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 3rd January 2017, 10:06 AM   #561
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,528
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
I used to think his superiority routine was shtick. I'm not so sure anymore.

It's a browbeating routine that 'works' in person because of the bait and switch and outright lying that goes on.

Doesn't work in text as he can't misrepresent what was previously written.
__________________
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, 10:09 AM   #562
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 6,226
It's fairly stunning how bad the Rational Wiki article on tu quoque is. Check out the "gay" argument they give. It's an explicit example of a tu quoque fallacy, but the writer pretends that it is in fact a fair point.
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, 10:09 AM   #563
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 16,948
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post

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 )
Impossible: to rebut them, there would have had to have been counter-arguments presented. The best so far is that it wasn't a tu quoque because it wasn't an attempt at an argument, it was "venting" or perhaps an insult, which I have addressed at length.

Heck, feel free to take a whack at it, address the Clinton/Bush illustration, or state in your own words what you think the strongest counterclaims are, because right now this is looking like nothing but personal attacks on 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; 3rd January 2017 at 10:15 AM.
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 3rd January 2017, 10:12 AM   #564
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 6,226
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Impossible: to rebut them, there would have had to have been counter-arguments presented. The best so far is that it wasn't a tu quoque because it wasn't an attempt at an argument, it was "venting" or perhaps an insult, which I have addressed at length.
Oh? Can you point us to some of this rebuttal? I'd be thrilled to see where, for instance, you establish that sts60 dismissed claims about Clinton's dishonesty. I've somehow overlooked your quite thorough (I'm sure) explanation.

Thanks much. Thrilled as always to read your insightful arguments, etc.
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, 10:14 AM   #565
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 5,324
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
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 )
I'm convinced by TBD's cogent arguments in this thread that he does not understand tu quoque fallacies. He has failed to successfully rebutted the counter arguments presented, and he has won the debate only in his own imagination.

Does that count?
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 3rd January 2017, 11:41 AM   #566
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,687
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
I'm convinced by TBD's cogent arguments in this thread that he does not understand tu quoque fallacies. He has failed to successfully rebutted the counter arguments presented, and he has won the debate only in his own imagination.

Does that count?
TBD failed but in failure he generated a great deal of amusing unintended comedy

Does that count?
Hans 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, 11:50 AM   #567
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 16,948
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:

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?
Originally Posted by Hans View Post
TBD failed but in failure he generated a great deal of amusing unintended comedy

Does that count?
Say, "Hans," you want to give my post and the illustration therein a crack?

No one else will, and you have not added anything substantive yet, so how about 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

Last edited by The Big Dog; 3rd January 2017 at 11:59 AM.
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 3rd January 2017, 12:07 PM   #568
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,528
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Say, "Hans," you want to give my post and the illustration therein a crack?

Why would he want to? There's literally nothing in the entire world that will convince you that you're wrong so what would be the point?
__________________
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, 03:33 PM   #569
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 16,948
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?
Not hypothetically speaking: not at all surprised that no one addressed my point and the illustration which was on all fours with my analysis and explanation of why the post in question was CLEARLY a tu quoque fallacy.

Someone let me know if anyone actually addresses the substance of my posts and the numerous citations supporting them... not holding my breath of course....
__________________
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 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, 05:52 PM   #570
Shalamar
Dark Lord of the JREF
 
Shalamar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,716
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Not hypothetically speaking: not at all surprised that no one addressed my point and the illustration which was on all fours with my analysis and explanation of why the post in question was CLEARLY a tu quoque fallacy.

Someone let me know if anyone actually addresses the substance of my posts and the numerous citations supporting them... not holding my breath of course....
If no one agrees with you, what could the problem be? Oh. I know.

Illusory Superiority.
__________________

"The truth is out there. But the lies are inside your head."
Shalamar 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, 06:26 PM   #571
I Am The Scum
Master Poster
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,840
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?
That's nice, but it doesn't actually answer my question.

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?
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, 07:28 PM   #572
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 16,948
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Not hypothetically speaking: not at all surprised that no one addressed my point and the illustration which was on all fours with my analysis and explanation of why the post in question was CLEARLY a tu quoque fallacy.

Someone let me know if anyone actually addresses the substance of my posts and the numerous citations supporting them... not holding my breath of course....
Originally Posted by Shalamar View Post
If no one agrees with you, what could the problem be? Oh. I know.

Illusory Superiority.
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
That's nice, but it doesn't actually answer my question.
Someone let me know if anyone actually addresses the substance of my posts and the numerous citations supporting them... not holding my breath of course.... Nothing

Spamming "illusory superiority" again, tho....
__________________
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; 3rd January 2017 at 07:41 PM.
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 3rd January 2017, 10:18 PM   #573
I Am The Scum
Master Poster
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,840
You're still not answering the question.
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 4th January 2017, 04:01 AM   #574
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,528
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
You're still not answering the question.
He does that a lot.
__________________
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 4th January 2017, 06:34 AM   #575
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 6,226
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?
Are you in the habit of regarding Rational Wiki as an authoritative source regarding critical thinking? Is this your go-to site? Or is it merely convenient in this case?
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 4th January 2017, 07:12 AM   #576
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 16,948
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
You're still not answering the question.
did you want to pick the next issue for my discussion of critical thinking?

Okay, your logical fallacy is loaded question. Why don't you start a new thread or ask the mods to split this off.

Maybe take a gander at Rule 12 while you are at it?

k 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
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 4th January 2017, 07:22 AM   #577
I Am The Scum
Master Poster
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,840
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
loaded question
So there's another one you don't get.

But seriously, it's not a trick question (nor a loaded one). I'll answer it, myself: If I had to pick between honesty and ego, I'd pick honesty.

Continue to ignore it if you want. The song and dance isn't fooling anyone.
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 4th January 2017, 08:18 AM   #578
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,687
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Say, "Hans," you want to give my post and the illustration therein a crack?

No one else will, and you have not added anything substantive yet, so how about it?
Lol for a fellow who screams about being a genius you sure are dim. Suggest you reread thread and then reply to yourself. Between the two of you who will win by being more wrong and most pompous?
Hans 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 4th January 2017, 08:52 AM   #579
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 16,948
Originally Posted by Hans View Post
Lol for a fellow who screams about being a genius you sure are dim. Suggest you reread thread and then reply to yourself. Between the two of you who will win by being more wrong and most pompous?
"you sure are dim."

Well, we all knew that there was no way Hans was going to actually address my analysis:

"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?

However, "Hans" has declared it "wrong," and that I "sure am dim," and he is basically reduced to sputtering insults.

Sic semper "skeptics"
__________________
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; 4th January 2017 at 08:59 AM.
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 4th January 2017, 08:58 AM   #580
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 16,948
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post

Continue to ignore it if you want. The song and dance isn't fooling anyone.
Thanks man, I will ignore that grossly offtopic and loaded false dichotomy, because that song and dance ain't fooling me.

Care to address this on topic analysis?

Quote:
"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?
I don't expect you too, mind you, but one never gives up hope.
__________________
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 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 4th January 2017, 09:06 AM   #581
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 5,324
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Thanks man, I will ignore <snip>
Speaking of stuff you are ignoring, are you ever going to get around to addressing phiwum's question? You know, the one about whether Clinton's dishonesty was dismissed, without said dismissal you don't have a 'tu quoque'?
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 4th January 2017, 09:09 AM   #582
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,687
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
"you sure are dim."

Well, we all knew that there was no way Hans was going to actually address my analysis:

"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?

However, "Hans" has declared it "wrong," and that I "sure am dim," and he is basically reduced to sputtering insults.

Sic semper "skeptics"
Nope you were just dim for thinking anyone would want to debate someone who cannot be wrong. Given your demonstrated failings lets see how long and hard you will try to taunt me into debating?
Hans 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 4th January 2017, 09:10 AM   #583
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,528
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Speaking of stuff you are ignoring, are you ever going to get around to addressing phiwum's question? You know, the one about whether Clinton's dishonesty was dismissed, without said dismissal you don't have a 'tu quoque'?

No, no he isn't.

Bluster and D-K effect are about it. Watch:


Hey, TBD, when was the last time you were wrong? (You do know there's an easy way to stop me from asking the question, don't you? You could try lying about and saying you've already answered it like you did before?)
__________________
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 4th January 2017, 09:34 AM   #584
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 16,948
Originally Posted by Hans View Post
Nope you were just dim for thinking anyone would want to debate someone who cannot be wrong. Given your demonstrated failings lets see how long and hard you will try to taunt me into debating?
"dim" again.

"demonstrated failings,' yet won't even address my simple analysis.

Lets take another look shall we?

Quote:
"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?

However, "Hans" has declared it "wrong," and that I "sure am dim," and he is basically reduced to sputtering insults.
At this point the only dimness is caused by the great shadow that this unchallenged analysis has cast in this thread, "the brazen giant of Greek fame, With conquering limbs astride from land to land..."
__________________
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; 4th January 2017 at 10:02 AM.
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 4th January 2017, 10:03 AM   #585
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 5,324
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
<snip> this unchallenged analysis <snip>
You do know that even though you ignore the challenges, the rest of us can still see them, right? I mean, crowing that your analysis is unchallenged right after being reminded of a challenge to your analysis is not a good way to get taken seriously.
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 4th January 2017, 10:46 AM   #586
epeeist
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 284
Returning to first principles...

Example 1:

Person A: I'd never vote for X, he doesn't even have a college degree.

Person B: You don't have a college degree either.

Person A: So what, I want the person I vote for to be better-educated than I am.

Tu quoque fallacy, pointing out A doesn't have a degree is irrelevant to X not having a degree, and going further, A is not being a hypocrite.

Example 2:

Person A: I'd never vote for X, he doesn't even have a college degree.

Person B: You don't have a college degree either.

Person A: You have a point, I thought everyone without a college degree was stupid, lazy, or both. I believe myself to be both smart and not lazy, as is shown by my entrepreneurial success, so I should examine X's record more closely and decide whether or not I consider them stupid or lazy but recognizing that not having a college degree is not determinative.

I'd hesitate to call it a tu quoque fallacy except in the technical sense, because A's initial judgment, unlike the first example, is self-contradictory. Pointing out the hypocrisy is simultaneously pointing out a flaw in the person's stated reasoning. Though until A responds to B's point, you don't know if it's really an invalid point. Schrodinger's tu quoque?
epeeist 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 4th January 2017, 11:12 AM   #587
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,687
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
"dim" again.

"demonstrated failings,' yet won't even address my simple analysis.

Lets take another look shall we?



At this point the only dimness is caused by the great shadow that this unchallenged analysis has cast in this thread, "the brazen giant of Greek fame, With conquering limbs astride from land to land..."
Lol, yep he's still trying ...so that's twice
Hans 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 4th January 2017, 11:17 AM   #588
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 16,948
Originally Posted by Hans View Post
Lol, yep he's still trying ...so that's twice
Oh gosh, "hans" there is literally no one, especially me, who thinks that you were or are going to address my substantive analysis!

Sorry to have given you the misapprehension
__________________
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 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 4th January 2017, 11:20 AM   #589
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 5,324
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Oh gosh, "hans" there is literally no one, especially me, who thinks that you were or are going to address my substantive analysis!

Sorry to have given you the misapprehension
It's a little premature to address your analysis before you address the huge error that has been pointed out to you. Why don't you get on that before requesting any more commentary on your fatally flawed analysis?
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 4th January 2017, 11:26 AM   #590
varwoche
Philosopher
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 9,683
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
It's a little premature to address your analysis before you address the huge error that has been pointed out to you. Why don't you get on that before requesting any more commentary on your fatally flawed analysis?
Maybe TBD thinks readers don't notice these things. Maybe s/he is unaware there's such a thing as scroll up.

TBD, there's such a thing as scroll up. No matter how many layers of obfuscation you pile on, readers can still scroll up and see your transparent evasions. Unless and until you address phiwum's question, don't expect your posts to be taken seriously.
__________________
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
Old 4th January 2017, 11:37 AM   #591
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 16,948
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
Maybe TBD thinks readers don't notice these things. Maybe s/he is unaware there's such a thing as scroll up.

TBD, there's such a thing as scroll up. No matter how many layers of obfuscation you pile on, readers can still scroll up and see your transparent evasions. Unless and until you address phiwum's question, don't expect your posts to be taken seriously.
well, whatever phiwum's alleged question is, I suggest you scroll further back in this very thread to where I specifically addressed certain of his questions, only to be met with some of the most disingenuous responses I have ever seen and outright misrepresentations regarding my posts.

If YOU have a question, by all means go ahead and ask it. I promise I won't bite.

eta: shortcut: look at the posts beginning at 449 through about 474
__________________
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; 4th January 2017 at 01:25 PM.
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 4th January 2017, 11:50 AM   #592
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,687
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
"dim" again.

"demonstrated failings,' yet won't even address my simple analysis.

Lets take another look shall we?



At this point the only dimness is caused by the great shadow that this unchallenged analysis has cast in this thread, "the brazen giant of Greek fame, With conquering limbs astride from land to land..."
Lol, that's twice...and more failure...just a repeat for fun
Hans 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 4th January 2017, 01:29 PM   #593
sts60
Master Poster
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,279
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
"...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? ...
Hi, TBD. Happy New Year.

This thread seems to be in reruns; you're still beating up strawmen, rather than addressing what I actually said. This particular strawman is in itself a repeat, the poor fellow: he's made out of part of my actual words, except that once again you left out passages essential to my point. Odd, that, especially as I pointed this out the first time you did it.

Originally Posted by Ambrose Bierce
A CHIEF of Police who had seen an Officer beating a Thug was very indignant, and said he must not do so any more on pain of dismissal.

"Don't be too hard on me," said the Officer, smiling; "I was beating him with a stuffed club."

"Nevertheless," persisted the Chief of Police, "it was a liberty that must have been very disagreeable, though it may not have hurt. Please do not repeat it."

"But," said the Officer, still smiling, "it was a stuffed Thug."

In attempting to express his gratification, the Chief of Police thrust out his right hand with such violence that his skin was ruptured at the arm-pit and a stream of sawdust poured from the wound. He was a stuffed Chief of Police.
Not really pertinent here, but I remembered this from my high school satire class, and it's funny.

Last edited by sts60; 4th January 2017 at 01:30 PM.
sts60 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 4th January 2017, 01:58 PM   #594
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 16,948
Originally Posted by sts60 View Post
Hi, TBD. Happy New Year.

This thread seems to be in reruns; you're still beating up strawmen, rather than addressing what I actually said. This particular strawman is in itself a repeat, the poor fellow: he's made out of part of my actual words, except that once again you left out passages essential to my point. Odd, that, especially as I pointed this out the first time you did it.

Not really pertinent here, but I remembered this from my high school satire class, and it's funny.
Happy New Year to you too!

I have quoted your complete quote numerous times. What we are trying to do here is to really simplify the example for our Dear Readers. Really make it "POP"!

Here is the illustration... lets compare it to the first two lines of the post in question.... POP!

Now as far as the assertion that I left out passages essential to your point, in fact, I did no such thing, because the part left out (acknowledging that "What Clinton did with her email setup was wrong, and her stories about it contained some clumsy lies. I'm not defending that" ) does not at all, in anyway render the B-Bu-BUSH/POWELL/TRUMP not a tu quoque fallacy, and is therefore not "essential." That is the "TOO" part of "YOU TOO."

Which of course was my point, my point being the topic of this 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

Last edited by The Big Dog; 4th January 2017 at 03:08 PM.
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 5th January 2017, 05:44 AM   #595
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 6,226
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
well, whatever phiwum's alleged question is, I suggest you scroll further back in this very thread to where I specifically addressed certain of his questions, only to be met with some of the most disingenuous responses I have ever seen and outright misrepresentations regarding my posts.

If YOU have a question, by all means go ahead and ask it. I promise I won't bite.

eta: shortcut: look at the posts beginning at 449 through about 474
No, you did not show that sts60 dismissed any argument about Clinton's dishonesty there. You merely alleged that he did so, without actually showing that he did so.
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 5th January 2017, 07:24 AM   #596
eerok
Quixoticist
 
eerok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,456
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
eta: shortcut: look at the posts beginning at 449 through about 474
You may not understand logic, but you do have some experience with dismissing arguments -- you simply pretend they never happened.
__________________
"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 5th January 2017, 07:47 AM   #597
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 6,226
Has anyone else noticed that in this discussion about logical fallacies, The Big Dog has committed a glaring fallacy of appeal to authority? Rational Wiki, for goodness sake, has been granted an authority that it doesn't even come close to deserving, an authority that I'm sure The Big Dog would not grant it when it comes to liberal topics.

Of course, The Big Dog also badly misinterprets the article, since the whole Bush/Clinton thing occurs in an incoherent paragraph about guilt by association. To be fair to The Big Dog, it's a lot more plausible that such an argument would be a tu quoque, so who the heck knows what the author was thinking?'

ETA: In the interest of disclosure, I have an account at Rational Wiki. That doesn't mean I think they're a good authority on informal fallacies. Their article on tu quoque is dreadful, and I haven't the interest to fix it.

Last edited by phiwum; 5th January 2017 at 07:50 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 5th January 2017, 08:32 AM   #598
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 16,948
Originally Posted by eerok View Post
You may not understand logic, but you do have some experience with dismissing arguments -- you simply pretend they never happened.
... he writes while dismissing all my arguments in a post lacking any and all substance.

Thanks man, I needed a chuckle!
__________________
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 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 5th January 2017, 08:47 AM   #599
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 5,324
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
... he writes while dismissing all my arguments in a post lacking any and all substance.

Thanks man, I needed a chuckle!
All your arguments in every post in this thread have lacked any and all substance. Why bring that up now?
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 5th January 2017, 09:04 AM   #600
sts60
Master Poster
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,279
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Happy New Year to you too!

I have quoted your complete quote numerous times.
Well, three times. Perhaps that's a new definition of "numerous" with which I am not familiar, but let it pass.

In the original thread, you quoted my complete wording in post #66, and partly engaged on the hypocrisy charge by saying that both Clinton and Powell should be in jail. But you never responded to followup questions meant to probe the consistency of your position.

In this thread, you quoted my complete wording in post 98 and post 125, but your only responses were requoting a definition and saying "Classic tu quoque", respectively. So you regressed in terms of addressing what I actually said; since your original reply, you've repeatedly and consistently mutated what I said and beat up on a series of strawmen.

Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
What we are trying to do here is to really simplify the example for our Dear Readers. Really make it "POP"!

Here is the illustration... lets compare it to the first two lines of the post in question.... POP!
Nope. That's not simplifying it; that's distorting it by omission.

Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Now as far as the assertion that I left out passages essential to your point, in fact, I did no such thing, because the part left out (acknowledging that "What Clinton did with her email setup was wrong, and her stories about it contained some clumsy lies. I'm not defending that" ) does not at all, in anyway render the B-Bu-BUSH/POWELL/TRUMP not a tu quoque fallacy, and is therefore not "essential." That is the "TOO" part of "YOU TOO."

Which of course was my point, my point being the topic of this thread.
Nope. As I already pointed out, you're making an argument about a mutated version of my claim by appealing to a mutated version of your own reference.

I've seen this sort of simple-minded pattern-matching used by Apollo hoax believers, with similar posturing. But it won't help you here; it's too obvious.

Repeating your arguments with different words won't help you either; I don't get paid by the hour to point out every time you change my argument (or, for that matter, misuse your own references).

Since the original thread seems to have gone dormant, I'll remind anyone who might be interested why the charge of hypocrisy is appropriate and why anyone should care.
sts60 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 03:10 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.