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 1st January 2017, 12:24 AM   #521
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,099
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Oh gosh, I would not think so.

I mean at some point the weight of external, compelling links such as have been posted already should impress themselves upon skeptics, don't you agree?
Well no. I would expect you to admit you are wrong. Or hell to freeze over. I think the latter is more likely.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking 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 1st January 2017, 12:31 AM   #522
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 16,955
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Well no. I would expect you to admit you are wrong. Or hell to freeze over. I think the latter is more likely.
Huh, did not address the links?

Huh.

Gonna be a long year.
__________________
In Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ
The Big Dog is online now   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 1st January 2017, 02:47 AM   #523
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 6,231
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Huh, did not address the links?

Huh.

Gonna be a long year.
I think you'll notice, if you read carefully, that the pressing issue has ****-all to do with your links, and everything to do with whether sts60 actually claimed Clinton's dishonesty was irrelevant. Do you think you'll be showing us where, in those two short paragraphs, sts60 did any such thing?

Thanks much. Once that bit is done, we can discuss whether such a claim is fallacious.

Last edited by phiwum; 1st January 2017 at 02:53 AM.
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 1st January 2017, 08:13 AM   #524
eerok
Quixoticist
 
eerok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,456
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Yeah I suppose all those links I posted are obviously wrong too.
The links are right, but you're wrong.

Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Another fallacy, argument by assertion, Another day ending in y around here.
Your habit of fake fallacy drama is puerile and unconvincing.

Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Blow my skirts up, eerok, address anything about that link I just posted.
Sure. Consider "the Tu Quoque is a very common fallacy in which one attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser." Well, that didn't happen. There was no attempt to defend anything -- in fact the point was explicitly ceded.

This is what phiwum has been trying to tell you for a while now. My kindest interpretation for your stubborn desire to be wrong is that you're blinded by your own rhetoric.
__________________
"Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future." - Oscar Wilde
eerok 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 1st January 2017, 09:35 AM   #525
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 16,955
Originally Posted by eerok View Post
Your habit of fake fallacy drama is puerile and unconvincing.

Sure. Consider "the Tu Quoque is a very common fallacy in which one attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser." Well, that didn't happen. There was no attempt to defend anything -- in fact the point was explicitly ceded.
Well, we will ignore the blatant personal attack to open, but lets break down the second comment!

One method to defend one's position (albeit fallaciously) is to attempt to derail the point under discussion. let us consider the following:

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.
That is from one of the myriad links I have posted. That is precisely what the post in contention states, and a "disclaimer" that the poster in question was not trying to defend Clinton (although you will note the post asserts that the other Candidate's conduct was more egregious...) does not retroactively make the post in question not a fallacy!

Now next time, focus less on me, and more on what I am explaining.
__________________
In Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ
The Big Dog is online now   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 1st January 2017, 09:42 AM   #526
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 6,231
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Well, we will ignore the blatant personal attack to open, but lets break down the second comment!

One method to defend one's position (albeit fallaciously) is to attempt to derail the point under discussion. let us consider the following:



That is from one of the myriad links I have posted. That is precisely what the post in contention states, and a "disclaimer" that the poster in question was not trying to defend Clinton (although you will note the post asserts that the other Candidate's conduct was more egregious...) does not retroactively make the post in question not a fallacy!

Now next time, focus less on me, and more on what I am explaining.
Sorry, but do you plan on actually providing any evidence that sts60 was dismissing claims of Clinton's dishonesty as irrelevant? That is the central thesis of your claims, right? Or have we moved on from there?
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 1st January 2017, 10:36 AM   #527
eerok
Quixoticist
 
eerok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,456
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
One method to defend one's position (albeit fallaciously) is to attempt to derail the point under discussion. [...]
The point of Clinton's email wrongness was explicitly ceded, which hardly amounts to a defense, no matter how you try to spin it.
__________________
"Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future." - Oscar Wilde
eerok 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 1st January 2017, 10:46 AM   #528
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 16,955
Originally Posted by eerok View Post
The point of Clinton's email wrongness was explicitly ceded, which hardly amounts to a defense, no matter how you try to spin it.
I can hardly imagine that you believe that the only way to attempt to where as here the rebut an argument is to attack it head on as false. In fact, where, as here, the facts are undisputed, one must unfortunately expect the respondent to derail the discussion, to divert and deflect.

Lets go again to the example shall we??

For instance, if someone criticizes Bill Clinton for his dishonesty, the common rejoinder is to bring up Bush's dishonesty.

Note well that the example given above does not contest the fact Bill Clinton is dishonest! It remains a fallacy nonetheless.
__________________
In Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ
The Big Dog is online now   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 1st January 2017, 10:50 AM   #529
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 6,231
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
I can hardly imagine that you believe that the only way to attempt to where as here the rebut an argument is to attack it head on as false. In fact, where, as here, the facts are undisputed, one must unfortunately expect the respondent to derail the discussion, to divert and deflect.

Lets go again to the example shall we??

For instance, if someone criticizes Bill Clinton for his dishonesty, the common rejoinder is to bring up Bush's dishonesty.

Note well that the example given above does not contest the fact Bill Clinton is dishonest! It remains a fallacy nonetheless.
Is there a reason that you've failed to answer my requests the past couple of days?
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 1st January 2017, 11:46 AM   #530
eerok
Quixoticist
 
eerok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,456
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
I can hardly imagine that you believe that the only way to attempt to where as here the rebut an argument is to attack it head on as false. In fact, where, as here, the facts are undisputed, one must unfortunately expect the respondent to derail the discussion, to divert and deflect.
You seem to be saying that one can rebut an argument by agreeing with it. Interesting. Why don't you try that with me?

Perhaps when one cedes the point, that argument is over; and perhaps when another point is raised, it's a new argument, rather than a derail.

Perhaps the derail is yours when you cry wolf about fallacies.

Seriously, if the poster in question hadn't gone to great pains to explicitly cede the point, I'd grant your interpretation as reasonable, because in that case it's at least maybe a tu quoque. But even if that were true, it's a pettifogging criticism in a political discussion which is more rhetorical than logical anyway.
__________________
"Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future." - Oscar Wilde

Last edited by eerok; 1st January 2017 at 12:56 PM. Reason: grammar
eerok 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 1st January 2017, 12:05 PM   #531
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 16,955
Originally Posted by eerok View Post
You seem to be saying that one can rebut an argument by agreeing with it. Interesting. Why don't you try that me?

Perhaps when one cedes the point, that argument is over; and perhaps when another point is raised, it's a new argument, rather than a derail.

Perhaps the derail is yours when you cry wolf about fallacies.

Seriously, if the poster in question hadn't gone to great pains to explicitly cede the point, I'd grant your interpretation as reasonable, because in that case it's at least maybe a tu quoque. But even if that were true, it's a pettifogging criticism in a political discussion which is more rhetorical than logical anyway.
No, I am not saying that at all. I am saying that it is an attempt to dismiss the argument by asserting it is immaterial/irrelevant (all the candidates do it) and derailing the discussion ( bu-bu-bush!).

Further, tacking a disclaimer on a fallacious statement does not make the original statement not a fallcy!

It is odd, I have cited that Clinton bush illustration from the article a dozen times, are people having difficulty reading it?
__________________
In Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ
The Big Dog is online now   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 1st January 2017, 12:32 PM   #532
eerok
Quixoticist
 
eerok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,456
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
No, I am not saying that at all. I am saying that it is an attempt to dismiss the argument by asserting it is immaterial/irrelevant (all the candidates do it) and derailing the discussion ( bu-bu-bush!).
If one's subjective opinion as to the intent of a statement is grounds for calling fallacy, then I call fallacy on you for inappropriately derailing the point about the hypocrisy of Trump voters by falsely claiming a tu quoque.

What a dog's breakfast this thread has become, eh?

Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Further, tacking a disclaimer on a fallacious statement does not make the original statement not a fallcy!
Seems circular, since it's not fallacious if it's not a fallacy.

Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
It is odd, I have cited that Clinton bush illustration from the article a dozen times, are people having difficulty reading it?
We don't need examples -- we have the actual post at hand. Why not discuss that?
__________________
"Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future." - Oscar Wilde
eerok 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 1st January 2017, 12:35 PM   #533
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 6,231
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
No, I am not saying that at all. I am saying that it is an attempt to dismiss the argument by asserting it is immaterial/irrelevant (all the candidates do it) and derailing the discussion ( bu-bu-bush!).
Except, of course, sts60 didn't assert any such thing. Would you like to show evidence otherwise, kind sir?
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 1st January 2017, 01:38 PM   #534
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 16,955
Originally Posted by eerok View Post
If one's subjective opinion as to the intent of a statement is grounds for calling fallacy, then I call fallacy on you for inappropriately derailing the point about the hypocrisy of Trump voters by falsely claiming a tu quoque.


We don't need examples -- we have the actual post at hand. Why not discuss that?
Fantastic example, you have highlighted another point. The thread itself was not the hypocrisy of trump voters, but rather about reasons not to vote for Clinton! You have managed to nail another reason the post in question was so fallacious.

As for the example, the example is virtually identical, swapping out Bill Clinton for Hillary! Isn't that amazing? That is why I have been able to so confidently educate my fellow posters on the nature of the fallacy.
__________________
In Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ
The Big Dog is online now   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 1st January 2017, 01:44 PM   #535
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 6,231
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Fantastic example, you have highlighted another point. The thread itself was not the hypocrisy of trump voters, but rather about reasons not to vote for Clinton! You have managed to nail another reason the post in question was so fallacious.

As for the example, the example is virtually identical, swapping out Bill Clinton for Hillary! Isn't that amazing? That is why I have been able to so confidently educate my fellow posters on the nature of the fallacy.
Were you planning on giving any evidence regarding your interpretation of dear old sts60's post? Did our dear poster suggest that Hillary's dishonesty didn't matter?

It seems to me that you are disregarding this question.
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 1st January 2017, 01:58 PM   #536
eerok
Quixoticist
 
eerok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,456
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Fantastic example, you have highlighted another point. The thread itself was not the hypocrisy of trump voters, but rather about reasons not to vote for Clinton! You have managed to nail another reason the post in question was so fallacious.
Election threads are about voting. Deal with it.

It's not like any thread is syllogistically pure -- related points are made along the way, just as in normal human conversation. I'm pretty sure that you wouldn't call fallacy on thread drift that supported your opinions.

The topic of this thread BTW is that you're wrong. Are you attempting a derail?

Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
As for the example, the example is virtually identical, swapping out Bill Clinton for Hillary! Isn't that amazing? That is why I have been able to so confidently educate my fellow posters on the nature of the fallacy.
Yeah, and your arguments are virtually identical to reasonable ones. Of course not actually identical, though.
__________________
"Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future." - Oscar Wilde
eerok 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 1st January 2017, 02:08 PM   #537
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 16,955
Originally Posted by eerok View Post
Election threads are about voting. Deal with it.

It's not like any thread is syllogistically pure -- related points are made along the way, just as in normal human conversation. I'm pretty sure that you wouldn't call fallacy on thread drift that supported your opinions.

The topic of this thread BTW is that you're wrong. Are you attempting a derail?

Yeah, and your arguments are virtually identical to reasonable ones. Of course not actually identical, though.
Deal with it? I just explained how your own post proved my point again.

Now if y'all are done personalizing the thread and arguing from bare assertion, you let me know.
__________________
In Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ
The Big Dog is online now   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 1st January 2017, 02:23 PM   #538
eerok
Quixoticist
 
eerok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,456
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Deal with it? I just explained how your own post proved my point again.

Now if y'all are done personalizing the thread and arguing from bare assertion, you let me know.
Inventing one's own meanings for common words won't actually win any arguments. However, I accept your admission of failure.
__________________
"Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future." - Oscar Wilde
eerok 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 1st January 2017, 02:53 PM   #539
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 16,955
"Failure."

Ah, gotcha, just wasting my time.

Sad.
__________________
In Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ

Last edited by The Big Dog; 1st January 2017 at 03:20 PM.
The Big Dog is online now   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 1st January 2017, 03:34 PM   #540
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 6,231
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
"Failure."

Ah, gotcha, just wasting my time.

Sad.
Kind sir, many persons have actually spent considerable time trying to discuss this particular issue with you. To dismiss his argument on the basis of a single word, independently of the context in which it occurred, is remarkably disrespectful.

Let's return to the conversation with the basic presumption that everyone involved is a decent person, trying to reach the correct conclusion. Let's even start with your apparently important premise, namely that our dear friend sts60 dismissed Clinton's dishonesty as irrelevant. Can you give even a hint that this is what our dear friend intended? Thanks much.
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 1st January 2017, 03:42 PM   #541
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 6,231
Is it my self-absorption, or is it possible that The Big Dog has just stopped answering me since he can't actually establish that sts60 dismissed Hillary's dishonesty as irrelevant?

Just a thought.
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 2nd January 2017, 09:57 AM   #542
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 16,955
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
No, I am not saying that at all. I am saying that it is an attempt to dismiss the argument by asserting it is immaterial/irrelevant (all the candidates do it) and derailing the discussion ( bu-bu-bush!).

Further, tacking a disclaimer on a fallacious statement does not make the original statement not a fallcy!

It is odd, I have cited that Clinton bush illustration from the article a dozen times, are people having difficulty reading it?
Originally Posted by eerok View Post
If one's subjective opinion as to the intent of a statement is grounds for calling fallacy, then I call fallacy on you for inappropriately derailing the point about the hypocrisy of Trump voters by falsely claiming a tu quoque.

What a dog's breakfast this thread has become, eh?
By the way, it bears pointing out that my post specifically rejects a subjective approach. In fact I point out that the disclaimer does not at all render the objective fact that the original statement was objectively a tu quoque fallacy.

That is also why I have been linking to objective, third party sources (and I appear to be the only one who is doing so) rather than making arguments by bare assertion that are the antithesis of critical thinking.
__________________
In Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ
The Big Dog is online now   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 2nd January 2017, 10:16 AM   #543
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 6,231
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
By the way, it bears pointing out that my post specifically rejects a subjective approach. In fact I point out that the disclaimer does not at all render the objective fact that the original statement was objectively a tu quoque fallacy.

That is also why I have been linking to objective, third party sources (and I appear to be the only one who is doing so) rather than making arguments by bare assertion that are the antithesis of critical thinking.
Your thrillingly objective approach (which really hasn't much to do with the tu quoque fallacy, but never mind) seems to be missing a key point. Namely, you haven't actually given any evidence that our respected contributor (sts60) dismissed claims about Clinton's alleged dishonesty. His post consisted of a mere two short paragraphs, so if he actually was dismissive, it should be reasonable to point out how this dismissiveness came out. Because, honestly, I didn't see it.
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 2nd January 2017, 10:40 AM   #544
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 16,955
In addition, it is critical to understand the nature of the tu quoque, which essentially refers to the "you too" fallacy.

"Too," meaning also in this case.

Which is why I have explained that tu quoque arguments are so terrible, because they essentially concede (and in this case openly concede) the validity of the opening point, and try to derail the discussion by changing the subject and trying to put the original claimant on the defensive about a different issue.
__________________
In Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ
The Big Dog is online now   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 2nd January 2017, 12:25 PM   #545
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 6,231
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
In addition, it is critical to understand the nature of the tu quoque, which essentially refers to the "you too" fallacy.

"Too," meaning also in this case.

Which is why I have explained that tu quoque arguments are so terrible, because they essentially concede (and in this case openly concede) the validity of the opening point, and try to derail the discussion by changing the subject and trying to put the original claimant on the defensive about a different issue.
Yes, that's nice. It's not really the meaning of the tu quoque fallacy, but never mind. At least you've tried to bring the discussion back to that point.

But, I can't help but notice that you've once again failed to establish that sts60 was guilty even of your own odd misinterpretation of tu quoque. Once again, did our intrepid poster dismiss the claim that Hillary was dishonest (for reasons of relevance or otherwise)? If so, please show us.

Thanks. I don't think I'll bother to address your addled notion of tu quoque until we settle a couple of matters of fact.
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 2nd January 2017, 06:14 PM   #546
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 16,955
well, seems as things are getting quiet around here. Hopefully people really enjoyed the numerous links I posted and maybe even learned a bit!

Maybe I will start and host a discussion thread about significant critical thinking skills every month.

Until the next time, keep on thinking!

tbd
__________________
In Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ

Last edited by The Big Dog; 2nd January 2017 at 06:19 PM.
The Big Dog is online now   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 2nd January 2017, 07:19 PM   #547
grmcdorman
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,182
No. I believe most have given up on you as incorrigible.

Speaking as a lurker, you have not convinced me at all. Does it not seem odd to you that you get zero support for your claims?
__________________
"Hello. My name is Inigo Skywalker. You are my father. Prepare to die."
grmcdorman 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 2nd January 2017, 07:33 PM   #548
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 16,955
Originally Posted by grmcdorman View Post
No. I believe most have given up on you as incorrigible.

Speaking as a lurker, you have not convinced me at all. Does it not seem odd to you that you get zero support for your claims?
Well you are certainly free to indicate what you did not understand, because I have posted at least four comprehensive links that fully, completely support my position, only to be met with.... Well comments like yours, lacking any substance whatsoever.

But c'mon, how often do you see an illustration like the Clinton/Bush example I have quoted repeatedly? Talk about being on all fours! Damn that was beautiful.

Anyway, if have anything substantive to add, please do so, but if you are going to say "you are not convinced" or similar abject nonsense, please don't bother.

Thanks!
__________________
In Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ

Last edited by The Big Dog; 2nd January 2017 at 08:20 PM.
The Big Dog is online now   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 2nd January 2017, 07:41 PM   #549
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 5,324
It does get awful quiet in here when TBD won't answer the valid questions put to him:
phiwum: please show us this component of sts60's post, without which you don't have a tu quoque.
TBD: ....

....

...

Well, it's awfully quiet without me providing that bit I need to support my claim
wareyin 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 2nd January 2017, 08:03 PM   #550
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 6,231
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Well you are certainly free to indicate what you did not understand, because I have posted at least four comprehensive links that fully, completely support my position, only to be met with.... Well comments like yours, lacking any substance whatsoever.

But c'mon, how often do you see an illustration like the Clinton/Bush example I have quoted repeatedly? Talk about being on all fours! Damn that was beautiful.

Anyway, if have anything substantive to add, please do so, but if you are going to say "you are not convinced" or similar abject nonsense, please don't bother.

Thanks, tho, for "checking in."
I believe that even casual readers can notice that I've asked you a specific question repeatedly (namely, did sts60 dismiss claims of Clinton's dishonesty at all) and you've ignored it.

I think you're a pretty funny guy, purposely pretending that the links you've posted are relevant while intentionally failing to address this question. It must tickle you pink to feign victory like this. But it doesn't really seem to be fooling anyone.
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 2nd January 2017, 08:37 PM   #551
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 16,955
Originally Posted by grmcdorman View Post
No. I believe most have given up on you as incorrigible.

Speaking as a lurker, you have not convinced me at all. Does it not seem odd to you that you get zero support for your claims?
Say, as an olive branch why don't you suggest the critical thinking topic for the next thread?
__________________
In Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ
The Big Dog is online now   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 2nd January 2017, 09:07 PM   #552
Gilbert Syndrome
Illuminator
 
Gilbert Syndrome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Aigburth, Liverpool, UK
Posts: 3,235
Originally Posted by mijopaalmc View Post
When is pointing out that two people behave similarly a tu quoque?
When it's ajar!

Oh, wait...Sorry.
__________________
Generic proclamation of positivity:

Scouse saying - Go 'ed, is right, nice one, boss, well in, sound, belter, made up.

Usage: 'Go 'ed, lad, get us an ale in, nice one.'
Gilbert Syndrome 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 3rd January 2017, 04:27 AM   #553
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,537
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Well you are certainly free to indicate what you did not understand, because I have posted at least four comprehensive links that fully, completely support my position, only to be met with.... Well comments like yours, lacking any substance whatsoever.

But c'mon, how often do you see an illustration like the Clinton/Bush example I have quoted repeatedly? Talk about being on all fours! Damn that was beautiful.

Anyway, if have anything substantive to add, please do so, but if you are going to say "you are not convinced" or similar abject nonsense, please don't bother.

Thanks!



When was the last time you were wrong?

From which academic institution or individual would you accept a statement that you are wrong?
__________________
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 3rd January 2017, 08:50 AM   #554
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 6,231
Originally Posted by The Big Dog
Edited by jsfisher:  <snip> Moderated content redacted.
Before we drag this already fairly sad debate into more personal territory, I'll ask again: where did sts60 dismiss claims that Hillary was dishonest (on grounds of irrelevancy or otherwise)? This is, after all, the keystone of your argument, yes? If you can't establish this claim, then you have no argument at all.

Breathlessly awaiting your reply. Do try to man up and respond, rather than pretend that you haven't been asked this question. After all, you're a decently large dog, no?

Last edited by jsfisher; 3rd January 2017 at 09:01 PM.
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 3rd January 2017, 09:31 AM   #555
I Am The Scum
Master Poster
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,840
Big Dog, hypothetically speaking, if you had to choose between being honest and inflating your ego, which would you choose?
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 3rd January 2017, 09:48 AM   #556
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 16,955
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
Big Dog, hypothetically speaking, if you had to choose between being honest and inflating your ego, which would you choose?
Hypothetically speaking, I'd be impressed if people actually addressed the substance of my post, such as:

the post in question:

Quote:
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?
An actual objective third party source:

Quote:
For instance, if someone criticizes Bill Clinton for his dishonesty, the common rejoinder is to bring up Bush's dishonesty.
wow, it does not get any clearer than that, now does it. Plus look at that part about "orders of magnitude" worse.

What do you think about that illustration which is on all fours with the statement I am attempting to analyze?
__________________
In Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ
The Big Dog is online now   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 3rd January 2017, 09:55 AM   #557
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 6,231
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Hypothetically speaking, I'd be impressed if people actually addressed the substance of my post, such as:

the post in question:



An actual objective third party source:


wow, it does not get any clearer than that, now does it. Plus look at that part about "orders of magnitude" worse.

What do you think about that illustration which is on all fours with the statement I am attempting to analyze?
I think you'll notice, if you read the post carefully, that sts60 didn't actually dismiss the seriousness and relevance of Clinton's actions.

Not a tu quoque, sorry.
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 3rd January 2017, 09:58 AM   #558
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,537
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
"ammunition."

smh


You can reply with pointless posts if you like. Anyone reading the thread is going to notice straight away that you haven't answered either question.

Earlier in the thread you lied and said you 'd answered one of them, you could try that again, perhaps?
__________________
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 3rd January 2017, 10:01 AM   #559
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 6,231
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Hypothetically speaking, I'd be impressed if people actually addressed the substance of my post, such as:

the post in question:



An actual objective third party source:


wow, it does not get any clearer than that, now does it. Plus look at that part about "orders of magnitude" worse.

What do you think about that illustration which is on all fours with the statement I am attempting to analyze?
By the way, have you actually read the entire paragraph that you are citing? It is utterly incoherent. There is no sense in which raising Bush's alleged dishonesty has anything at all to do with "guilt by association".

Rational Wiki is occasionally insightful, and often just bizarrely off the mark. Why are you hanging your hat on this particular site?
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 3rd January 2017, 10:02 AM   #560
varwoche
Philosopher
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 9,684
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
I believe that even casual readers can notice that I've asked you a specific question repeatedly (namely, did sts60 dismiss claims of Clinton's dishonesty at all) and you've ignored it.

I think you're a pretty funny guy, purposely pretending that the links you've posted are relevant while intentionally failing to address this question. It must tickle you pink to feign victory like this. But it doesn't really seem to be fooling anyone.
I used to think his superiority routine was shtick. I'm not so sure anymore.

If one lonely pre-existing member sincerely posts to this thread I'm convinced by TBD's cogent arguments in this thread. He has successfully rebutted the counter arguments presented, and he has won the debate I'll donate $50 to a non religious, non Trump related charity of TBD's choice. (Excepting applecorped )
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
SCOTUS death watch
varwoche 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 01:13 PM.
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.