Re: ChimpzillAhmadinejad Is a leftist Moron


"Shogun" <shogun@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Xns99B8A25D717DDShogun@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Mavisbeacon" <Mavisbeacon@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
EWSKi.2971$Hv4.2305@amstwist00:">news:EWSKi.2971$Hv4.2305@amstwist00:


"Shogun" <shogun@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Xns99B8549BC210BShogun@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Mavisbeacon" <Mavisbeacon@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
0YKKi.2847$Hv4.673@amstwist00:">news:0YKKi.2847$Hv4.673@amstwist00:


"Shogun" <shogun@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Xns99B7E32CB445AShogun@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Mavisbeacon" <Mavisbeacon@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
FEzKi.2816$Hv4.2497@amstwist00:">news:FEzKi.2816$Hv4.2497@amstwist00:


"Merlin" <johndoe99@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1190836187.981344.200290@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Sep 26, 1:31 pm, Shogun <sho...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Mavisbeacon" <Mavisbea...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
inG%uKi.2767$Hv4.2108@amstwist00:">news:G%uKi.2767$Hv4.2108@amstwist00:


Just as you never answer any questions.


Really? Care to cite three examples of questions I haven't
answered? I don't expect you will even provide ONE!
I rarely make claims! When I do I support them with evidence or
I withdraw them.


Really? Can you cite three examples of questions that you have
answered?

Yes. That's ONE. Actually given by you question marks it two but
nevertheless show me three proper questions you asked me adn if i
didn't answer them I will apologise and answer them. I won't answer
questions which are personal e.g. "what colour/breed is your dog".
In this thread I can't find a proper question by you.

Really? You have just proved you can't.

reALLY? HOW SO?

The reason you can't find a
proper question is because I am imitating your form. After all,
imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Aren't you flattered?

I noticed you were just answering questions with questions but as you
can see that is NOT what I do.

Oh really? Look 2 paragraphs up. Why do you lie? Is it because you know
no better?

Notice i stated "not what I do" and NOT "what I never do"? there is a
difference.



I don't expect you well provide even one. You rarely make claims
because you are an uninformed leftist apologist and all you can do
is regurgitate the same crap that leftists spew day after day
after day.

Nope. I rerely make claims because I don't want my OPINION touted
as FACT and I am VERY carefull to actually check out something
before I claim it. Otherwise I make it clear that is is just my
unsupported opinion or my belief.

I still don't know what you mean by "leftist". What do you mean?


you don't make claims because you are a coward and don't have the
courage to stand behind your convictions. Why are you a coward?

thats meant to be an answer is it?

Do you mean you cannot answer it?

Of course I can't. Idont speak for you! I can't say what you meant by
"leftist" because you have as yet not given a definition. You remind me of
the neocons who baulk form giving a definition of "terrorist". Ususlly
because any definition can probably be seen to apply to themselves. Just
like your belief that the federal government should interfere in proples'
private lives is more statist than my liberaterian belief than they
shouldnt!


Again you seem to have comprehension problems. I didnt say I NEVER
made claims. I stated I RARELY make claims. One claim I made was in
reply to the claims about the threat of fundamentalists. I claimed
Bush was a big pal of the Saud and Bin Laden family.

I SUPPORTED that claim with evidence.


Oh really? Evidence or propaganda? More like leftist spiteful hate-
filled propaganda.

No. I don't hate Bush at all. but I know he has pals who are in the Bin
Laden Family and in the Saud family. The two families rule a regime in the
fundamentalist Saudi Arabia. I oppose fundamentalist regimes so who could I
be providing propaganda for? On behalf of the fundamentalists ? Couldnt be
since I oppose them!

But care to show where my evidence was incorrect? Just calling it hate
filled propaganda does not invalidate it!


And where is your evidence to support your claim that I am
a hypocrit or a liar?

Just read your own posts.

this is just more unsupported allegation. where is the evidence?
And who is the one not answering questions now?

Is it?

Yes.

No.
Why is it?

Becsuse you make an allegation that I am a liar and you provide no
supporting evidence.

You are.

Thats just gainsaying.


Gainsaying? Is that the only word you know? Can't you be more original?

Thats changinh the topic! You claim I am a liar. You fail to provide any
evidence and when I point that out you havent shown any support you resort
to gainsaying.
Where is your evidence?


[snip]


Can you support that with
documentation?

I don't need to you already have by doccumenting your own
unsupported allegation.

What?

It is above . You doccumented it yourself when you made unsupported
allegations about me being a liar. that is the supporting
doccumentation!

You are a liar. Why do you lie about that?

Nope. In fact above you state several times that I am a liar. that is
doccumentary evidence that you called me a liar!
You are now contradicting yourself! You are claiming that my claim about you
stating I am a liar is a lie. A clear contradiction because I did make that
claim above and you did state that I was a liart above! It is doccumented.



Why do you answer a question with a question?

I don't always but it appears you are doing so to try avoiding
supporting you own claims!


I am doing as you do. Why don't you like it?

Who says I don't like it? And you are not doding as I do! I asked you
a question in order for you to provide to support YOUR claims about
fundamentalists. You resorted to ad hominem. I asked you to poroviede
evidence for the ad hominem (even though it is off topic). YOU Failed
on both counts.
And I don't ONLY ask questions. I also make statements.

You do? Why is your vocabulary limited to ad hominem, gainsaying,
evidence, burden of proof?

It isn't but it appears your poor attempts at argument continually succumb
to these fallacies!


You ask a question only when responding to a
question.

That isnt true! Are you not aware that it isn't true? Well you are now
aren't you?


Why are you a liar?

I'm not!. This is just unsupported allegation again.

You are.

Can't you at least try to support your allegations in some way? You
are inept at debating if you can't supply ONE piece of evidence to
support your posiution.


You are lying again. Why do you consistently have to lie?

Thats gainsaying again. You can't support your position and anyone reading
this can see that you have provided no evidence to do so. REstating you
unsupported position and gainsaying mine isnt supporting your case. It is
making you look bad.


Why do you support the ideals of dictators like Ahmadinejab?

I don't! where have I?

You do!

No i don't! But again YOU are the one claiming I do. It isnt for me to
prove the negative.

You: There are Pixies and unicorns on the Whitehouse lawn
Me: Are there? Can you prove it?
You: Can you prove there aren't?

See the difference?


Certainly!

Good . Then support your case with evidence! Can you do that? I dont think
so!


You are an imbecile.

You are back to ad hominem now . Not a good start.


I never mentioned pixies, unicorns,
space aliens or any other sort of imaginary creatures.

What an idiot you are making yourself look! You asked me to prove a negative
and I pointed out ANYONE provinfg a negative is tantamount to them having to
prove imaginary creatures exist! It is for the person claiming they exist to
prove it.
Just as the proof I am a liar exists in your imagination! Just as the loaDS
AND LOADS OF WMD exists in you imagination along with Al Khyda being big
pals of Saddam. On the other hand Bush being big pals of the Bin Ladens and
Sauds has SUPPORTING EVIDENCE.

[snip]

[snip]

Why are you ashamed of being a nazi sympathizer?

I am not because I am not one!


Why do you give
recognition to nazi's by capitalizing the word nazi?

LOL! Surely you are not so ignorant? Do you not know what NAZI means? LOL.




Do you believe the holocaust happened?

Depends on what you mean by the "holocaust". I can think of four
historical events which are referred to as a holocaust.


Why are you lying again? Why are you a Jew hater? Why are you a
bigot?

I'm not. there are at least four which are historical and to which
historians refer.


Why do you evade the question?

I havent I answered it directly. The one about holocausts. The others were
loaded and leading so they were not proper questions.


Why can't you answer yes or no? Why do you shy away from the
holocaust of WW2, which you know damn well is what I was referring
to?

Well I don't! If you bothered to read my postings you would note reams
of material on the WWII holocaust. Your attempts to link me with
holocaust deniers are pathetic . i have a record of opposing them.
Indeed the vitriol and hatred they spew against jews
is rivalled by the likes of your attitude to Muslims.


Yes you do.

No I dont! The evidence is ther for you to see if you actually looked!

Why don't you answer yes or no.

sometimes I do. It depends on the question. If you can't narrow your
definition to the WWII holocaust I cant refer to them all at once since
historical opinion differs on classifying other holocausts. Actually I
though of a fifth now maybe- the one in Darfur.

It is that simple. You are
like Ahmadinejab evading Bollinger's questions.

I dont know if the simile applies to me but I doubt you even have any broad
knowledge of the exchange to which you refer.



Why are you
a prejudiced? Why are you a hypocrite?

When did you last stop beating your wife?
When you eventually get around to learning aboput logical fallacies
please look up "loaded questions" and "leading questions"


[snip]
The fact that you remain clueless about argument suggests you are not
prepared to actually learn anything about it because I have referred
you to several sources which you can actually read and from which you
can learn and prevent yourself falling into the same errors in the
future. But you do not seem to be capable of doing this.


Why do you attack the person?

I don't generally.

Aren't you against attacking the
messenger? You said you were. Why are you posting self-serving leftist
gobbledygook about your benevolence towards others?

Where did I post that?


Can't you see how
self-serving you are? It is nothing more than gainsaying.

How so? Please educate us.



>


You spew out the same crap
that comes out of the mouth of Ahmadinejab

Really? Can you show where ANYWHERE that I agreed with
ANYTHING Ahmadinejab stated?

Whether you agree with him or not is insignificant.

Actauallly it is THE whole point you are making! Now you are
only contradicting yourself! On the one hand you state I say the
same thing and on the other you say I don't! How can Iu state
sometihing that I support if I don't actually believe it and say
i don't believe it?


So then you do agree with the Chimp of Tehran.

I don't know what you are getting at. Why don't you actually state
each point he stated one by one and ask me if I agree with any?
Im not aware what you are saying I agree with.


Why are you lying again?

Yoyu can't show ANYWHERE where I agreed with anything he siad. That
isnt a lie.



> By the way please look up "guilt by association" . If I happen
> to
like
a portrait or music Hitler liked that doesnt mean I am a NAZI


Why do you make such foolish statements? Is it because you are a
fool?

Again you presuppose and laod the question. Please look up @guilt by
association@


Why are you getting upset?

You question presupposes an unproven assumption.
What indicates that I am in any way upset?




Why do you support the
execution of Iranian homosexuals?

I never stated tha anywhere and you can't show I did. That makes you a
liar!


A liar calling me a liar?

No YOU made the allegation that I supported the execution of homosexuals
above. I didnt! It seems to me that by now you are losing the debate so
badly you think it is because of my style so you ape my style. Ineptly I
might add. In fact I am only following the basic rules of logic and pointing
out where you are departing froim them. But it appears you beliefs and
opinions and those whom you trust who tells you what to think and say mean
more to you then basic logic and reason. So then you get to the stage that
you believe that you can bait me and find some issue on which people can
attack me e.g. you hope I oppose homosexuality to the degree that I want
them killed.

In fact I could just as easily ask you if you accept homosexuals as normal
and have the "Christian" neo cons turn on you when you say you do accept
them!

As it turns out I don't support fundamentalists Muslim Christian or
otherwise. I only point to the facts that some people who take the moral
high ground and find some group to blame , whether it be Jews, gypsies,
Salve, Irish, Italians, Blacks, Hispanics, Koreans, Christians, Muslims ...
or whatever are seen to be hypocritical in this regard. For example the Bush
family being a big personal friends and Business partners with Bin Ladens
and Sauds from fundie Arabia.


A liar is someone who states something which is untrue and they know it is
untrue. As you cant produce any evidence you know it to be untrue. Restating
it makes you a liar. You stated I support killing homosexuals. You produced
no proof. It therefore is a LIE!



Where did I ever state I supported that? i fact I suspect that YOU
support the death penalty. Do you?


Why are you shifting the focus of the topic? Is it because you know
you are a liar?

No it is because I believe you support the death penalty and are accusing me
of supporting it. I suspect you are a hypocrity. I suspect you do not like
homosexuals and are only venting your homophobia. But all you have to do to
prove me wrong is state that

1. You do not support the death penalty and
2. you accept that homosexuality as a normal thing

i suspect you wont do that.

And you accuse me of wanting homosesuals dead?



Because I never stated it and you refused to deal with that! And you
agree with the death penalty don't you. I however would not agree with
it for homosexuals or anyone else for that matter.


Why are you talking about the death penalty?

Because you raised it you nincompoop!


Who said anything about the
death penalty?

YOU you idiot! You raised the whole issue of execution of Iranian
homosexuals!



No it isnt! In order to be a Muslim apologist one would have to accept
that Muslims are bad people that do bad things only because they are
muslims. I do not believe this for Jews Blacks Germans Irish
Christians Africans or any other similar religious or racial or ethnic
or cultural group. Why do you believe it only for Muslims? And given
that you do what do you think of Bush being big pals of dictator
Muslim fanatics?

Where do you get the idea that in order to be an apologist for muslims
one would have to accept that muslims are bad people?

An apology means accepting you are wrong and did something wrong!
So please explain to me then. How can one create an excuse or apology for
something that is not wrong in the first place?


Do you know the
meaning of the word apologist?

yes.
How can one defend or justify something if they believe that the thing is
wrong? But even more important how can someone else accuse them of
justifying something if the someone else does not believe the the thing that
they are justifying is wrong?


Perhaps you should look up the definition
of the word before you use it and confuse it. An apologist is one who
speaks or writes in defense of someone or something.

In this case we are discussing the President of Iran and his pronouncements
on homosexuals. But in general you are making the case about @muslims@ i.e.
people who believe in Islam. You stated MUSLIM and not ISLAMIC! or not
apologict for ISLAMIC DOCTRINE! You stated MUSLIM the people who believe in
Islam. So it was the PEOPLE and not the BELIEF!


That someone or
something does not have to be bad.

they do when you alledge I am an apoligist for the PEOPLE and not for the
belief system.

Can you not defend what it right and
good?

How does one "not defend" something? Would that be like Bush not doing
anything about Darfur?



What purpose does it serve to expand the
number of nuclear weapons in the world?

Not much really. Unless it is in fighting aliens form Space. In
fact it serves those who have them not to allow others have them
but I would like the US and Russia Israel South Africa Pakistan and
North Korea all to disarm nuclear weapons.


Space Aliens? Why are you making up fantasies?

I'm not. You asked wht they could be used for. Apart from being
invaded from space they are of little use as far as I can see. Which
begs the question why does the US have so many?


I asked you for space aliens and fantasies?

I have no proof that they exist. In the absence of evidence I assume they do
not exist. Just like WMD didnt! But if they do exist it migh be one reason
to have nukes. Otherwise I dont see any good reason to have nukes.

It is a valid answer to your question.


Is it?

Yes. It is.




Why are you in favor of placing
nuclear weapons in the hands of dictators and fanatical islamic
mullahs?

Where did I state I was?

Where did you state that you didn't?

You are falling into the fallacy of @proving the negative" again and
of @shifting the burden@ . Please don't try to replicate the writing
style of someione who actually knows how to logically argue when you
seem so deficient in actually learning from you continuous mistakes
and contradictions.


One who speaks of space aliens, pixies, unicorns and beating his wife is
now trying to make a statement on logic?

You really dont learn do you?



I can understand you beating
your wife, as that is acceptable in islamic culture, but pixies and
space aliens?

"All space aliens are green." is a logically valid statement.
Of course we can accept it has no supporting evidence.

just like "Iraq has loads and loads of WMD ready for launch in twenty
minutes"

or " Iraq has training camps full of Al Queda "

See ?

Here are some examples:


Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass
destruction.

*** Cheney
Speech to VFW National Convention
August 26, 2002




Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the
production of biological weapons.

George W. Bush
Speech to UN General Assembly
September 12, 2002

We know for a fact that there are weapons there.

Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
January 9, 2003




Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to
produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.

George W. Bush
State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003




We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass
destruction, is determined to make more.

Colin Powell
Remarks to UN Security Council
February 5, 2003




We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi
field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator
tells us he does not have.

George W. Bush
Radio Address
February 8, 2003




If Iraq had disarmed itself, gotten rid of its weapons of mass destruction
over the past 12 years, or over the last several months since (UN
Resolution) 1441 was enacted, we would not be facing the crisis that we now
have before us . . . But the suggestion that we are doing this because we
want to go to every country in the Middle East and rearrange all of its
pieces is not correct.

Colin Powell
Interview with Radio France International
February 28, 2003




So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of
mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? . . . I think our judgment
has to be clearly not.

Colin Powell
Remarks to UN Security Council
March 7, 2003




Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the
Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons
ever devised.

George W. Bush
Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003




Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq
has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . .
all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever
duration it takes.

Ari Fleisher
Press Briefing
March 21, 2003




There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of
mass destruction. And . . . as this operation continues, those weapons will
be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who
guard them.

Gen. Tommy Franks
Press Conference
March 22, 2003




I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass
destruction.


Defense Policy Board member Kenneth Adelman
Washington Post, p. A27
March 23, 2003




One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number
of sites.

Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark
Press Briefing
March 22, 2003




We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and
east, west, south and north somewhat.

Donald Rumsfeld
ABC Interview
March 30, 2003




Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass
destruction U.S. forces find -- and there will be plenty.

Neocon scholar Robert Kagan
Washington Post op-ed
April 9, 2003




But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence that
they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and
it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found.

Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
April 10, 2003




We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi
scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed
some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.

George W. Bush
NBC Interview
April 24, 2003




There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . . so
that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country.

Donald Rumsfeld
Press Briefing
April 25, 2003




We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so.

George W. Bush
Remarks to Reporters
May 3, 2003




I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the
evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now.

Colin Powell
Remarks to Reporters
May 4, 2003






You spew out many of
the same slogans and propaganda.

Which ones? Have you ANY examples?


Don't you know what you post?

Cant you support your own allegations? It isnt for me to prove
myself guilty of something I didnt commit? It is for YOU to support
your own accusations!


Why don't you have to prove your statements and expect everyone else
to prove theirs?

I do but note again ***Shifting the burden*** and ***Proving a
negative***

YOU made the claim that I posted something. I didnt post it but it is
NOT for me to show I didnt and you cant shift the burden on to my
shoulders. It is for you to show I did post what you claimed was
propaganda. Otherwise you can be asking me to prove unicorns and space
aliens are not meeting the President right now.

You made the claim about space aliens and unicorns and pixies, can you
prove they exist?

No I didnt! I pointed to that as an example of something. I suggest that if
people claim they exist it is for the claimant to proive they do and not for
others to prove they dont!

I didnt claim that they exist. If I did it would be for me to prove they did
or withdraw it.

The burden of proof is on your shoulders. Are they
real, or did you make it up, i.e. another lie?

I didnt claim they existed and again you cant show anywher wher I did!

Don't you read what you place here?

That is supposed to be supporting evidence is it?

Then you admit that you do not read what you post?

No. \I submit that you have not supported the suggestion that i post
propaganda.

Ok, then you agree that you do not read the propaganda that you post,
whether you wrote it or not?

Thats a leading question. It presupposes something which isnt true. You
might get away with this sort of debate in a school yard or with drunks in
your local bar but please try to learn something about argument if you want
to actually argue and not be looked upon as totally inept!



[snip]



Where is your dictionary? Did you look up the definition? Do you
even know what a dictionary is? Do you get all of your information
from Wikipedia? Do you have any real books?

It seems to me I am more widely read than you but it isnt for me to
provide a definition for you. In fact I dont think @leftie@ is a
dictionary word. And if it is then I don't know if you subscribe to
that definition.


Why don't you think it is a word? Do you think Webster is a liar too?
Do you think all publishers of dictionaries are liars? Did you look
it up? Why didn't you look it up? Are you to lazy to look it up? Are
you fearful that you are a leftist? Why are you afraid of the truth?


Note I stated "leftie" not "leftist". But it isnt for me to look it up
since I didnt claim I was one.

When did I call you a leftie?

You didnt!

I never called you a leftie, so there is
another lie!

No it isnt! I never claimed you did refer to the word "leftie" . where did
I?

Why must you always tell lies?/

What according to you for example is the "political left"? do we
even know wto what you are referring? People claimed for example
that John Paul II was a "right wing" Pope. But one can argue that
the Pope is the centre and people are right or left of him. So we
should be clear about what we mean.


Who mentioned the Pope?

I did in realtion to demarking the definition of a political mileau.

Who mentioned space aliens?

I did as an example of proving the negative.

Why do you shift the
focus of the topic and gainsay with your space people and other
oddities?

It isnt shifting the focus. It is giving an example of your inept
argument style!1 You claim I post prropaganda. I say I didnt and ask
you for proof . You say prove I diodnt post it. One may as well say
"prove aliens do not exist" or "prove tarot or astrology does not
work"


There you go again, way out in left field. Do you know what that meaning
of the phrase "out in left field" means? Why do you constantly post such
foolishness?

Baseball aphorisms will not detract form you inability to accept you are
insisting I prove a negative and are shifting the burden from showing
anythin I post which is propaganda and for whom.


Who do you mean by WE??

Isn't that meant to be "whom" Mr "Webster" ?


Actual usage of who and whom does not appear to be markedly different
from the usage of Shakespeare's time. But the 18th century grammarians,
propounding rules and analogies, rejecting other rules and analogies,
and usually justifying both with appeals to Latin or Greek, have
intervened between us and Shakespeare. It seems clear that the
grammarians' rules have had little effect on the traditional uses. One
thing they have accomplished is to encourage hypercorrect uses of whom
<whom shall I say is calling?>. Another is that they have made some
people unsure of themselves. Who may be used to inquire as to what or
which person or persons.

where did you cut and paste that from. It does not look like your work. I
doubt you even comprehend it. You fail to employ Shakesperian English so
your analogy is inept.
American Heritage Book of English Usage, "Who is used for a grammatical
subject, where a nominative pronoun such as I or he would be appropriate,
and whom is used as the object of a verb or preposition."
....

direct object, on the other hand, is the object of a verb (Whom did you
call?) or a preposition (He is the person to whom I placed the call).


i.e. "Whom did you call" is like "whom did you mean". Look why not go and
ask you teacher?



Sadly you are not since you refuse to clarify what you mean by
calling me a "leftist".


Sadly you are a leftist, and because you don't want to face it, you
attempt to use ad hominem and gainsaying to shift the burden of
proof.

LOL. You really don't learn do you.


LOL. Sadly for you, I do.

So why do you keep committing the same logical fallacies. Have you also a
memory problem?





I call you a leftist because that is what you are.

That's what I claimed your definition was! You definition
of "leftist" is "anyone I call a leftist is one"

Not a very objective definition is it?

In your case, it is.

That is just gainsaying and re affirming that you can't supply a
definition other than your own OPINION as to what a leftist is
makes someone a leftist.


Do you really know what gainsaying is?

Yes.

Most likely not!


Well you are the one who says gainsaying can be employed to shift the
burden. I await how you can explain that when you cant even employ
logic.






Aren't you the one that believes
in OPINION polls as gospel truth?

Nope. They are only polls of opinion. And who said I believe the
Gospel is absolute literal truth? would that not be fundamentalist
of me?


Now you are hypocritical again!!!!! You have consistently referred
to opinion polls, and now you deny it. Why? Are you a liar?

I dont deny referring to them. But referring to them and claiming that
a poll is absolute truth are two different things. And I don't think I
constantly referred to them. I may have referred to two or three in
the last month. I would not think more than that . Ill bet you cant
cite four I referred to but I stand corrected if you do. I do not
think you will even rise to supporting your own assertion here either.
You are clearly inept.

You are the hypocrite. Why should I bother?


because YOU alledge it and now you cant support it!




I believe in information which can be presented as evidence and
validated by several methods. You can ask how reliable my sources
are if you wish. Sadly you seem to supply no sources.


What methods?

Well one I referred to was the cluster sample survey. Your knowledge
of statistics is probably too weak to understand but it is reliable.
Stratified and other sampling methods would be another. Thats just for
statistics. But ther are other methods for validating what you
claim.One woudl to be to provide supporting evidence from at least two
decent sourtces. In spite of your claiming to ape my style you
completly fail on this account! If I make a calaim I support it or
withdraw it.


No, you don't.

Yes I do! show me any unsupported claim which I do not specifically state as
my opinion and I will withdraw it.

Bet you cant!


It meets the Beacon test? It is in agreement with your
opinion?

Nope. In agreement with several valid sources. If you care to show ANY
claims I have made I doubt you will be able to show they were
unsupported. If they were I am quite happy to withdraw thenm as I have
ocassionally for other people and if and when I located the evidence I
re entered the claim.


Wikipedia? That is your source.

sometimes. and it is respectable and I have shown evidence to that end. But
it is not my only source. I usually refer to it because you can go an look
at it. I have an extensive library at home and access to a copyright library
as well as to academic journals but these would not be available to you
without subscription.

I can refer to then and sometimes do but I fear you probably arent adept
enough to use a library to get them.




Why are you a hypocrite?

havwe yu any examples of hypocracy from me? Allegations are not
examples! Please supply a quote in which I say people should
believe in something and behave in a certian way and then later
another quoite where I advocate the opposite for myself. I doubt
you will do it since it isn't true.

Why are you back-paddeling? Is it because you cannot prove your own
allegations?

Im not and it is because you cant support yours.






Saddam became President
of Iraq. And you supported him! and Suharto in
Indonesia. and Pinochet in Chile. And so on... there
is a long list.

Yes. You only know that Saddam became dictator of iraq
and you proclaim the U.S. supported him, but you don't
know why, and if you did know why, you wouldn't
understand it.

Oh so now you are watering down the principle about self
righteous dictators and fundamentalists. Saddam was self
righteous but you now add in "there were reasons to
support him nevertheless". well then educate us! And if
being self righteous or being a dictator isn't enough to
oppose someone then why do you claim it as the sole
reason for opposing Iran's president? THAT is my point!

You are obviously quite naive. Saddam wasn't supported. He
was used. Are you that dense?

You are obviously avoiding the question! When Saddam was in
charge of Iraq and usiong chemicals against tyhe Kurds the
US traded with him and shook his hand. There were no
standards with respect to being a dictator. The Us
subsequently made big pals with their fundamentalist chums
in saudi.

You are obviously a dunce.

Attacking the person rather than the argument they make is a
sure sign that you are losing the argument.

What makes you an authority on argument?

I don't claim that I am right or argue fromn authority! Thats the
whole point! I SUPPORT my position by reference to widely accepted
STANDARDS on debate and logical argument. Any search of @logical
fallacy@ and @ad hominem@ should put you straight on that.


Where have you supported your position?


Sjow me any position I have taken and I ll show you wher I supported
it!

You never support your position.

that is plainly untrue. I can cite several examples. For example Bush
being big Pals of the SAud family . Would you like me to repost the
support for that?


You never answer questions. You have no position. There you are
hypocritical again. Why do you continuously lie?

There is a big difference between accusing someone of something and
proving it. You hawever are doing a great job of proving yourself
inept at argument!



I am not asking you to believe my OPINION. It is established fact
that you can go and check.


Why would anyone believe you?

As I justy toild you you don't have to. Go and check out the
supporting evidence. Don't believe anythiong just because I state it.
go and check it out!

I have shown you poictures of Bush kissing Sauds of the business
arangenmdents between them. You are like a WWII Holocaust denier. You
keep saying it isnt true when the evidence is there in front of your
face that Bush is a pal of the Bin Laden Family and the Sauds.



Here let me help you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin:
"argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of
replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing
to an irrelevant characteristic about the person making the
argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the
argument or producing evidence against the claim. It is most
commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or
argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally
attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that
argument. A reductio ad Hitlerum argument can be seen as a special
case of an ad hominem argument, since these arguments are attacking
something supposedly said or supported by Adolf Hitler, who is
usually considered to have been an evil person.

[end quote]



I refer you to several examples from you posts above.

You do not know how to argue it appears.

Then you do get all of your information from Wikipedia?

No I don't I referred you to several other sites on logical argument
before.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html
http://www.philosophicalsociety.com/Logical%20Fallacies.htm







Why don't you
use a reputable source?

Wikipedia is reputable but that is off topic. you have several sources
above. Are you claiming they are all false?

The argument comes from the
person, therefor the person is as valid a target of attack as the
argument itself. Why are you so naive?

This does not logically follow. Ad hominem arguments are always
invalid in syllogistic logic, since the truth value of premises is
taken as given, and the validity of a logical inference is
independent of the person making the inference.

You do not seem to be able to seperate the argument from the person
making it!

When you dont like a message do you always think that shooting the
messenger will somehow prove the message wrong?


Is that more gainsaying on your part? Why do you constantly gainsay?


No actually you should look up "gainsaying" when you are loo0king up
fallacies. you obviously don't know what you are talking about.

[snip]
Why do you always dovetail yourself in on
anothers arguments?

I don't always do that. But I tend not to be the type of person to
claim I am right and tell others how to live. I believe that people
have individual rights. Sometimes when others and/or the State
interfere with those rights I do not like that. I am by this
definition a Liberitarian and you it appears are "statist". Under
that definition it makes you politically left of me!

Yes, you always do that.

No I don't . One counter example will prove you wrong!





.

Quantcast