Then and Now

Dorian Gray said:
"Someone attacks a liberal and the very next post is a tu quoque on a conservative. (Or vice versa)", but now you're saying both sides are guilty? Isn't that what negativ's post implied?
Click to expand...

I was talking about how both sides are guilty of the tu quoque fallacy in this forum. I wish both sides would stop it.

Negativ was trying to say Republicans are guilty of changing statements too. That is irrelevant to the OP.
 
Last edited:
KingMerv00 said:
Both sides of the political spectrum are guilty and I will object to bad logic anywhere I see it regardless of the target. Hopefully, my shrill whining will teach people how petty their logical fallacies are.
Click to expand...

False equivalence fallacy.

Daredelvis
 
Skeptic said:
It's not that Obama is responsible for the oil leak, but you'd expect someone who said his own nomination for the presidency is the moment the oceans started to recede and the planet began to heal would be able to fix this stuff in a jiffy. Can't he just talk the oil spill into stopping with soft power and diplomacy, just like he's stopping Iran from getting nukes that way?
Click to expand...

Can´t you and your pals stop the oil spill by slandering liberals and denying reality? Or maybe you could declare war on, I don´t know, perhaps Liechtenstein or so, in a War Against Oil Spills?
 
Skeptic said:
It's not that Obama is responsible for the oil leak, but you'd expect someone who said his own nomination for the presidency is the moment the oceans started to recede and the planet began to heal would be able to fix this stuff in a jiffy. Can't he just talk the oil spill into stopping with soft power and diplomacy, just like he's stopping Iran from getting nukes that way?
Click to expand...

Context FAIL, "Skeptic". Your misquote is not only dishonest, it's stupid. You provided the link to the speech that prefaces that cherry picked quote with "if we are willing to work for it". If you're going to be dishonest, at least be smart about it.

Or better yet, do something different and try living up to your username.
 
If you want to see unity between the liberals and conservatives in this thread, just head over to the 9/11 conspiracies forum, where both sides of the political spectrum unite to take on the insane.

Edit: I probably should include some relevance in my post to make it on topic, so here it is: Anyone who seemed to have the expectations that Peggy Noonan had at the start of the term was bound to be disappointed. Politics has become a game of promising more than you can deliver, if you only promised what you would deliver People would still see that as promising more than you deliver, therefore it looks like you would deliver less.
 
Last edited:
KingMerv00 said:
How so?
Click to expand...
Fallacies commited by "Skeptic" /= (not even close) to fallacies committed by Chaos + fallacies committed by negativ. Of course, that might be my confirmation bias creeping in.


rwguinn said:
The only way what you say there is true is if one party is definitely aand demonstrably innocent of the charge.
T'ain't true, by any means.
Click to expand...
No, it is true if the "two sides" are not in proportion. One side need not be pure as the driven snow.


Daredelvis
 
daredelvis said:
Fallacies commited by "Skeptic" /= (not even close) to fallacies committed by Chaos + fallacies committed by negativ. Of course, that might be my confirmation bias creeping in.
Click to expand...

Why does that matter? Do fallacies suddenly become not fallacies when a liberal says it?
 
KingMerv00 said:
I was talking about how both sides are guilty of the tu quoque fallacy in this forum. I wish both sides would stop it.

Negativ was trying to say Republicans are guilty of changing statements too. That is irrelevant to the OP.
Click to expand...
So is your tu quoque fallacy and your calling the kettle black.

The only way it's not relevant is if it happened outside the scope of conversation - like how some conservatives argue that torture is okay today because libs nuked Japan in WWII.
 
Dorian Gray said:
So is your tu quoque fallacy and your calling the kettle black.

The only way it's not relevant is if it happened outside the scope of conversation - like how some conservatives argue that torture is okay today because libs nuked Japan in WWII.
Click to expand...

I don't follow you.

Skeptic quotes a liberal. In apparent response, someone quotes a conservative. How is the second quote relevant to the first?
 
KingMerv00 said:
Why does that matter? Do fallacies suddenly become not fallacies when a liberal says it?
Click to expand...
Straw man. I said no such thing.

Both sides of the political spectrum
Click to expand...
False equivalency.

I'm stretching it a bit, since you did not suggest the "logic resides somewhere between". Mainly, I tire of the "both sides do it", weasel words. You called a tu quoque, but not all tu quoque's are equivalent. negativ is not arguing Obama's competence, as the OP attempts, he is highlighting the right-wingers established pattern on not wanting government interference, and their post Jan. 21st 2009 situational views on the subject.

Daredelvis
 
KingMerv00 said:
They are all logical fallacies. No one should use them. End of story. Are you defending the use of tu quoque?
Click to expand...

Are you defending the use of your straw man?

If you want to pick nits, it could be claimed that the OP is an argument from authority. I doubt that "Skeptic" (<- use of quotes could be construed as an ad hominem) would classify Peggy Nonnon's 2008 assessment of Obama as "informed", but to say so would be schoolmarmish.

Daredelvis
 
Upchurch said:
Context FAIL, "Skeptic". Your misquote is not only dishonest, it's stupid. You provided the link to the speech that prefaces that cherry picked quote with "if we are willing to work for it".
Click to expand...

But that's just the point; Obama's hubris is not that he would personally cause the oceans to recede, Canute-style, but in his belief that, just because he wasn't even yet elected, but merely nominated for president, from now on "willing to work for it" would be enough to to make "the oceans recede and the planet heal".

Even Jesus, for example, never said that the moment he arrived everybody is saved. Only that now that he had come back it is possible for those who want it to be saved through him. Before his arrival, you see, everybody was damned automatically. This is the sort of hubris we're talking about.

Well, now he is president, and everybody clearly wants the oil spill to stop so that "the planet can heal", and yet -- for some unknown, mysterious reason known as "reality", which even certain Obama supporters had heard of -- it isn't happening.

In an ironic twist of faith, the man who made healing the planet "if you want it" a possibility merely due to his nomination for the presidency (that's "the moment" that it started, you see -- Joy to the world / the planet healer had been nominated) is unable, just as if he were a mere mortal, to stop the worst environmental disaster in US history.

Again let me emphasize. The problem isn't that Obama cannot stop the oil spill, much like it isn't Canute's fault that he couldn't stop the tides. Almost certainly no other president could, either, it's hard enough for the professionals. The problem is the hubris in claiming his nomination magically made people able to stop the tides (isn't that literally what "the moment the oceans stopped rising" means, come to think of it?) and much, much more, "if they want it".

P.S.

Yes, I know Canute's "command" to the sea was actually sarcastic, an attempt to show his court of syncopaths how limited the power of the king is compared to that of God, but Obama doesn't do modesty and power-limits.

Had he lived in Canute's time, he would have told the syncopaths that, why, yes, he agrees -- now that he is king, "the tides will begin to start obeying you if you want it." If it doesn't work, well, that's their fault for not wanting it enough, you see.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom