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

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


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.
Reply
Old 2nd September 2019, 01:49 PM   #41
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,286
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
I cannot find a previously refuted component to logical fallacies. If you have one, please share.
Look, it's simple: what she said is factual. All you're doing here is trying to find ways to dismiss her and / or what she said.


Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
Easy there big fella! What the hell; despite my admission that I can't prove the claim I will continue to engage with you. As I previously stated, I would like to amend my claim to "more conspicuous" instead of "more frequent" (though I continue to believe both to be true). "Conspicuous" here meaning (in part) the power of the position of the person in question (ie, the presidency vs mayor of Turkey Lick, KY), hence my counter question: Can you provide a cite of a US president perjuring himself while in office with no consequences at all? I'm not aware of that ever happening, how would you expect me to cite that it never happened? I've looked, I didn't find it, therefore I believe it's never happened before. (Incidentally, that would not only make my claim of "more conspicuous" true, it would also imply "more frequent" is true as well!) Same for other presidential, consequence-free, crimes: I've looked. I found none. Just like with Sasquatch: I can't prove he doesn't exist. I've looked. I found none. If you disagree, perhaps you can find proof. I couldn't, and that's the best cite I can give for non-existence.

Feel free to look for consequence free crimes at congressional levels, too. I looked. I found none. I don't think it's possible to prove or cite that such events don't exist (there's always the counter argument that one simply didn't look hard enough). My claim is I looked and found none, and that's absolutely true. The onus is now on you to demonstrate I am wrong (if you can).

And where did you come up with the 100 year time frame? If, as you acknowledge, it is my claim, you don't get to set the terms of my claim. That's my prerogative. I said it was more frequent/conspicuous. I could be correct even if it was more frequent/conspicuous 100 years ago--That's not mutually exclusive with either frequency or conspicuity increasing now.




You know, speaking of Confirmation Bias and uncited claims, I also wonder why you even think I claimed an ability to read your mind or glean your political views. I did not. I invite you to quote me where I made any such claim (even vaguely). You will fail.

(By the way, I was only joking about the looking for Sasquatch part; merely trying to make a point).
I was wondering if you were going to respond to that and while your response is, to me, earnest, I found the demand for evidence to be rather disingenuous in the first place due to the absurd specificity of the kind and amount of evidence 'necessary' to support your claim.
__________________
A government is a body of people usually - notably - ungoverned.
-Shepard Book
The Norseman 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 September 2019, 02:03 PM   #42
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,511
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
I was wondering if you were going to respond to that and while your response is, to me, earnest, I found the demand for evidence to be rather disingenuous in the first place due to the absurd specificity of the kind and amount of evidence 'necessary' to support your claim.
Thanks. I had to wait a few days to respond because I was given a little "vacation" from the board.

And I hate to come off like Trump and say "Heh Heh, I was just joking" but the initial post I made:

Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
No. This is the era of Trump. That sort of thing no longer matters.
...is pretty clearly meant as a joke.

On the other hand, I think it's accurate, too, and will stick by my words.
Cabbage 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 September 2019, 02:07 PM   #43
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,439
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
Look, it's simple: what she said is factual. All you're doing here is trying to find ways to dismiss her and / or what she said.
I'm not trying to find ways. The logical fallacies stick out.

A factual statement can still be a logical fallacy. Instead of refuting the claim, she commented on their hypocrisy. That is a logical fallacy.
BobTheCoward 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 September 2019, 05:00 PM   #44
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 8,755
Norseman, anyone reading what BTC wrote and what I wrote can see there were no "logical fallacies" on my part. BTC is pulling his usual bobbing routine. Don't go down the rabbit hole with him is my best advice. Few come out alive.
Stacyhs 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 September 2019, 06:58 PM   #45
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 12,369
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
A factual statement can still be a logical fallacy.
Not in context it can't!

A logical fallacy is a false statement that weakens an argument by distorting an issue. A false statement cannot also be a factual statement in context - the two are mutually exclusive. Logical fallacies are errors in reasoning, not simple factual errors.


Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Instead of refuting the claim, she commented on their hypocrisy. That is a logical fallacy.
Err, no - it isn't. You need to go learn what a logical fallacy is. The definition of such is very specific.
__________________
“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore - if they're white!"
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

Last edited by smartcooky; 2nd September 2019 at 07:01 PM.
smartcooky 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 September 2019, 07:04 PM   #46
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,439
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Not in context it can't!

A logical fallacy is a false statement that weakens an argument by distorting an issue. A false statement cannot also be a factual statement in context - the two are mutually exclusive.




Err, you need to go learn what a logical fallacy is. The definition of such is very specific.
I didn't invent this

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Quote:
Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument,
Or this one


https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Quote:
Whataboutism (also known as Whataboutery) is a red herring version of the classic tu quoque logical fallacy - sometimes implementing the balance fallacy as well - which is employed as a propaganda technique. It is used as a diversionary tactic to shift the focus off of an issue and avoid having to directly address it. This technique works by twisting criticism back onto the critic and in doing so revealing the original critic's hypocrisy.
Both sources refer to appeals to hypocrisy (tu quoque) as a logical fallacy. The accusation of hypocrisy can be completely true.
BobTheCoward 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 September 2019, 07:28 PM   #47
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,511
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument

Allow me to help you understand where you went wrong. Note the highlighted portion. She wasn't attempting to discredit a postion. Here, let me help you read it again:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I've seen reports of rumors but no evidence that Omar and Mynett are having an affair. It may be true, it may not be true.

But if true, then Omar and Trump will have something in common. Maybe they can bond over their shared penchant for adulterous affairs and campaign finance violations.

Note that no attempt at discrediting the claim was attempted, ergo, it is not a logical fallacy. Sometimes an accusation of hypocrisy is simply an accusation of a hypocrisy, not some fallacy masquerading as a logical argument.

You're Welcome!
Cabbage 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 September 2019, 07:35 PM   #48
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,439
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
Allow me to help you understand where you went wrong. Note the highlighted portion. She wasn't attempting to discredit a postion. Here, let me help you read it again:




Note that no attempt at discrediting the claim was attempted, ergo, it is not a logical fallacy. Sometimes an accusation of hypocrisy is simply an accusation of a hypocrisy, not some fallacy masquerading as a logical argument.

You're Welcome!
It is weird that you would take a quote I did not comment on and have not expressed a view that is is or is not a fallacy. I never claimed that all accusations of hypocrisy is a fallacy.
BobTheCoward 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 September 2019, 08:04 PM   #49
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,511
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
It is weird that you would take a quote I did not comment on and have not expressed a view that is is or is not a fallacy. I never claimed that all accusations of hypocrisy is a fallacy.
My bad. I got the impression you were accusing Stacyhs of whataboutism in this post of yours:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Her reply amounts to whataboutism.



With some Argumentum ad populum tossed in.

I get disliking republicans, but she is committing some logical fallacies.

Note the potentially ambiguous reference to "Her reply". I will admit I didn't carefully review previous posts to tie down the reference. Perhaps we should both be more careful?
Cabbage 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 September 2019, 09:28 PM   #50
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,286
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
Thanks. I had to wait a few days to respond because I was given a little "vacation" from the board.

And I hate to come off like Trump and say "Heh Heh, I was just joking" but the initial post I made:

...is pretty clearly meant as a joke.

On the other hand, I think it's accurate, too, and will stick by my words.
Yes, I think it's accurate enough for the context of the discussion and it was pointless nitpicking to demand evidence in the first place.

Yes, politicians lie (and why people continue to think that the system itself is okay but needs only a little changes here or there is strange in my mind) but tRump et al are taking it to a new extreme. Or rather, 'new' in the sense of this and the previous generation or two.

Whatever is going on now, at the very least, is not normal. End of.



Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Norseman, anyone reading what BTC wrote and what I wrote can see there were no "logical fallacies" on my part. BTC is pulling his usual bobbing routine. Don't go down the rabbit hole with him is my best advice. Few come out alive.
I think we crossed our references to which 'she' we were discussing. The accusation of multiple fallacies was directed not at you but Ilhan Omar. But, you still give good advice which, after this post, I'll follow.



Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
It is weird that you would take a quote I did not comment on and have not expressed a view that is is or is not a fallacy. I never claimed that all accusations of hypocrisy is a fallacy.
He never claimed that you claimed that all accusations of hypocrisy is [sic] a fallacy, either.

Once more: if you agree then that not all accusations of hypocrisy are fallacies, it's simple. This is one of those examples of a time when a statement of hypocrisy is not a fallacy.
__________________
A government is a body of people usually - notably - ungoverned.
-Shepard Book
The Norseman 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 September 2019, 06:15 AM   #51
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,439
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
Yes, I think it's accurate enough for the context of the discussion and it was pointless nitpicking to demand evidence in the first place.

Yes, politicians lie (and why people continue to think that the system itself is okay but needs only a little changes here or there is strange in my mind) but tRump et al are taking it to a new extreme. Or rather, 'new' in the sense of this and the previous generation or two.

Whatever is going on now, at the very least, is not normal. End of.




I think we crossed our references to which 'she' we were discussing. The accusation of multiple fallacies was directed not at you but Ilhan Omar. But, you still give good advice which, after this post, I'll follow.




He never claimed that you claimed that all accusations of hypocrisy is [sic] a fallacy, either.

Once more: if you agree then that not all accusations of hypocrisy are fallacies, it's simple. This is one of those examples of a time when a statement of hypocrisy is not a fallacy.
In your last line, I don't know what statement you are referring to.
BobTheCoward 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 September 2019, 09:38 AM   #52
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,286
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
In your last line, I don't know what statement you are referring to.
Ilhan Omar's.

Ilhan Omar was not making an argument.

Ilhan Omar did not present any premises. Ilhan Omar did not, therefore present any conclusions. She did not make any argument. She only made statements. Thus Ilhan Omar made no fallacies.

She made no formal fallacies. No informal fallacies. No semi-fallacies. No hemi-demi-fallacies. No quasi-fallacies. No psudo-fallacies. No faux-fallacies. Not even any theoretical fallacies.

None. SHE WAS NOT MAKING AN ARGUMENT. ALL SHE DID WAS MAKE A FEW DECLARATIONS.

Verstehen Sie alles?
__________________
A government is a body of people usually - notably - ungoverned.
-Shepard Book
The Norseman 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 September 2019, 07:17 PM   #53
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,439
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
Ilhan Omar's.

Ilhan Omar was not making an argument.

Ilhan Omar did not present any premises. Ilhan Omar did not, therefore present any conclusions. She did not make any argument. She only made statements. Thus Ilhan Omar made no fallacies.

She made no formal fallacies. No informal fallacies. No semi-fallacies. No hemi-demi-fallacies. No quasi-fallacies. No psudo-fallacies. No faux-fallacies. Not even any theoretical fallacies.

None. SHE WAS NOT MAKING AN ARGUMENT. ALL SHE DID WAS MAKE A FEW DECLARATIONS.

Verstehen Sie alles?
She used the @ symbol. She was responding to their claims. Rather than defend her position, she accuses them of hypocrisy

And whataboutism does not require further being related to the claim. It is a diversionary tactic (and would make a bad diversion to restate your own behavior again and call attention to it).

Rationalwiki again

Quote:
Simply put, whataboutism refers to the bringing up of one issue in order to distract from the discussion of another. It does not apply to the comparison and analysis of two similar issues in terms such as why some are given more social prominence than others.
BobTheCoward 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 September 2019, 07:20 PM   #54
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 12,369
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
I didn't invent this

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism



Or this one


https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Whataboutism



Both sources refer to appeals to hypocrisy (tu quoque) as a logical fallacy. The accusation of hypocrisy can be completely true.
You missed the key word in what I said

Here it is; learn its meaning

https://www.google.com/search?ei=3x9...4dUDCAs&uact=5
__________________
“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore - if they're white!"
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky 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 September 2019, 07:26 PM   #55
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 12,369
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
My bad. I got the impression you were accusing Stacyhs of whataboutism in this post of yours:

Note the potentially ambiguous reference to "Her reply". I will admit I didn't carefully review previous posts to tie down the reference. Perhaps we should both be more careful?
You're not alone in that. I gleaned from the previous posts that he was referring to Stacy's reply as well.
__________________
“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore - if they're white!"
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky 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 September 2019, 07:28 PM   #56
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,439
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
You missed the key word in what I said

Here it is; learn its meaning

https://www.google.com/search?ei=3x9...4dUDCAs&uact=5
The context is irrelevant. The source exploring whataboutism make no exceptions for context.
BobTheCoward 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 September 2019, 07:53 PM   #57
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 12,369
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
The context is irrelevant. The source exploring whataboutism make no exceptions for context.

....except that does not address what I said about YOUR claim, which was...

"A factual statement can still be a logical fallacy."

..and I maintain that it cannot so long as the false statement is not in context.

In any case, the accusation of hypocrisy in a tu quoque is itself a false statement (or re-statement) of the person's position... so your claim that "a factual statement can still be a logical fallacy" is still wrong on its face.
__________________
“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore - if they're white!"
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

Last edited by smartcooky; 3rd September 2019 at 07:54 PM.
smartcooky 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 September 2019, 08:03 PM   #58
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,439
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post

In any case, the accusation of hypocrisy in a tu quoque is itself a false statement (or re-statement) of the person's position... so your claim that "a factual statement can still be a logical fallacy" is still wrong on its face.
Wait. Why is that a false statement?
BobTheCoward 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 September 2019, 08:32 PM   #59
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 12,369
Because an unfounded accusation by "A" of hypocrisy by "B" is itself a false statement.

However, if "B" really is intending to be hypocritical, in which case the statement by "A" is not unfounded, but factual. In that case, the statement is no longer a fallacy, its a fact.

This is why context is so important.
__________________
“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore - if they're white!"
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

Last edited by smartcooky; 3rd September 2019 at 08:38 PM.
smartcooky 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 September 2019, 08:35 PM   #60
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,439
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Because an unfounded accusation by "A" of hypocrisy by "B" is itself a false statement unless "B" really is intending to be hypocritical, in which case the statement by "A" is not unfounded, but factual. In that case, the statement is no longer a fallacy, its a fact.

This is why context is so important.
Two points

A) I see nothing in the the definition of hypocrisy that requires intent

B) looking over the articles on whataboutism and I don't see any requirement that the accusation of hypocrisy has to be false.
BobTheCoward 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 September 2019, 08:52 PM   #61
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 12,369
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Two points

A) I see nothing in the the definition of hypocrisy that requires intent
I do.

Eva Kittay, 1982; Bela Szabados and Eldon Soifer, 1998 hold that hypocrisy also requires inauthenticity or the intent to deceive.

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
B) looking over the articles on whataboutism and I don't see any requirement that the accusation of hypocrisy has to be false.
There doesn't need to be, because this is just plain & simple grade-school understanding of the English language

If I accuse you of doing "thing A" and you have not done "thing A", then my accusation is false and any statement I make to that effect is false.
__________________
“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore - if they're white!"
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

Last edited by smartcooky; 3rd September 2019 at 08:56 PM.
smartcooky 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 September 2019, 08:57 PM   #62
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,439
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
I do.

Eva Kittay, 1982; Bela Szabados and Eldon Soifer, 1999 hold that hypocrisy also requires inauthenticity or the intent to deceive.



There doesn't need to be, because this is just plain & simple grade-school understanding of the English language

If I accuse you of doing "thing A" and you have not done "thing A", then my accusation is false and any statement I make to that effect is false.
A) can you provide a link outside a paywall? I would like to read that

B) whataboutism still applies to accurate hypocrisy. The problem has nothing to do with truth. It is entirely because it doesn't address the claim.
BobTheCoward 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 September 2019, 09:16 PM   #63
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,126
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Her reply amounts to whataboutism.
No, it doesn't.

The purpose of a tu quoque is to 'discredit the opponent's argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently'. This is not what Omar did. She said:-

Quote:
If you want to clean up politics, maybe don’t nominate an accused child molester as your Senate candidate?
Like the rest of us, she knows that their goals have nothing to do with 'cleaning up politics'. Nor was their action a 'failure to act consistently'. In fact it was very consistent. We can tell this by what they are accusing her of.

If Omar was accused of being a child molester or something similar, and objected with 'but you nominated an accused child molester as your Senate candidate' it would be whataboutism. But 'controversial' or supposedly 'anti-Semitic' statements and support of the Palestinian people do not in any way equate to child molestation or other crimes that should be the target of 'cleaning up politics'.

Quote:
She did not refute their claim. Instead, she accuses her opponents of hypocrisy. That is whataboutism.
She didn't refute their claim because there is nothing to refute.

The Alabama Republican Party are not acting 'inconsistently' in trying to 'clean up politics', they are not cleaning up at all. They are simply trying to get rid of Omar because she is a Democrat, nothing more. We all know this. And that is not 'cleaning up' politics, it's making it dirtier.

The statement "Republicans talk about cleaning up politics, yet they nominated an accused child molester as their Senate candidate!" is pointing out hypocrisy, but it isn't whataboutism.

Now you could argue, "But she only made that accusation to counter theirs" and you might even be right. But that would be context. And as we all know, context is irrelevant.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets 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 September 2019, 09:26 PM   #64
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,439
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post

Now you could argue, "But she only made that accusation to counter theirs" and you might even be right. But that would be context. And as we all know, context is irrelevant.
That would be criteria, not context. I'm indifferent to the context for the setting. I'm merely calling balls and strikes and require no context for that.
BobTheCoward 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 September 2019, 09:40 PM   #65
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,286
Oh, for the love of....


Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
She used the @ symbol.
I have no idea why the standard usage of the Twitter platform holds so much meaning for you but I guarantee you that it's completely irrelevant.


Quote:
She was responding to their claims.
Yes, you got it! That's it. That's all she did. She made no argument at all which means that she made no fallacies at all. Thus, the entire excuse you're using with which to ignore or dismiss what she said is invalid.


Quote:
Rather than defend her position, she accuses them of hypocrisy
She already DID DEFEND HER POSITION, AT THE TIME EACH WAS INITIALLY RAISED. There is literally no reason to continue to repeat ad nauseum just for people who refuse to educate themselves as to those issues.


Quote:
And whataboutism does not require further being related to the claim. It is a diversionary tactic (and would make a bad diversion to restate your own behavior again and call attention to it).

Rationalwiki again
You can quote dictionaries until the cows come home and it doesn't matter because you're not actually going through the work of explaining why you think you're correct. It's something I despise about ISF in general. People are horny for throwing out fallacy terms left, right, and center and smugly dismissing whatever they think their interlocutor said. Even, or especially (like in your case), when they're completely wrong.

I don't care about your definitions. I don't care about your paraphrasing. All that's important is that you take Ilhan Omar's words and quote them and then explain in enough detail to point out how what was said was fallacious.

First step would be to write out which is her first premise, her second premise, (however many you think she said), and her conclusion. Next, you then point out which premise was a fallacy and how that relates to her conclusion. Then, you can demonstrate how the conclusion is false with other evidence you can obtain.

If you're not willing to do such a simple task, then I think it's fair to conclude that you are unable to and your objections here can be safely ignored.
__________________
A government is a body of people usually - notably - ungoverned.
-Shepard Book

Last edited by The Norseman; 3rd September 2019 at 09:42 PM.
The Norseman 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 September 2019, 09:54 PM   #66
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,439
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post

First step would be to write out which is her first premise, her second premise, (however many you think she said), and her conclusion. Next, you then point out which premise was a fallacy and how that relates to her conclusion. Then, you can demonstrate how the conclusion is false with other evidence you can obtain.

If you're not willing to do such a simple task, then I think it's fair to conclude that you are unable to and your objections here can be safely ignored.
A) I didn't object to anything. I don't object to her use of whataboutism.

B) I'm calling whataboutism a logical fallacy because of its regular appearance on efforts to document logical fallacies. Whataboutism does not follow premise, premise, conclusion. If you feel that is a necessary requirement, I don't care. Call it scootaloo if you want and use find-and-replace when reading my posts.
BobTheCoward 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 September 2019, 10:00 PM   #67
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,439
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post

She already DID DEFEND HER POSITION, AT THE TIME EACH WAS INITIALLY RAISED. There is literally no reason to continue to repeat ad nauseum just for people who refuse to educate themselves as to those issues.
One more thing. I can't find anything that exempts from consideration of scootaloos (doing it for you this time) if it it was addressed when initially raised. It may be necessary to repeat it as nauseum to avoid scootaloos.
BobTheCoward 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 September 2019, 08:06 AM   #68
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 6,340
This is literally down to ******* nonsense words that are made up. I don't believe there is another way to degrade a thread anymore.
__________________
"Circumcision and death threats go together like milk and cookies." - William Parcher

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss
plague311 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 September 2019, 08:10 AM   #69
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,511
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
One more thing. I can't find anything that exempts from consideration of scootaloos (doing it for you this time) if it it was addressed when initially raised. It may be necessary to repeat it as nauseum to avoid scootaloos.

Does that mean "to utter the words while regurgitating/vomiting"?

When I do that, I get nothing but scootaloos.
Cabbage 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 September 2019, 09:26 AM   #70
Beerina
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
 
Beerina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 29,614
Originally Posted by shemp View Post
Ilhan Omar fires back after Alabama Republicans call for her expulsion from Congress




Rep Omar had to waste her precious time responding to these morons:*





*Sincere apologies to any morons on this forum.

Law of excluded middle. They are both morons with horrid positions.
__________________
"Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson

The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales now! More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?
Beerina 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 September 2019, 09:53 AM   #71
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,439
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
Does that mean "to utter the words while regurgitating/vomiting"?

When I do that, I get nothing but scootaloos.
Then quit eating scootaloos for breakfast. Switch to chex.
BobTheCoward 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 September 2019, 10:57 AM   #72
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,511
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Then quit eating scootaloos for breakfast. Switch to chex.

Sound advice.
Cabbage 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 September 2019, 12:53 PM   #73
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,286
Well, looks like another thread successfully bobbed.
__________________
A government is a body of people usually - notably - ungoverned.
-Shepard Book
The Norseman 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 September 2019, 01:08 PM   #74
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 44,955
ANother thread Bobbed.
When will people learn the best way to handle trolls is to ignore them?
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb 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 September 2019, 01:23 PM   #75
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 6,340
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
ANother thread Bobbed.
When will people learn the best way to handle trolls is to ignore them?
It can be enjoyable to engage from time to time. I get caught up in it sometimes because there are situations where, if nothing else, entertaining conversation with various members can come from it.

That being said, sometimes it's just painful to watch. It's tough to take someone seriously who has previously posted that their ideals and views are nonsensical and that they really only communicate in hypothetical situations.
__________________
"Circumcision and death threats go together like milk and cookies." - William Parcher

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss
plague311 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 September 2019, 02:11 PM   #76
Dread Pirate Roberts
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 84
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
ANother thread Bobbed.
When will people learn the best way to handle trolls is to ignore them?
I tried that, but the posts still show up in replies, unfortunately. I wish the ignore feature was smart enough to hide replies with the original quoted as well...
Dread Pirate Roberts 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 September 2019, 02:18 PM   #77
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 6,340
Originally Posted by Dread Pirate Roberts View Post
I tried that, but the posts still show up in replies, unfortunately. I wish the ignore feature was smart enough to hide replies with the original quoted as well...
If you go to your "edit options" section on your profile and scroll towards the bottom there is a "completely hide" posts option. You can try that. I've never used it but it's possible it'll completely hide the post in quoted form as well.
__________________
"Circumcision and death threats go together like milk and cookies." - William Parcher

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss
plague311 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 September 2019, 03:19 PM   #78
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,439
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
This is literally down to ******* nonsense words that are made up. I don't believe there is another way to degrade a thread anymore.
I thought it was obvious why I did it. I only call whataboutism a logical fallacy because it appears on generally accepted lists of logical fallacies. Based on what Norseman wrote about premises and conclusions, whataboutism probably doesn't meet his definition.

But I don't care if it is actually technically a logical fallacy or not. I'm just saying it appears on the generally accepted list. Whether you call that list logical fallacies or that it contains other things besides logical fallacies, if doesn't affect my stance.
BobTheCoward 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 September 2019, 04:02 PM   #79
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 8,755
Originally Posted by Dread Pirate Roberts View Post
I tried that, but the posts still show up in replies, unfortunately. I wish the ignore feature was smart enough to hide replies with the original quoted as well...
Yeah, that's the problem: when someone quotes them in a reply, it shows up.
Stacyhs 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 September 2019, 04:03 PM   #80
Jungle Jim
Graduate Poster
 
Jungle Jim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,096
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
ANother thread Bobbed.
When will people learn the best way to handle trolls is to ignore them?
Here is a list of 10 types of internet trolls: https://www.lifewire.com/types-of-in...trolls-3485894
Bob is #2. You will recognize the posting style of a number of other JREF members in the other nine troll types.
Jungle Jim 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 » USA Politics

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 05:48 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

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.