Thanks for helping to bolster my argument....
King ChickenHawk Answers Questions From Brave Soldiers
- Thread starter ZZZzzzzzzz
- Start date
No problem, man, anytime! I'm just working on another one which will bolster your argument that you often use the technique of switching focus from the message to the messenger to evade responsibility for your assertions and errors. I'll have that done for you later today.
Best Regards,
Nik
Please, do. I am sure that project of yours is a great use of your time and depth of experience and knowledge.
However, you are not actually making the case for how illogical ad hominem attacks are in context of an argument....more along the lines of demonstrating how some people are such dumbshits.
What most people don't understand (which is why the right wing has been so successful in smear tactics and ad hominem methods, they are appealing to a red state mentality) is that a hypocritical messenger or a non hypocritical messenger don't have any impact on the logical truth of an argument they are presenting.
Most people also don't understand the difference between internet flaming and an ad hominem fallacy either...
For instance, I could call you a worthless piece of dog poo, but if you were not making any kind of argument that I was attempting to weaken by a personal attack, then my calling you a worthless piece of dog poo would not be an ad hominem fallacy, it would be simple flaming (or pointing out the obvious as the case may be).
Too complicated a concept for most folks around here to grok...the difference between an ad hominem fallacy and simple flaming or truthful descriptive language.
However, you are not actually making the case for how illogical ad hominem attacks are in context of an argument....more along the lines of demonstrating how some people are such dumbshits.
What most people don't understand (which is why the right wing has been so successful in smear tactics and ad hominem methods, they are appealing to a red state mentality) is that a hypocritical messenger or a non hypocritical messenger don't have any impact on the logical truth of an argument they are presenting.
Most people also don't understand the difference between internet flaming and an ad hominem fallacy either...
For instance, I could call you a worthless piece of dog poo, but if you were not making any kind of argument that I was attempting to weaken by a personal attack, then my calling you a worthless piece of dog poo would not be an ad hominem fallacy, it would be simple flaming (or pointing out the obvious as the case may be).
Too complicated a concept for most folks around here to grok...the difference between an ad hominem fallacy and simple flaming or truthful descriptive language.
Right, and I am sure that in the 27 examples I gave of your potty mouth, there is not one in there where you were attempting to weaken the argument of the member to whom the profanity was addressed.
Actually, it's perfect, isn't it. If someone posts with an elucidation of one of your evasions, lies, contradictions or assertions, and you respond with a post like (I will choose from your own repertoire)
'stick a pole up your ass and lick it'
it is impossible to prove that you are attempting to weaken their argument by ad hominem, even though everyone knows that is what you are doing.
The more I examine your techniques, the more I realize that Rearden has you absolutely, totally, 100% figured out.
Oh, I am sure the the ET members are deeply offended by the use of the word shit, turd and ass.
LOL...
LOL...
???
Offended? Who said anything about that?
Just pointing out the hypocrisy of your charge that others use ad hominem against you, ET's resident King of ad hominem.
and Z.... I hate to tell you this, but I highly doubt there is anyone on here who is offended by anything you say.
Go grab a coffee and get back to me. You're not at your best this morning
I'll leave the last word for you, then let's get back on topic, now that I've owned you .... for the 10th time this week.
Your hypocrisy argument is failed, each and every time it is presented, as the arguments I make are not built on the foundation of my own personal integrity, or lack of personal integrity. I am not say "trust me" as Bush constantly implies that we should trust what he says to be true because he is saying it is true.
You just demonstrated, classically I might add, the nature of the ad hominem fallacy, and why only dimwits fall for it.
If the arguments I make were built constructed on the foundation of non hypocrisy, then demonstrating hypocrisy would weaken the argument.
That is not happening, as I am not placing my own hypocrisy or non hypocrisy as the foundation of the arguments, so go ahead and continue with your illogical arguments and fallacy, it is funny to watch....
You just demonstrated, classically I might add, the nature of the ad hominem fallacy, and why only dimwits fall for it.
If the arguments I make were built constructed on the foundation of non hypocrisy, then demonstrating hypocrisy would weaken the argument.
That is not happening, as I am not placing my own hypocrisy or non hypocrisy as the foundation of the arguments, so go ahead and continue with your illogical arguments and fallacy, it is funny to watch....
Quote from traderNik:
???
Offended? Who said anything about that?
Just pointing out the hypocrisy of your charge that others use ad hominem against you, ET's resident King of ad hominem.
and Z.... I hate to tell you this, but I highly doubt there is anyone on here who is offended by anything you say.
Go grab a coffee and get back to me. You're not at your best this morning
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
oh my god
LOLOLOLOLOL