is he doing that? No, he explicitly says she did something wrong and he is not defending her.

I have some familiarity with informal fallacies, having taught them many times. A tu quoque fallacy requires dismissing an argument because the proponent of that argument acts inconsistently with his conclusion. There is not the slightest hint that this is what sts60 is doing here.

Your failure to give any evidence that sts60 intends to dismiss any argument of Trump voters is clear enough. You may continue to pretend that you understand this fallacy, but it is evident to even the most casual observer that you are not supporting your claims in the slightest.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2016, 08:49 AM   #449
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,098
"A tu quoque fallacy requires dismissing an argument because the proponent of that argument acts inconsistently with his conclusion."

Dismissing X's argument that "Candidate A" is dishonest because Candidate B is also dishonest and X voted (which is an "act") for Candidate B is a Classic tu quoque fallacy.

quod erat demonstrandum
__________________
Congress shall make no law abridging the free exercise of Religion.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2016, 08:53 AM   #450
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 7,058
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
"A tu quoque fallacy requires dismissing an argument because the proponent of that argument acts inconsistently with his conclusion."

Dismissing X's argument that "Candidate A" is dishonest because Candidate B is also dishonest and X voted (which is an "act") for Candidate B is a Classic tu quoque fallacy.

quod erat demonstrandum
Let us see if that is what sts60 did, shall we? Highlighted so that you can see the relevant bits.

Originally Posted by Mumbles View Post
"Storing work email on a private server" is not a violation of national security standards. It's questionable to archival standards, but since she turned them over when asked (and did not lie about it), and also asked the FBI to make her emails public, it's tough to argue that she was intentionally hiding much of anything from anyone.

Now, storing classified info on any computer connected to the internet is a violation, but that applies to Department of State email servers as well - but that's been discussed before.

Whether or not she was charismatic is subjective - but I found her to be vastly more composed, calm, and even jovial, than Trump when the two were debating.
Originally Posted by sts60 View Post
What gets me is the sheer hypocrisy of Trump fans who fume about Clinton's emails. Where were these people when the Bush Administration used RNC servers and "lost" orders of magnitude more messages than were endlessly bloviated about in Clinton's case? Where were they when Colin Powell used private servers for State Dept. emails? And where were they when Donald Trump and his crew deleted messages and data relevant to legal proceedings?

What Clinton did with her email setup was wrong, and her stories about it contained some clumsy lies. I'm not defending that. It's just that one has to marvel at the blatant, unadulterated, shameless hypocrisy of Trump fans preaching at us about why they had to vote for him because they couldn't trust her.
Now, did he dismiss arguments that Clinton's statements were dishonest or that her use of a private server was wrong? No, obviously, plainly, undeniably not. Very explicitly he said that what she did was wrong and that she lied.

Hence, not a tu quoque. By your own clear statement above, this conclusion is unavoidable.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2016, 09:05 AM   #451
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,098
Sigh....

lets try again.

Dismissing X's argument that "Candidate A" is dishonest because Candidate B is also dishonest and X voted (which is an "act") for Candidate B is a Classic tu quoque fallacy.

As I previously pointed out in this thread, the contention is that X's justification for not voting for Candidate is dismissed as irrelevant because all the candidates are dishonest.

Lets once again go to an objective external source.

Quote:
Tu quoque (pronounced "too kwoh-kway"), is a form of ad hominem fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that an argument is wrong if the source making the claim has itself spoken or acted in a way inconsistent with it. The fallacy focuses on the perceived hypocrisy of the opponent rather than the merits of their argument. This is a fallacy regardless of whether you really did it or not, but it helps if you really didn't do it.
and of course:

Quote:
This fallacy is very frequently paired with the guilt by association fallacy, so that the person engaging in the fallacy need not even show that the other person's actions are inconsistent with their position; rather, it is merely shown that the actions of some other person somehow associated with that person did something inconsistent with that person's position. For instance, if someone criticizes Bill Clinton for his dishonesty, the common rejoinder is to bring up Bush's dishonesty.
__________________
Congress shall make no law abridging the free exercise of Religion.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2016, 09:13 AM   #452
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 11,307
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Sigh....

lets try again.

Dismissing X's argument that "Candidate A" is dishonest because Candidate B is also dishonest and X voted (which is an "act") for Candidate B is a Classic tu quoque fallacy.

As I previously pointed out in this thread, the contention is that X's justification for not voting for Candidate is dismissed as irrelevant because all the candidates are dishonest.

Lets once again go to an objective external source.



and of course:

Not gonna answer my question?
__________________
Some seem to think the UK leaving the EU is like Robbie leaving Take That.
In reality it's more like Pete leaving The Beatles.

We are lions, not tigers.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2016, 09:15 AM   #453
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,098
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
Not gonna answer my question?
Obviously not.
__________________
Congress shall make no law abridging the free exercise of Religion.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2016, 09:23 AM   #454
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 11,307
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Obviously not.
Quelle surprise!

I shall therefore declare myself the winner and - I think this is appropriate - drop the microphone.
__________________
Some seem to think the UK leaving the EU is like Robbie leaving Take That.
In reality it's more like Pete leaving The Beatles.

We are lions, not tigers.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2016, 11:33 AM   #455
I Am The Scum
Master Poster
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,908
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Dismissing X's argument...
Sts60 didn't do this.
I Am The Scum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2016, 11:51 AM   #456
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,098
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
Sts60 didn't do this.
Then what was his purpose? You say he didn't do this, then what did he do???
__________________
Congress shall make no law abridging the free exercise of Religion.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2016, 11:56 AM   #457
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,174
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Then what was his purpose? You say he didn't do this, then what did he do???
He was criticizing their stated justification for not voting for Clinton due to an apparent logical inconsistency.
mijopaalmc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2016, 11:57 AM   #458
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 38,224
man this is one of the biggest pissing contests I have seen in a very long time, guess I miss a lot not going in the US Politics forum
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2016, 12:03 PM   #459
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,098
Originally Posted by mijopaalmc View Post
He was criticizing their stated justification for not voting for Clinton due to an apparent logical inconsistency.
Quote:
Tu quoque (pronounced "too kwoh-kway"), is a form of ad hominem fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that an argument is wrong if the source making the claim has itself spoken or acted in a way inconsistent with it.
As I have shown.
__________________
Congress shall make no law abridging the free exercise of Religion.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2016, 12:08 PM   #460
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,174
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
As I have shown.
No, just no.

Pointing out inconsistent reasoning is not a tu quoque. A tu quoque occurs when the accusation of hypocrisy is irrelevant to the conclusion, which is not the case here.
mijopaalmc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2016, 12:20 PM   #461
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,098
Originally Posted by mijopaalmc View Post
No, just no.

Pointing out inconsistent reasoning is not a tu quoque. A tu quoque occurs when the accusation of hypocrisy is irrelevant to the conclusion, which is not the case here.
The hypocrisy is irrelevant to the conclusion "I did not vote for Candidate A because she is dishonest" because claiming "Candidate B is also dishonest and you voted for him" does not falsify the first statement.
__________________
Congress shall make no law abridging the free exercise of Religion.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2016, 12:25 PM   #462
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,174
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
The hypocrisy is irrelevant to the conclusion "I did not vote for Candidate A because she is dishonest" because claiming "Candidate B is also dishonest and you voted for him" does not falsify the first statement.
But it calls into question whether the arguer really didn't vote for Candidate A because they were dishonest because Candidate B's dishonesty obviously didn't stop the arguer from voting for Candidate B.

sts60 was questioning Trump voters' stated justification for not voting for Clinton, not the fact that Trump voters thought that Clinton was dishonest.
mijopaalmc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2016, 12:39 PM   #463
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,098
Originally Posted by mijopaalmc View Post
But it calls into question whether the arguer really didn't vote for Candidate A because they were dishonest because Candidate B's dishonesty obviously didn't stop the arguer from voting for Candidate B.

sts60 was questioning Trump voters' stated justification for not voting for Clinton, not the fact that Trump voters thought that Clinton was dishonest.
That is a classic example of a tu quoque, in fact it is the exact "But Bush" example I have quoted all along.

Candidate B's alleged dishonesty is irrelevant to candidate A's dishonesty
__________________
Congress shall make no law abridging the free exercise of Religion.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2016, 12:44 PM   #464
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 7,058
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Sigh....

lets try again.

Dismissing X's argument that "Candidate A" is dishonest because Candidate B is also dishonest and X voted (which is an "act") for Candidate B is a Classic tu quoque fallacy.
sts60 didn't say anything about X's argument being "dishonest", nor did your source say a damned thing about the "honesty" of the argument. It is about dismissing an argument (i.e., saying that an argument is "wrong" in terms of your source), which is clearly, undeniably, obviously not what sts60 did.

Sorry, you seem to be failing to establish your claim once again. Do try again, I'm sure it will work this time.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2016, 12:45 PM   #465
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 7,058
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
As I have shown.
No, you have not. Indeed, sts60 explicitly said that Clinton's use of a private server was wrong and that she lied about it. Hence, he did not dismiss Trump voters' arguments to this effect.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2016, 12:46 PM   #466
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 7,058
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
The hypocrisy is irrelevant to the conclusion "I did not vote for Candidate A because she is dishonest" because claiming "Candidate B is also dishonest and you voted for him" does not falsify the first statement.
No one said otherwise. If sts60 said that the former statement was falsified, please quote the precise sentence where he did so. Thanks.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2016, 12:51 PM   #467
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,174
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
That is a classic example of a tu quoque, in fact it is the exact "But Bush" example I have quoted all along.

Candidate B's alleged dishonesty is irrelevant to candidate A's dishonesty
But sts60 want arguing that Trump's dishonesty was at all effected by Clinton's dishonesty.
mijopaalmc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2016, 12:51 PM   #468
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,098
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
sts60 didn't say anything about X's argument being "dishonest", nor did your source say a damned thing about the "honesty" of the argument. It is about dismissing an argument (i.e., saying that an argument is "wrong" in terms of your source), which is clearly, undeniably, obviously not what sts60 did.

Sorry, you seem to be failing to establish your claim once again. Do try again, I'm sure it will work this time.
What I wrote:

"because Candidate B is also dishonest and X voted (which is an "act") for Candidate B "

what you claimed:

"sts60 didn't say anything about X's argument being "dishonest."

There is no way that one could think the statement "Candidate B is also dishonest" meant "X's argument was dishonest" without deliberately misrepresenting what was wrote.

Unbelievable.
__________________
Congress shall make no law abridging the free exercise of Religion.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2016, 12:53 PM   #469
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,098
Originally Posted by mijopaalmc View Post
But sts60 want arguing that Trump's dishonesty was at all effected by Clinton's dishonesty.
What? That makes no sense.
__________________
Congress shall make no law abridging the free exercise of Religion.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2016, 12:55 PM   #470
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,174
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
What? That makes no sense.
But sts60 wasn't arguing that Trump's dishonesty was at all effected by Clinton's dishonesty.
mijopaalmc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2016, 01:04 PM   #471
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,098
Originally Posted by mijopaalmc View Post
But sts60 wasn't arguing that Trump's dishonesty was at all effected by Clinton's dishonesty.
I can't fathom what your point is, it is such a non sequitor.

STS brought up an issue that was irrelevant to the original point.
__________________
Congress shall make no law abridging the free exercise of Religion.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2016, 01:05 PM   #472
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,174
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
What I wrote:

"because Candidate B is also dishonest and X voted (which is an "act") for Candidate B "

what you claimed:

"sts60 didn't say anything about X's argument being "dishonest."

There is no way that one could think the statement "Candidate B is also dishonest" meant "X's argument was dishonest" without deliberately misrepresenting what was wrote.

Unbelievable.
Voting for a dishonest candidate does not make the voter themselves dishonest.
mijopaalmc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2016, 01:46 PM   #473
I Am The Scum
Master Poster
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,908
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Then what was his purpose? You say he didn't do this, then what did he do???
He was venting.
I Am The Scum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2016, 01:58 PM   #474
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,098
Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast
ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them
under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
__________________
Congress shall make no law abridging the free exercise of Religion.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2016, 02:11 PM   #475
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 7,058
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
What I wrote:

"because Candidate B is also dishonest and X voted (which is an "act") for Candidate B "

what you claimed:

"sts60 didn't say anything about X's argument being "dishonest."

There is no way that one could think the statement "Candidate B is also dishonest" meant "X's argument was dishonest" without deliberately misrepresenting what was wrote.

Unbelievable.
No, you're quite right. I somehow badly misread your post. My mistake.

Let me respond again.

Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Sigh....

lets try again.

Dismissing X's argument that "Candidate A" is dishonest because Candidate B is also dishonest and X voted (which is an "act") for Candidate B is a Classic tu quoque fallacy.
Let us return to sts60's post. Candidate A, I presume, is Clinton. Let's see what sts60 says about Clinton.


Originally Posted by sts60 View Post
What gets me is the sheer hypocrisy of Trump fans who fume about Clinton's emails. Where were these people when the Bush Administration used RNC servers and "lost" orders of magnitude more messages than were endlessly bloviated about in Clinton's case? Where were they when Colin Powell used private servers for State Dept. emails? And where were they when Donald Trump and his crew deleted messages and data relevant to legal proceedings?

What Clinton did with her email setup was wrong, and her stories about it contained some clumsy lies. I'm not defending that. It's just that one has to marvel at the blatant, unadulterated, shameless hypocrisy of Trump fans preaching at us about why they had to vote for him because they couldn't trust her.
Now, you tell me where sts60 dismissed the argument that Clinton was dishonest. The highlighted bit explicitly says otherwise.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th December 2016, 01:38 AM   #476
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 11,307
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
man this is one of the biggest pissing contests I have seen in a very long time, guess I miss a lot not going in the US Politics forum
Your definition of a pissing contest clearly differs radically from mine to the point that they're not even in the same ball park.
__________________
Some seem to think the UK leaving the EU is like Robbie leaving Take That.
In reality it's more like Pete leaving The Beatles.

We are lions, not tigers.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th December 2016, 01:44 AM   #477
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 11,307
Look, he clearly believes he's the arbiter of all knowledge and no-one in the whole world is smarter than he. He thinks he's never been wrong (but won't state it because he knows he'll be ridiculed) and there is no-one in the whole world, not the most esteemed professor of logic at the most esteemed learning institutions in the world that he would listen to on the topic.

It is impossible to reason a man out of a position into which he hasn't first reasoned himself - some clever bugger, not me.
__________________
Some seem to think the UK leaving the EU is like Robbie leaving Take That.
In reality it's more like Pete leaving The Beatles.

We are lions, not tigers.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th December 2016, 02:07 PM   #478
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 7,058
It seems that the Big Dog has left us. Shame, since we were getting to the meat of the matter: his allegation that sts60 dismissed arguments the Hillary was dishonest in the very same post that he said Hillary was dishonest (and never said anything at all contrary to that claim).

Well, you know, it's our failure to accept his plainly false claims as the gospel truth which is so much like being the swine who fail to appreciate pearls.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th December 2016, 03:01 PM   #479
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,098
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Sigh....

lets try again.

Dismissing X's argument that "Candidate A" is dishonest because Candidate B is also dishonest and X voted (which is an "act") for Candidate B is a Classic tu quoque fallacy.

As I previously pointed out in this thread, the contention is that X's justification for not voting for Candidate is dismissed as irrelevant because all the candidates are dishonest.

Lets once again go to an objective external source.



and of course:
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
It seems that the Big Dog has left us. Shame, since we were getting to the meat of the matter: his allegation that sts60 dismissed arguments the Hillary was dishonest in the very same post that he said Hillary was dishonest (and never said anything at all contrary to that claim).

Well, you know, it's our failure to accept his plainly false claims as the gospel truth which is so much like being the swine who fail to appreciate pearls.
More blatant falsity.

Really sad.
__________________
Congress shall make no law abridging the free exercise of Religion.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th December 2016, 03:42 PM   #480
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,098
We are actually at the point where people don't understand that "he did it too!" Is fallacious, let alone why it is fallacious.
__________________
Congress shall make no law abridging the free exercise of Religion.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:14 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.