Lol, properly argue. You jumped that shark in your very first comment. The fact that you still pretend that asking for proof of non-existence isn't the Burden of proof fallacy demonstrates that you can neither accept logic, use logic or participate in a logical argument. Pretending that pointing out that it is a burden of proof fallacy is a strawman just makes you below average. You asked for proof of non existence. You very clearly did:"You have yet to show irrefutable evidence McCain has a complete lack of qualities."Your argument was that I didn't show irrefutable evidence of non-existence. Put your nose in it like a person would do to a dog who s**ts in the house. "You’re not from this country, so you obviously don’t know the level of energy Palin provided to the conservative base of the Republican party."An ad hominem in response to an ad hominem. The fact remains:<a class="user" href="http://www.nobodyasked.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/bush-mccain-hug-72.jpg">http://www.nobodyasked.com/wp-content/uploads/2007 ...</a>He represents the same government you had for the last 8 years and supports this same government, he did everything in his power to get that government "elected". His own words, again. And that government is criminal. It's guilty of crimes against humanity and crimes of war. He supports it and he helped it commit those crimes. John McCain supports a criminal government, the one that has the lowest approval rating since ratings exist, and participated in its crimes and helped it get to power.There is still absolutely nothing you could say against that. You can't deny it because I got this information directly from his mouth. He said it, I just repeat it. And he supported the veto of a ban on torture, that's what he said, not me. Strangely enough, his plan doesn't include a ban on torture, incarceration without trial or any other crime against humanity your country commits on a daily basis. I may swear a lot, I may insult you a lot, but those aren't logical fallacies. Just decoration. You, on the other hand, can't use logic properly. "This is a strawman, because it isn’t guilt by association – that only works if your claiming Barack believes the same things those associates do"No, that's not what guilt by association is. Here's an example:Libard and Ferris are discussing who they are going to vote for as the next department chair in the philosophy department. Libard is a radical feminist and she despises Wayne and Bill, who are two sexist professors in the department.Ferris: "So, who are you going to vote for?"Libard: "Well, I was thinking about voting for Jane, since she is a woman and there has never been a woman chair here. But, I think that Steve will do an excellent job. He has a lot of clout in the university and he is a decent person."Ferris: "You know, Wayne and Bill are supporting him. They really like the idea of having Steve as the new chair. I never thought I'd see you and those two pigs on the same side."Libard: "Well, maybe it is time that we have a woman as chair." <a class="user" href="http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/guilt-by-association.html">http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/guilt-by- ...</a>Guilt by association is making any argument that people or arguments are "bad" or "wrong" because of who they can be associated with. Like working at the same place a never convicted "domestic terrorist" who caused dozens of dollars of dammages when you were 8. And even worst, you f**king dumbass, you accused me of being a supporter of him, as an attack on me. So that's a double fallacy in a single sentence. And since I know you'll deny it again, I'm going to shove your nose in it, again:"And the fact that you're professing support for a domestic terrorist like Ayres puts you right there in the luny bin beside him."Pro-tip: don't try to use fallacy accusations when you argue against mathematicians.
tkstockOct 10, 2008
So, you're saying that McCain has a complete lack of qualities because I can't provide proof of the non-existence of evidence that shows he has a complete lack of qualities.That's like saying we didn't land on the moon because I can't provide proof of the non-existence of evidence that shows we didn't land on the moon. Now THAT's a retarded argument."She was a fantastic pick"<a class="user" href="http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&channel=s&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=palin+best+vp+choice&btnG=Search&meta=">http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a ...</a>Yeah, I can do that too...."His numbers dropped 7% when she was announced."His numbers dropped 7% after the Democratic convention, which is not only normal, it was expected. You should read more on the subject."Which part?" How about all of it. It shows a complete lack of research and a simple regurgitation of the party line. If you want to find out more about Sarah Palin, you don't go to sites like DailyKOS and Huffington Post, or the DNC site, or Obama's site. You got to non-partisan sources and read actual records of accomplishments."I can back it all up in 15 minutes of googling, using her own damn words, again."Please do. And if you do, provide a complete accounting, not the snippets that are posted on DailyKOS or HuffPo. Start off at FactCheck.org - they're a decent source. Even Wikipedia provides sources for all it's material."Guilt by association is a logical fallacy"It's only a logical fallacy if you're trying to prove that Obama holds the same beliefs as the people he associates with. Not many are saying that, the argument is that his judgment is reckless at best, outright subversive at worst."You never offered a rebuttal."HAHAHAHAHA...<a class="user" href="http://digg.com/politics/CNN_Finds_Extensive_Ties_Between_Barack_Obama_and_Ayers?t=19534325#c19568044">http://digg.com/politics/CNN_Finds_Extensive_Ties_ ...</a>"There was absolutely nothing you could say about the fact that his judgement is demonstrated to be s**t"Other than the fact he was right on Bosnia<a class="user" href="http://www.iht.com/articles/1996/01/08/qanda.t.php">http://www.iht.com/articles/1996/01/08/qanda.t.php</a>He was right on the surge<a class="user" href="http://www.nypost.com/seven/03202007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/why_its_working_____opedcolumnists_gordon_cucullu.htm?page=0">http://www.nypost.com/seven/03202007/postopinion/o ...</a>he was right on the Freddie and Fannie crisis<a class="user" href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=109-s20060525-16&bill=s109-190">http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=109- ...</a> The list goes on if you want more."Voting for a guy who doesn't oppose torturing people and invading countries for oil."If invading Iraq was about oil, why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia? Canada? Both of those countries have bigger repositories of oil than Iraq.And I've already shown he opposes torture using the sources YOU provided. Your argument has become more and more desperate, and it shows by your use of foul language and increased personal attacks against people that you obviously know nothing about, and it's equally obvious you don't care to learn.
Closed AccountOct 13, 2008
Lol, properly argue. You jumped that shark in your very first comment. The fact that you still pretend that asking for proof of non-existence isn't the Burden of proof fallacy demonstrates that you can neither accept logic, use logic or participate in a logical argument. Pretending that pointing out that it is a burden of proof fallacy is a strawman just makes you below average. You asked for proof of non existence. You very clearly did:"You have yet to show irrefutable evidence McCain has a complete lack of qualities."Your argument was that I didn't show irrefutable evidence of non-existence. Put your nose in it like a person would do to a dog who s**ts in the house. "You’re not from this country, so you obviously don’t know the level of energy Palin provided to the conservative base of the Republican party."An ad hominem in response to an ad hominem. The fact remains:<a class="user" href="http://www.nobodyasked.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/bush-mccain-hug-72.jpg">http://www.nobodyasked.com/wp-content/uploads/2007 ...</a>He represents the same government you had for the last 8 years and supports this same government, he did everything in his power to get that government "elected". His own words, again. And that government is criminal. It's guilty of crimes against humanity and crimes of war. He supports it and he helped it commit those crimes. John McCain supports a criminal government, the one that has the lowest approval rating since ratings exist, and participated in its crimes and helped it get to power.There is still absolutely nothing you could say against that. You can't deny it because I got this information directly from his mouth. He said it, I just repeat it. And he supported the veto of a ban on torture, that's what he said, not me. Strangely enough, his plan doesn't include a ban on torture, incarceration without trial or any other crime against humanity your country commits on a daily basis. I may swear a lot, I may insult you a lot, but those aren't logical fallacies. Just decoration. You, on the other hand, can't use logic properly. "This is a strawman, because it isn’t guilt by association – that only works if your claiming Barack believes the same things those associates do"No, that's not what guilt by association is. Here's an example:Libard and Ferris are discussing who they are going to vote for as the next department chair in the philosophy department. Libard is a radical feminist and she despises Wayne and Bill, who are two sexist professors in the department.Ferris: "So, who are you going to vote for?"Libard: "Well, I was thinking about voting for Jane, since she is a woman and there has never been a woman chair here. But, I think that Steve will do an excellent job. He has a lot of clout in the university and he is a decent person."Ferris: "You know, Wayne and Bill are supporting him. They really like the idea of having Steve as the new chair. I never thought I'd see you and those two pigs on the same side."Libard: "Well, maybe it is time that we have a woman as chair." <a class="user" href="http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/guilt-by-association.html">http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/guilt-by- ...</a>Guilt by association is making any argument that people or arguments are "bad" or "wrong" because of who they can be associated with. Like working at the same place a never convicted "domestic terrorist" who caused dozens of dollars of dammages when you were 8. And even worst, you f**king dumbass, you accused me of being a supporter of him, as an attack on me. So that's a double fallacy in a single sentence. And since I know you'll deny it again, I'm going to shove your nose in it, again:"And the fact that you're professing support for a domestic terrorist like Ayres puts you right there in the luny bin beside him."Pro-tip: don't try to use fallacy accusations when you argue against mathematicians.
glynthOct 18, 2008
"Debunked?" Did you even watch the video? The video from that oh-so-horribly-biased-to-the-Right ** C N N **?
these3remainOct 27, 2008
Wow - you finally posted something at the level that most Obamobots can comprehend.
these3remainOct 27, 2008
@Awspire - EXCELLENT response and all too true.