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 5th January 2017, 09:31 AM   #601
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 21,280
Originally Posted by sts60 View Post
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.



Nope. That's not simplifying it; that's distorting it by omission.



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.
Well, I have spent an amount of time on your post, only to be convinced that you do not understand why what you are saying is fallacious.

Let me simplify again: it does not at all matter whatsoever that the "charge of hypocrisy" is "appropriate" because whether or not it is true, it is still a fallacy.

Similarly, again, it does not matter again that you claim:

Quote:
At no point did I use the charge of hypocrisy as an attempt to whitewash Clinton, or to say she was trustworthy because of Trump's actions, or because people voted for Trump anyway. That, as a number of people have patiently explained to you, would have been a tu quoque fallacy. But I didn't say it, I didn't imply it, and in fact I specifically took steps in the other direction.
again, this disclaimer is after the fact rationalization that does not at all, in any way, render your original statement NOT A FALLACY, because even with this disclaimer you are attacking the original poster himself, and not his argument, and attempting to derail the discussion to B-bu-but BUSH/POWELL/TRUMP.

I am amazed at the number of people in this thread who have fallen for the fraudulent belief that the original statement is transformed from fallacious to non-fallacious by post hoc disclaimer.

For cripes sake people, the name of the fallacy is tu quoque which literally translated from Latin to English means "You Also." ALSO.

In other words, where one cannot defend the claim that Candidate A is dishonest, the fallacious attack is that the other Candidates are ALSO dishonest, and that the original claimant is a hypocrite.

Therefore, as I have explained repeatedly, extensively and with the benefit of several objective third party sources, this is a an ad hominem fallacy, tu quoque type.
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your Clinton loving faces.
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 5th January 2017, 09:36 AM   #602
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 13,323
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
<lots of stuff>

Hey! When was the last time you were wrong?

From which individual or establishment would you be prepared to listen if they told you you were wrong?

My thanks in advance for your answers.
__________________
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.
Turns out I don't know a lot about 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 5th January 2017, 09:56 AM   #603
I Am The Scum
Illuminator
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,118
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Let me simplify again: it does not at all matter whatsoever that the "charge of hypocrisy" is "appropriate" because whether or not it is true, it is still a fallacy.
Claims of hypocrisy are not inherently fallacious.
I Am The Scum 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 5th January 2017, 10:08 AM   #604
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 21,280
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
Claims of hypocrisy are not inherently fallacious.
I don't think that anyone suggested that they were, they could indeed be facile namecalling or insults, although I have charitably asserted that the author of the post certainly intended to rise above that and make a substantive albeit fallacious argument

In this case we are specifically address the charge in connection with a substantive claim, ie, that Candidate A is dishonest, and I have explained why it is a fallacy. In fact, a claim that Candidate A is a hypocrite would not necessarily be a fallacy.
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your Clinton loving faces.
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 5th January 2017, 10:30 AM   #605
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,925
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!
Sorry, would you be so kind to point out some substance? Much thanks.

Let's have a gander at the first post you mentioned, post 449. Here's what you wrote.

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

Now, let;s talk about your "evidence". It's not there. It just doesn't appear at all. You merely assert that sts60 dismissed X's argument, but you didn't actually show that he did so.

Sorry, boy, but your own words don't seem to help your case.
phiwum 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 5th January 2017, 10:34 AM   #606
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,925
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Well, I have spent an amount of time on your post, only to be convinced that you do not understand why what you are saying is fallacious.

Let me simplify again: it does not at all matter whatsoever that the "charge of hypocrisy" is "appropriate" because whether or not it is true, it is still a fallacy.
Let me simplifiy again, too. If one is merely complaining that his correspondent is hypocritical, then it ain't a fallacy. Only if he is trying to dismiss an argument on the grounds of hypocrisy is he guilty of a fallacy.

So, it's up to you to show that sts60 did that. Duh.
phiwum 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 5th January 2017, 10:41 AM   #607
sts60
Master Poster
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,701
TBD, identifying and rebutting your misrepresentation of my claims is not a "rationalization". However, I'll give you credit for saying something new there, even though it was wrong.
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 5th January 2017, 10:49 AM   #608
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 21,280
Originally Posted by sts60 View Post
TBD, identifying and rebutting your misrepresentation of my claims is not a "rationalization". However, I'll give you credit for saying something new there, even though it was wrong.
Well, certainly feel free to explain why I am "wrong."

Seriously, love to hear it.
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your Clinton loving faces.
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 6th January 2017, 07:53 AM   #609
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,925
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Well, certainly feel free to explain why I am "wrong."

Seriously, love to hear it.
You're wrong because sts60 didn't actually dismiss any arguments.

Complaining about hypocrisy is not a fallacy, since it isn't really even an argument. (There's some argument to be made, of course, establishing that hypocrisy is apparent.)

Honestly, this is pretty obvious stuff. Aside from lameass attempts to cite Rational Wiki, do you plan on any arguments that each and every mention of hypocrisy is a logical fallacy? 'Cause it ain't so, dear sir. Just ain't.
phiwum 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 6th January 2017, 11:16 AM   #610
eerok
Quixoticist
 
eerok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,523
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Well, certainly feel free to explain why I am "wrong."
'K
__________________
"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 6th January 2017, 11:34 PM   #611
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 21,280
Originally Posted by eerok View Post
'K
Snerk.

DAMN, LOLZ
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your Clinton loving faces.
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 7th January 2017, 06:08 AM   #612
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,194
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Well, certainly feel free to explain why I am "wrong."

Seriously, love to hear it.
You're wrong because sts60 didn't actually dismiss any arguments.

Complaining about hypocrisy is not a fallacy, since it isn't really even an argument. (There's some argument to be made, of course, establishing that hypocrisy is apparent.)

Honestly, this is pretty obvious stuff. Aside from lameass attempts to cite Rational Wiki, do you plan on any arguments that each and every mention of hypocrisy is a logical fallacy? 'Cause it ain't so, dear sir. Just ain't.
TBD, you claimed you would love to hear why you are wrong, yet for some reason you do not acknowledge when a poster (yet again) puts forth the effort to explain it to you in simple terms.
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 7th January 2017, 11:38 AM   #613
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 21,280
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Well, certainly feel free to explain why I am "wrong."

Seriously, love to hear it.
Oh well, looks like STS is not going to explain how he thinks I am wrong about his claims.

Oh well, at least we know he was making claims, unlike those "skeptics" who claimed he was "venting" or some such nonsense.
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your Clinton loving faces.

Last edited by The Big Dog; 7th January 2017 at 11:56 AM.
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 7th January 2017, 12:14 PM   #614
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,925
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Oh well, looks like STS is not going to explain how he thinks I am wrong about his claims.

Oh well, at least we know he was making claims, unlike those "skeptics" who claimed he was "venting" or some such nonsense.
He was making claims. He claimed that the behavior of certain Trump voters (those who claimed they couldn't vote for Hillary because she was dishonest) was hypocritical (I'd call it inconsistent). And he said that this irritated him.

What he didn't say is that their arguments about Hillary's dishonesty were thereby wrong or irrelevant. See, that's the bit you're ignoring. If he had said that Hillary's dishonesty didn't matter, well, that's not quite a tu quoque, but at least it might be a fallacy of some sort (tu quoque is more about doing as I say rather than as I do).

Anyway, keep congratulating yourself while ignoring the plainly obvious rebuttal I've been offering for days.
phiwum 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 7th January 2017, 12:39 PM   #615
eerok
Quixoticist
 
eerok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,523
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Oh well, looks like STS is not going to explain how he thinks I am wrong about his claims.
This thread is about your claim. I guess your attempt to change the subject is another of your logical fallacies. Must be a day ending in "y".
__________________
"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 7th January 2017, 01:53 PM   #616
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 21,280
Originally Posted by eerok View Post
This thread is about your claim. I guess your attempt to change the subject is another of your logical fallacies. Must be a day ending in "y".
Wow! You are so busy obsessing about me that you completely missed the part where The post you quoted was indeed about my analysis?

That is utterly charming!

Now, if you have something, anything substantive to add, that would indeed be "something."
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your Clinton loving faces.
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 7th January 2017, 02:20 PM   #617
eerok
Quixoticist
 
eerok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,523
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Wow! You are so busy obsessing about me that you completely missed the part where The post you quoted was indeed about my analysis?
Why should I care about you, exactly? I just find this thread funny.

You want a substantive response to your analysis? Even after all this fuss, you still don't know what a tu quoque is. This is because, rather than learn anything, you chose to double down and woefully fail at spinning a dictionary argument.
__________________
"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 7th January 2017, 02:25 PM   #618
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 21,280
Originally Posted by eerok View Post
Why should I care about you, exactly? I just find this thread funny.

You want a substantive response to your analysis? Even after all this fuss, you still don't know what a tu quoque is. This is because, rather than learn anything, you chose to double down and woefully fail at spinning a dictionary argument.
Say, an argument by bare assertion. Jeepers, who would have thought that was coming?

__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your Clinton loving faces.
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 7th January 2017, 02:57 PM   #619
eerok
Quixoticist
 
eerok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,523
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Say, an argument by bare assertion. Jeepers, who would have thought that was coming?

Shocker. You don't know what a bare assertion fallacy is, either.
__________________
"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 7th January 2017, 03:05 PM   #620
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 21,280
Originally Posted by eerok View Post
Shocker. You don't know what a bare assertion fallacy is, either.
Well, I did not say it was a fallacy, for that you would have to try to make an argument, and you have not done that.
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your Clinton loving faces.
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 8th January 2017, 07:37 AM   #621
eerok
Quixoticist
 
eerok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,523
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Well, I did not say it was a fallacy, for that you would have to try to make an argument, and you have not done that.
Your rhetorical contortions are amazing.

Your error has been explained many times. Deal with 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 8th January 2017, 09:32 AM   #622
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 21,280
Originally Posted by eerok View Post
Your rhetorical contortions are amazing.

Your error has been explained many times. Deal with it.
Well, let's find something we can agree on, you never explained any error, nor has STS explained my alleged error either.

Looks like we are building a consensus! Deal with it!
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your Clinton loving faces.
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 8th January 2017, 11:07 AM   #623
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,925
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Well, let's find something we can agree on, you never explained any error, nor has STS explained my alleged error either.

Looks like we are building a consensus! Deal with it!
I won't speak for the others, but I have explained your error countless times. The fact that you don't acknowledge the aptness of the explanation is another matter.
phiwum 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 8th January 2017, 11:50 AM   #624
sts60
Master Poster
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,701
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Well, certainly feel free to explain why I am "wrong."
Pretty straightforward; as I already said, you misrepresented my claim, and I rebutted your misrepresentation. You were wrong in calling that a "rationalization". That is the specific error to which I was referring.

Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Seriously, love to hear it.
Sure, but for what purpose? As I've repeatedly said, you've repeatedly misrepresented my claims, and in some cases your own sources. I don't get paid by the post, so I don't see any point in indulging more iterations of that. If there's nothing new being said, I've nothing new to add.
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 8th January 2017, 12:42 PM   #625
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 21,280
Originally Posted by sts60 View Post
Pretty straightforward; as I already said, you misrepresented my claim, and I rebutted your misrepresentation. You were wrong in calling that a "rationalization". That is the specific error to which I was referring.

Sure, but for what purpose? As I've repeatedly said, you've repeatedly misrepresented my claims, and in some cases your own sources. I don't get paid by the post, so I don't see any point in indulging more iterations of that. If there's nothing new being said, I've nothing new to add.
I was wrong when I called it a "rationalization"? Huh, that goes in the big pile of frivolous complaints.

And he does not get paid by the post, but he posted twice that I was "wrong" but explained how I was allegedly wrong: None.

It is almost as if I am not wrong.... Hmmmm.... could be.
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your Clinton loving faces.
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 8th January 2017, 12:46 PM   #626
gabeygoat
Graduate Poster
 
gabeygoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,044
I can't believe this conversation is still going on
__________________
"May I interest you in some coconut milk?" ~Akhenaten Wallabe Esq
gabeygoat 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 9th January 2017, 07:06 PM   #627
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 21,280
Decent thread.

Think how much better it would be if all the people who claimed I was wrong would have tried to explain their claim, their claim being now established as utterly baseless of course.
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your Clinton loving faces.
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 9th January 2017, 07:16 PM   #628
eerok
Quixoticist
 
eerok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,523
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Decent thread.

Think how much better it would be if all the people who claimed I was wrong would have tried to explain their claim, their claim being now established as utterly baseless of course.
There's no point repeating the explanation of your error when you simply ignore all attempts to educate you.
__________________
"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 9th January 2017, 07:22 PM   #629
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 21,280
Originally Posted by eerok View Post
There's no point repeating the explanation of your error when you simply ignore all attempts to educate you.
Well, we are sure eerok, that you will get around to doing that directly, now aren't we?

I have the feeling that the next post of yours will contain a substantive analysis of my "error."

Damn, that excites me. Eerok will now explain my "error":


/there is zero chance he will explain any error
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your Clinton loving faces.
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 9th January 2017, 07:27 PM   #630
I Am The Scum
Illuminator
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,118
You repeatedly lied about what sts60 said, and when Phiwum pointed out the error, you pretended you couldn't see his posts.

Serious question: Why should anyone take you seriously on this subject?
I Am The Scum 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 9th January 2017, 07:33 PM   #631
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 21,280
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
You repeatedly lied about what sts60 said, and when Phiwum pointed out the error, you pretended you couldn't see his posts.

Serious question: Why should anyone take you seriously on this subject?
Oh dear... I asked sts60 to explain how I was "wrong," he took the time to post a post stating that he did not get "paid" by the post.

Phiwum? Was addressed in posts about 200 posts ago when it was concluded that his arguments were the most disengneuous (sp? remember that?) we had ever seen.

Take up the gauntlet, explain in your own words how I was wrong.

(protip: there is no way you will do this)
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your Clinton loving faces.

Last edited by The Big Dog; 9th January 2017 at 07:45 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 9th January 2017, 08:55 PM   #632
I Am The Scum
Illuminator
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,118
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Take up the gauntlet, explain in your own words how I was wrong.

(protip: there is no way you will do this)
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...6#post11648016
I Am The Scum 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 9th January 2017, 09:10 PM   #633
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 21,280
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
One would expect a skeptic to do something more than Gainsay a studious analysis, perhaps instead of saying NOPE, one would expect a skeptic to say: he did thus.

Try that.
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your Clinton loving faces.
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 9th January 2017, 09:12 PM   #634
I Am The Scum
Illuminator
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,118
Are you disagreeing with something I said in that post?
I Am The Scum 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 9th January 2017, 09:13 PM   #635
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 21,280
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
Are you disagreeing with something I said in that post?
You said nothing in that post. Zero, nothing, pure Gainsay.
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your Clinton loving faces.
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 9th January 2017, 09:16 PM   #636
I Am The Scum
Illuminator
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,118
Well, that's blatantly false. Here's the quote:

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
Sts60 didn't do this.
Are you disagreeing with the quoted section?
I Am The Scum 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 9th January 2017, 09:22 PM   #637
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 21,280
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
Well, that's blatantly false. Here's the quote:



Are you disagreeing with the quoted section?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gainsay

Oh no, you typed what we skeptics call pure Gainsay. One would expect that instead of typing substance free sentences, one would expect you to support your substance free claim. "He did not do that, he did thus" but we know without fear of contradiction that you will not do that.
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your Clinton loving faces.

Last edited by The Big Dog; 9th January 2017 at 09:25 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 9th January 2017, 09:37 PM   #638
I Am The Scum
Illuminator
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,118
So are you disagreeing?
I Am The Scum 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 9th January 2017, 09:50 PM   #639
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 21,280
My detailed post


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:
Pure Gainsay:

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
Sts60 didn't do this.
And this?

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
So are you disagreeing?
Oh no, if I were to disagree, you would have had to say something. Stop me if I am going to fast. You see that part where you said he "didn't do this"? Agin, if I am going to fast... That substance free nonsense is called pure Gainsaying. It is basically akin to saying "NOPE." It is worth less than nothing, seriously, it is huge waving flag that says "I am the scum has absolutely less than nothing."

If you disagree? Then you say, he did not do this, he did:

Amaze me! What did he do? I am tingling with anticipation.
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your Clinton loving faces.
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 9th January 2017, 09:58 PM   #640
I Am The Scum
Illuminator
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,118
Let's just break this down real slow so you can understand it.

I am saying that sts60 did not dismiss anyone's argument in this post.

Never mind agreement or disagreement for a moment. Do you actually understand the bold section, above?
I Am The Scum 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
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 08:42 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.