Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[wierd]

I'm not the one who instantly jumped to ad hominems, and keeps using them.

I don't make any effort to dismiss being a douche. My being a douche is simply not important to the matter debated.

Calling somebody a douche to get out of an argument is an ad hominem. It is a logical fallcy, because being a douche does not make an argument invalid.

[mainiac]

I'm not the one who instantly jumped to ad hominems, and keeps using them.

Put up or shut up.  Show a single damn time that I used an ad hominem to attack your argument.

I have found your personal conduct increasingly distasteful but show a single damn time I used an ad hominem to attack your argument.

[wierd]

And when you are shown to be wrong in the general sense, your tactic is to fall back to technicalities, non-sequitors, and red herrings.

You made a statement that was literally false.  I stated that it was literally false.  Keep spinning buddy, I think we might have discovered a new form of green energy.

Do I win a cookie now?

[GlyphGryph]

No, because there is no ad hominem there.

While it was certainly insulting, insults are not, actually, ad hominems.

[mainiac]

And when you are shown to be wrong in the general sense, your tactic is to fall back to technicalities, non-sequitors, and red herrings.

You made a statement that was literally false.  I stated that it was literally false.  Keep spinning buddy, I think we might have discovered a new form of green energy.

Do I win a cookie now?

Yes you win a chocolate-does-not-know-what-an-ad-hominem-attack-is cookie.

By the way, if you want to know why I am increasingly disrespectful towards you, this is a fine example.

[wierd]

Ad hominem:

Literally, attack against the person. A kind of logical fallacy where an argument is made against the person making it, in the attempt to disqualify the argument.

Here is how the quote above was an ad hominem:

You disagree with a position taken. Rather than counter claim with a specific counter claim, you instead smear my intelligence, by insinuating that I am feeble minded, much like the people who fall for "green energy" schemes that simply cannot achieve energy density parity with existing technologies, out of an ideological self-delusionment.

It isn't an in your face "I think you are an idiot, and find your "spin doctoring" hilarious", but it is the very next best thing, and was stated in the same capacity.

It is thus an ad hominem. Which you are continuing to purpetrate now, by sserting that I am not worthy of nor capable of a rational debate since I am a douche, and openly admit to being such.

My calling you on your ad hominem is not a personal attack. It is an attack on the invocation of an ad hominem. I don't need to be nice.

[GlyphGryph]

Specifically, an ad hominem is where someone uses an irrelevant flaw in your character as an attempt to discredit your argument.

Ad hominem:
"You argue that we shouldn't let politicians create dangerous precedent by giving them exceptional power, but you yourself voted for Obama knowing he was creating dangerous precedents!" (Attempting to point out a problem with the person so that his argument seems weaker.)

Probably not an ad hominem.
"You lying scumbag - you made a claim, and I provided evidence that it was false, and you proceeded to defend the lie by putting out more lies, which I've also bared with further evidence. And frankly, on top of that, you've been rude as all hell. This conversation isn't worth having if this is the way you are going to behave." (Since the topic of the statement is clearly commentary on the debate itself rather than on the topic being discussed, it is a relevant point, and doesn't even attempt to comment on the actual argument or discredit one's argument by discrediting the arguer. It may be another logical fallacy - an attempt to bury the debate by going meta - but it's not an ad hominem )

You disagree with a position taken. Rather than counter claim with a specific counter claim, you instead smear my intelligence, by insinuating that I am feeble minded, much like the people who fall for "green energy" schemes that simply cannot achieve energy density parity with existing technologies, out of an ideological self-delusionment.

It isn't an in your face "I think you are an idiot, and find your "spin doctoring" hilarious", but it is the very next best thing, and was stated in the same capacity.

....wut.

I think you may have been the only person to read it that way.

[mainiac]

"You made a statement that was literally false.  I stated that it was literally false."

------> P therefore !(!P)

Rather than counter claim with a specific counter claim,

My counter claim was 15 words long, in the basic layout of one of the essential logical propositions.

It is true that I did not repeat the half dozen examples I had previously offered, but they were not asked for at the time and it is bad form to repeat examples unnecessarily.

[wierd]

From where I sit, I pretty much sank every specific counter claim he laid earlier, with outside links.

He then resorted to saying I was rude.

Your narrow definition of an ad hominem does not correspond with the accepted one.

http://i.word.com/idictionary/ad%20hominem

Pronunciation: \( )ad-hä-m-nem, -nm\ Function: adjective Etymology: New Latin, literally, to the person Date: 1598 1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect 2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

[lue]

Chill composure... un-derail...

On topic, I would love to see some of the most extreme representatives get fired. I'm tired of all this crap. In any case, I'm expecting every Democrat-supporting group to begin planning their next election campaigns.

2014 should be a fun midterm. 

[wierd]

"You made a statement that was literally false.  I stated that it was literally false."

------> P therefore !(!P)

Rather than counter claim with a specific counter claim,

My counter claim was 15 words long, in the basic layout of one of the essential logical propositions.

It is true that I did not repeat the half dozen examples I had previously offered, but they were not asked for at the time and it is bad form to repeat examples unnecessarily.

Your initial argument was that I lied about the war powers act of 1941 and 1942 still being in effect. Your argument was based on the factual status of its repeal.  I rebutted by saying the powers it provided were not removed. I then cited a similar occurence with the 2003 sodomy finding of the supreme court, which invalidated dozens of sexual criminal statutes, but which are still actively prosecuted.

The revocation of the 1940s war powers acts did not remove the powers given, which was the original argument: granting the powers produces a situation where they cannot be effectively removed.

QED.

[mainiac]

Your initial argument was that I lied about the war powers act of 1941 and 1942 still being in effect.

This is the problem with ceding power to central government, with the expectation that it will be "temporary".  IT NEVER IS.

Yeah, it's sure sucks that we haven't had habeas corpus in this country since 1861.  But I am glad that the government continues to enforce the elections oversight power granted it in the 1964 civil rights act.  Of course, that's nothing compared to the fact that the Alien and Sedition Acts, passed in the Adams administration, NEVER WENT AWAY.  We are stuck with all relics of prior eras, from the first national bank and the second national bank (why are there two, anyway?) to the Full Employment Act in the 1940s establishing that there would be no Federal Reserve independence from congressional oversight.  Now excuse me, I need to flee for my life because I have broken laws regarding miscegenation and sodomy and the feds are onto me because we all know they have had the power to monitor all forms of media since 1917.

Limited government power is important but don't say ridiculously untrue things.

Learn some reading comprehension.

[wierd]

Your initial argument was that I lied about the war powers act of 1941 and 1942 still being in effect.

This is the problem with ceding power to central government, with the expectation that it will be "temporary".  IT NEVER IS.

Yeah, it's sure sucks that we haven't had habeas corpus in this country since 1861.  But I am glad that the government continues to enforce the elections oversight power granted it in the 1964 civil rights act.  Of course, that's nothing compared to the fact that the Alien and Sedition Acts, passed in the Adams administration, NEVER WENT AWAY.  We are stuck with all relics of prior eras, from the first national bank and the second national bank (why are there two, anyway?) to the Full Employment Act in the 1940s establishing that there would be no Federal Reserve independence from congressional oversight.  Now excuse me, I need to flee for my life because I have broken laws regarding miscegenation and sodomy and the feds are onto me because we all know they have had the power to monitor all forms of media since 1917.

Limited government power is important but don't say ridiculously untrue things.

Learn some reading comprehension.

Please be specific about what I am accused of misinterpreting, and avoid an ambiguous situation where question my intelligence. Because the latter is an ad hominem, as per the dictionary definition.

You will also note that I addressed, individually, all of the items in that list. Yes, a portion of the alien and sedition act under adams is very much alive and well exactly as it was, right now. I also linked you directly to the legal code in question.

Yet instead of address this fact, you ignored it, and called me rude.

[SalmonGod]

For the record, mainiac, things would go a fuck of a lot smoother if you wouldn't lay into people you disagree with like this.  Everything was fine before this post.

This is the problem with ceding power to central government, with the expectation that it will be "temporary".  IT NEVER IS.

Yeah, it's sure sucks that we haven't had habeas corpus in this country since 1861.  But I am glad that the government continues to enforce the elections oversight power granted it in the 1964 civil rights act.  Of course, that's nothing compared to the fact that the Alien and Sedition Acts, passed in the Adams administration, NEVER WENT AWAY.  We are stuck with all relics of prior eras, from the first national bank and the second national bank (why are there two, anyway?) to the Full Employment Act in the 1940s establishing that there would be no Federal Reserve independence from congressional oversight.  Now excuse me, I need to flee for my life because I have broken laws regarding miscegenation and sodomy and the feds are onto me because we all know they have had the power to monitor all forms of media since 1917.

Limited government power is important but don't say ridiculously untrue things.

You have a prejudice against anybody who is cynical towards an establishment that you support, and you always respond to such a person by associating them with a conspiracy theorist stereotype.  Then whenever somebody takes predictable offense, you follow up by dancing just out of reach with a smug look on your face.  It's a deeply insulting frequent trend with you, and has caused many fights on these boards.

[lemon10]

Can both of you (wierd and mainiac) just stop arguing please?

I am aware it would require one of you acting like a reasonable adult and letting your opponent get the last word, but it would really be far healthier for the thread. I think everyone would be happier if The Toad doesn't need to get involved.