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.
Tags !MOD BOX WARNING! , Andrew McCabe , donald trump , George Papadopoulos , Michael Cohen , Paul Manafort , Robert Mueller , Trump controversies , Trump-Russia connections

Closed Thread
Old 8th February 2019, 12:12 PM   #4001
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
And where exactly is his proof that CNN was 'tipped off' in advance?

From: https://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...ut-about-stone
Whitaker did not share if the Department of Justice (DOJ) has proof that CNN was told about the Stone raid in advance.

What you have here is a statement, without any sort of evidence, from an individual who has been critical of the Mueller probe in the past and who ignored a suggestion from an ethics advisor that he step aside from being involved in the investigation.

Frankly, you should be worried that an individual who is so keen to be involved in such conspiracy theory nonsense is about to take a key position in the government.
You kidding right? You do know he is the acting ATTORNEY GENERAL of the United States of America right???

He is literally the single person in the entire world that is best placed to order an investigation of this right? If he is concerned about it, that is literally the only thing that freaking matters at this point.

I swear sometimes... posts here make me laugh out loud....
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 Back to Top
Old 8th February 2019, 12:13 PM   #4002
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,050
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Wrong:

"Seth then inflicts on his innocent and bluepilled readers the grossly unfounded claim that the investigation has "shocked the Senate." That is a spectacularly idiotic opinion that is directly at odds with the actual article that he is purporting to interpret for his gullible readers."

Substantive attack on the very argument he makes with citation to the actual article.

Next, it is not fallacious to attack the bias/lack of knowledge/idiocy of someone purporting to provide an opinion about an article.

Say, everyone has a chance to learn something today!
Ok, my bad. My correction:

It's an ad hominem with a hint of TBD's opinion hidden inside.
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 Back to Top
Old 8th February 2019, 12:14 PM   #4003
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 81,565
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Remember the other day I posted a link to a letter Stomne's counsel sent to Congress?

Yeah, **** just got real:



You are welcome.
I'm sure this means something real important to you.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th February 2019, 12:18 PM   #4004
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
Ok, my bad. My correction:

It's an ad hominem with a hint of TBD's opinion hidden inside.
So, not an ad hominem.

cool cool consensus is cool
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 Back to Top
Old 8th February 2019, 12:19 PM   #4005
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 81,565
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
So, not an ad hominem.
Rule of so.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th February 2019, 12:24 PM   #4006
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 16,645
Whittaker is a bad person and I'm fine not considering his opinion.
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 Back to Top
Old 8th February 2019, 12:30 PM   #4007
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Whittaker is a bad person and I'm fine not considering his opinion.
You are aware that there are certain people who are in certain positions of power whereby their opinions become actions right?

This is one of those situations involving one of those people.

Accordingly, your feelings might be as effective as Xerxes and the Hellespont
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 Back to Top
Old 8th February 2019, 12:32 PM   #4008
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 81,565
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Accordingly, your feelings might be as effective as Xerxes and the Hellespont
That straight needed a good whipping.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th February 2019, 12:33 PM   #4009
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 12,936
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Quote:
From: https://thehill.com/
Whitaker did not share if the Department of Justice (DOJ) has proof that CNN was told about the Stone raid in advance.

What you have here is a statement, without any sort of evidence, from an individual who has been critical of the Mueller probe in the past and who ignored a suggestion from an ethics advisor that he step aside from being involved in the investigation.

Frankly, you should be worried that an individual who is so keen to be involved in such conspiracy theory nonsense is about to take a key position in the government.
You kidding right? You do know he is the acting ATTORNEY GENERAL of the United States of America right???
Uhh... so?

Trump has a track record of appointing people who are either incompetent or criminal to his cabinet. The fact that he is the acting attorney general does not mean that we should automatically assume that he 1) is competent, 2) is acting with integrity and without bias.
Quote:
He is literally the single person in the entire world that is best placed to order an investigation of this right?
The fact that he is in a position to order an investigation does not necessarily mean that it is actually a good idea to order an investigation or that one is warranted.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th February 2019, 12:43 PM   #4010
Norman Alexander
Philosopher
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 5,208
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Trump Tweets

Now we find out that Adam Schiff was spending time together in Aspen with Glenn Simpson of GPS Fusion, who wrote the fake and discredited Dossier, even though Simpson was testifying before Schiff. John Solomon of
@thehill
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Trump Tweets

The mainstream media has refused to cover the fact that the head of the VERY important Senate Intelligence Committee, after two years of intensive study and access to Intelligence that only they could get, just stated that they have found NO COLLUSION between “Trump” & Russia....

...It is all a GIANT AND ILLEGAL HOAX, developed long before the election itself, but used as an excuse by the Democrats as to why Crooked Hillary Clinton lost the Election! Someday the Fake News Media will turn honest & report that Donald J. Trump was actually a GREAT Candidate!
Betting this is not Trump's thumbs. Trump can't write much more than his name, and "doesn't do emails", i.e. write long stuff. These have no spelling errors, long complex sentences with correct punctuation, correct(ish) capitalisation, Donny mentioned in third person instead of "ME! ME! ME!". This seems to be more common these days. Is Trump now dictating tweet content and someone else tidying it up for him before sending?
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th February 2019, 12:43 PM   #4011
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Ay, chihuahua! Actually at the point where not liking Trump and his appointments means that they should not investigate potential leaks because reasons.

Que será, será
Whatever will be, will be
The future's not ours to see
Que será, será
What will be, will be
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 Back to Top
Old 8th February 2019, 12:50 PM   #4012
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,050
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
So, not an ad hominem.

cool cool consensus is cool
Poor reading comprehension? There are remedial classes for that.
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 Back to Top
Old 8th February 2019, 12:54 PM   #4013
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 11,443
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
You see, you are wrong, what Seth is purporting to do is RESTATE the sentence in the article, and give it his own spin in order to support his conclusions.

Sentence: "[Burr] acknowledges now that the investigation is broader, and perhaps more consequential, than it has long been thought to be."

Restatement: "So America doesn't realize how much troubling material the Senate has found—or how far-flung and important to our future the material is." That is a profound exaggeration of what the actual quote is (particularly in context) and yet you purport to claim it is not controversial?

That is amazing.

I get that am the bad guy for suggesting that people stop letting Seth to tell them what to think with his hysterical hyperbole and web of lies.
The word "so" indicates he is drawing a conclusion, not restating the sentence. Were he doing the latter, he would've written "in other words" or "i.e.", more than likely.

You are a native speaker, I think. Surely, you should know the various meanings of "so". You can look at a dictionary (see the entry for conjunction, 3a) and see that "so" often means "therefore" or "thus", and does not mean "in other words".

Example: God loves the Penguins and God is almighty. So, the Pens will win the Cup again.

Now, I don't intend to teach you basic reading skills or, indeed, enter anything approximating a long discussion, so this is the last I'll say on the matter.
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 Back to Top
Old 8th February 2019, 01:00 PM   #4014
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
Poor reading comprehension? There are remedial classes for that.
Oh dear, I thought you were just ignoring this part:

"Next, it is not fallacious to attack the bias/lack of knowledge/idiocy of someone purporting to provide an opinion about an article."

You did not comprehend it? Remedial class in understanding critical thinking coming up hot and ready:

It is not fallacious to attack the credibility, bias or credentials of someone offering an opinion of a subject. Indeed, it might be an ad hominem, but it is not fallacious. Indeed, what we see all too often is people inflicting appeals to false experts in lieu of actual analysis. And pointing that out is, as we already covered, not fallacious!

Remedial critical thinking 202.

Your faithfully Professor TBD
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 Back to Top
Old 8th February 2019, 01:00 PM   #4015
WilliamSeger
Illuminator
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,535
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
falls down dead, I am actually surprised that someone tried to actually show how the big dog was wrong! Well done.

Of course you tried to show it by using a definition of formal fallacy (an invalid inference that doesn't necessarily follow from the premises) as opposed to an informal fallacy (an informal fallacy originates in a reasoning error other than a flaw in the logical form of the argument) and given that an ad hominem fallacy is an informal fallacy...

Well, at least you tried, and maybe learned something.
I'd say an ad hominem argument might be a formal or informal fallacy depending on how it's used -- specifically, what conclusion it draws -- but you're dodging the fact that informal "arguments" also consist of premises and conclusions. If you could please identify the "reasoning error" you see in that post, we can argue about how to categorize it.
__________________
"We're done! We're done! GET OUT!"
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th February 2019, 01:02 PM   #4016
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
The word "so" indicates he is drawing a conclusion, not restating the sentence. Were he doing the latter, he would've written "in other words" or "i.e.", more than likely.

You are a native speaker, I think. Surely, you should know the various meanings of "so". You can look at a dictionary (see the entry for conjunction, 3a) and see that "so" often means "therefore" or "thus", and does not mean "in other words".

Example: God loves the Penguins and God is almighty. So, the Pens will win the Cup again.

Now, I don't intend to teach you basic reading skills or, indeed, enter anything approximating a long discussion, so this is the last I'll say on the matter.
Good idea, because oof.
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 Back to Top
Old 8th February 2019, 01:04 PM   #4017
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 16,645
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
You are aware that there are certain people who are in certain positions of power whereby their opinions become actions right?

This is one of those situations involving one of those people.

Accordingly, your feelings might be as effective as Xerxes and the Hellespont
His concern about the raid adds nothing to the discussion about the raid. Even if he took some action, it doesn't change the reality about the raid.
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 Back to Top
Old 8th February 2019, 01:05 PM   #4018
Stacko
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,837
In a notice given to Roger Stone, the government disclosed that evidence relevant to his case was “derived from search warrants executed” in the investigation that led to the GRU indictment.
No, collusion!
Stacko is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th February 2019, 01:07 PM   #4019
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 81,565
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
It is not fallacious to attack the credibility, bias or credentials of someone offering an opinion of a subject. Indeed, it might be an ad hominem, but it is not fallacious.
No, it might not be an ad hominem. That's a fallacy.

Once again, TBD swings and misses.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th February 2019, 01:07 PM   #4020
Delphic Oracle
Illuminator
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 3,023
Oh look, it's 90% wasted bandwidth and eye strain day again today.

How are this many of us so helplessly reflexive?
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th February 2019, 01:10 PM   #4021
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,050
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Oh dear, I thought you were just ignoring this part:

"Next, it is not fallacious to attack the bias/lack of knowledge/idiocy of someone purporting to provide an opinion about an article."

You did not comprehend it? Remedial class in understanding critical thinking coming up hot and ready:

It is not fallacious to attack the credibility, bias or credentials of someone offering an opinion of a subject. Indeed, it might be an ad hominem, but it is not fallacious. Indeed, what we see all too often is people inflicting appeals to false experts in lieu of actual analysis. And pointing that out is, as we already covered, not fallacious!

Remedial critical thinking 202.

Your faithfully Professor TBD
Well, it looks like we're in agreement, you just wanted to whine and bitch about me being correct.

Fine by me!
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 Back to Top
Old 8th February 2019, 01:10 PM   #4022
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
I'd say an ad hominem argument might be a formal or informal fallacy depending on how it's used -- specifically, what conclusion it draws -- but you're dodging the fact that informal "arguments" also consist of premises and conclusions. If you could please identify the "reasoning error" you see in that post, we can argue about how to categorize it.
You'd say... rolls eyes...

I am not dodging anything, you used the definition of a formal fallacy to describe an informal fallacy, that is what you did, not The Big Dog.

let me help:

Attorneys general can order investigations
Bob ordered an investigation
Bob is the attorney general.

Formal fallacy or informal fallacy?

Attorneys general can order an investigation.
Whitaker is the attorney general
Whitaker can order an investigation

response: Whitaker was appointed by orange man and orangeman bad!

Formal fallacy or informal fallacy?
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 Back to Top
Old 8th February 2019, 01:15 PM   #4023
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
Oh look, it's 90% wasted bandwidth and eye strain day again today.

How are this many of us so helplessly reflexive?
amen, sometimes i don't know why i bother, but i hold out hope that people can read my astute analysis and actually learn.

The Parable of the Sower is my guidestone, i guess.
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 Back to Top
Old 8th February 2019, 02:01 PM   #4024
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 18,285
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
Oh look, it's 90% wasted bandwidth and eye strain day again today.

How are this many of us so helplessly reflexive?
I think you must have meant:

So, how are this many of us so helplessly reflexive?
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th February 2019, 02:04 PM   #4025
WilliamSeger
Illuminator
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,535
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
You'd say... rolls eyes...

I am not dodging anything...
Then why didn't you do what I asked? Here's the post in question; can you please state the syllogism you're claiming is fallacious:
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
It's probably worth pointing out that Big League Politics was founded by people who left Breitbart and the Daily Caller because those outlets were too liberal.
__________________
"We're done! We're done! GET OUT!"
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th February 2019, 02:09 PM   #4026
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 18,495
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
amen, sometimes i don't know why i bother,
Bother with what? Posting "K" and pointless smilies? How hard is that?

Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
but i hold out hope that people can read my astute analysis and actually learn.
Learn what? That your opinions are invariable wrong?

Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
The Parable of the Sower is my guidestone, i guess.
Surely you must be aware of the opinion of most here and of your holy book. If one were to apply such superstitious nonsense, Trump would be burned at the stake.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th February 2019, 02:18 PM   #4027
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
Then why didn't you do what I asked? Here's the post in question; can you please state the syllogism you're claiming is fallacious:
oopsie daisy! You 'accidentally' cut off the key part of my post. here it is:

"I am not dodging anything, you used the definition of a formal fallacy to describe an informal fallacy, that is what you did, not The Big Dog."

You do recognize that fallacious statements can be fallacious without being a syllogism, right?

Indeed I just gave you an example of one in the post which you just incredibly deleted!

Quote:
Attorneys general can order an investigation.
Whitaker is the attorney general
Whitaker can order an investigation

response: Whitaker was appointed by orange man and orangeman bad!
Never thought I would have to give rudimentary logic lessons
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 Back to Top
Old 8th February 2019, 03:29 PM   #4028
WilliamSeger
Illuminator
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,535
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
oopsie daisy! You 'accidentally' cut off the key part of my post. here it is:

"I am not dodging anything, you used the definition of a formal fallacy to describe an informal fallacy, that is what you did, not The Big Dog."

You do recognize that fallacious statements can be fallacious without being a syllogism, right?

Indeed I just gave you an example of one in the post which you just incredibly deleted!



Never thought I would have to give rudimentary logic lessons
Your example "fallacious statement" is just an insulting subjective opinion, completely irrelevant to the argument presented. But I'd accept that that as an informal fallacy if it was really intended as a rebuttal to the stated argument, in which case there would be an implicit syllogism that's fallacious because it's simply irrelevant.

You still haven't explained what that has to do with this case. Your first "expert analysis" of the post in question was that "none of those organizations existed when he was in medical school and therefore it seems very fallacious." When pressed to make sense of that, you claimed that the fallacy was "attacking the messenger" but you still haven't explained why pointing out the history of the site owners is any kind of "attack." Where is the "reasoning error" you're claiming?
__________________
"We're done! We're done! GET OUT!"
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th February 2019, 03:31 PM   #4029
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 81,565
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
oopsie daisy! You 'accidentally' cut off the key part of my post.
That is an oxymoron. There's no such thing as a key part of your posts.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th February 2019, 03:33 PM   #4030
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post

You still haven't explained what that has to do with this case.
Because the example you are bringing up indeed has literally nothing at all to do with the Mueller investigation.

/by the way, ad hominem falls under the general heading of informal fallacies of relevance

Last edited by The Big Dog; 8th February 2019 at 03:42 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 Back to Top
Old 8th February 2019, 03:57 PM   #4031
ChrisBFRPKY
Master Poster
 
ChrisBFRPKY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,970
Isn't arguing about arguments kinda like planning to make plans?
Chris B.
__________________
One could choose to be civil though and still disagree. For example, since I know Bigfoot does exist, I don't call others "idiot" just because they're uneducated on the subject and share a different view based on that lack of experience. Chris B.
ChrisBFRPKY is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th February 2019, 04:44 PM   #4032
WilliamSeger
Illuminator
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,535
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Because the example you are bringing up indeed has literally nothing at all to do with the Mueller investigation.
Correct: It came up in the thread about the mess in Virginia -- you brought it up here.

Quote:
/by the way, ad hominem falls under the general heading of informal fallacies of relevance
And again, that depends on how it's used, and you're still dodging. I'm asking you to demonstrate the "reasoning error" in the post you claimed was "fallacious." That post does not appear to be either an argument or a rebuttal to an argument, but an assertion of historical fact. If you think it was irrelevant, that's your opinion, not a "fallacy." I think you hit the nail on the head when you said you weren't talking about "logical" argument.
__________________
"We're done! We're done! GET OUT!"
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th February 2019, 04:53 PM   #4033
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 81,565
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
Isn't arguing about arguments kinda like planning to make plans?
Chris B.
Yeah but that's our main exports, on this forum.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th February 2019, 05:38 PM   #4034
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 11,409
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
You are aware that there are certain people who are in certain positions of power whereby their opinions become actions right?

Its a pity you don't understand this principle as regards your Dear Leader.
__________________
#THEYAREUS
The Mueller Report must be released to Congress in full - If Trump has nothing to hide, then he should also have nothing to fear!

Last edited by smartcooky; 8th February 2019 at 05:41 PM.
smartcooky 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 Back to Top
Old 8th February 2019, 05:51 PM   #4035
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 11,409
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
People do that to your arguments all of the time. Your ******** article you linked to the other day has been proven to be nothing other than dumbass conspiracy theory nonsense that you defended with rigor. Now it's being completely ignored because you couldn't find any credible evidence. Whenever you're confronted with facts you go into this tap dance of addressing an "audience" followed by 2-3 snide comments, that are all substance free. If that fails you project the fallacies you don't understand (tu quoque and ad hominem) on others to try and disregard the factual representation. While entertaining to point out the flaws, the conversation itself is garbage.
B b b b but.... the metadata!!
__________________
#THEYAREUS
The Mueller Report must be released to Congress in full - If Trump has nothing to hide, then he should also have nothing to fear!
smartcooky 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 Back to Top
Old 8th February 2019, 05:56 PM   #4036
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 11,409
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Remember the other day I posted a link to a letter Stomne's counsel sent to Congress?

Yeah, **** just got real:



You are welcome.
Wait... you're quoting Roger Stone and Matthew Whitaker to support your BS claim?

Oh puh-lease! Bring me a laughing dog....

__________________
#THEYAREUS
The Mueller Report must be released to Congress in full - If Trump has nothing to hide, then he should also have nothing to fear!
smartcooky 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 Back to Top
Old 8th February 2019, 06:29 PM   #4037
I Am The Scum
Illuminator
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,813
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Attorneys general can order investigations
Bob ordered an investigation
Bob is the attorney general.

Formal fallacy or informal fallacy?

Attorneys general can order an investigation.
Whitaker is the attorney general
Whitaker can order an investigation

response: Whitaker was appointed by orange man and orangeman bad!

Formal fallacy or informal fallacy?
Neither of these are arguments. None of the statements contain an informal fallacy.

Happy to help!
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 Back to Top
Old 8th February 2019, 07:00 PM   #4038
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
 
a_unique_person's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 40,111
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
As for The Big Dog's spin, I can only suggest that those who are so inclined read the thread for themselves to understand the context that he is either missing or trying to distract from and make up their own minds.

I was going to but decided it was time to clean my navel.
__________________
Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes
a_unique_person is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th February 2019, 07:51 PM   #4039
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,271
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
You kidding right? You do know he is the acting ATTORNEY GENERAL of the United States of America right???

He is literally the single person in the entire world that is best placed to order an investigation of this right? If he is concerned about it, that is literally the only thing that freaking matters at this point.
He is also literally the single person in the entire world that is best placed to order an investigation of Government wrong doing in 9/11 too, does that mean that if he got concerned over it being an inside job that such an investigation or belief would have any validity?

Quote:
I swear sometimes... posts here make me laugh out loud....
Yes, your posts are often hilarious, though I doubt you meant them to be.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th February 2019, 10:23 PM   #4040
Travis
Misanthrope of the Mountains
 
Travis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 23,893
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
Ahh, Mensch. With that said... you really, really don't have to fall for believing something like this to be true just because you want it to be true. I would recommend making a note of the claim and just... letting it lie, for now, unless you want to seriously investigate it. Don't depend on it without further evidence, in other words.

I am content to just say that I'll believe it when other people verify it.



I wasn't familiar with any of the players in that thread and, man, it was quite the twitter rabbit hole that got me there.
__________________
"Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com
Zingiber Officinale

Travis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

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 09:52 PM.
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.