Quote from: jenn on March 31, 2010, 08:38:01 PMYou can go back and read what exactly it is I mean. Naaaah. i did re-read it, the context didn't change.
You can go back and read what exactly it is I mean. Naaaah.
Insisting I stop using them is not required. Hypocrisy in the arguments in which I'm using them or is the hypocrisy in me? If hypocrisy in an argument, then no, it doesn't apply (the whole moving the goalpost thing, for example. Though I think we just disagreed as to what our standards were.). If you're just attacking me, then it does.
This is actually the closest to the heart of the matter, really. Did you really think he thought there were literally no articles were mentioning it? If not, it's hyperbole. It works both ways.
Oh so it's ok to be outraged at both. Whew!
You statements make people defensive. This is common knowledge.
Amidst the criticism, there was a kind of olive branch saying "Hey, I think we're similar in these ways and both on the same side." My attempt an a connection, rebuffed.
If it's any consolation, I don't think it is just you, I think it's most everybody, unfortunately. It's profoundly sad how divided we all are.
k.The rest was addressed elsewhere in this post.That was fun but can we be done now?
Nice rationalization of attacking me.
You mean like when I said twice that it is always relevant?
QuoteQuoteYou statements make people defensive. This is common knowledge.so why use them except to attempt to put me on the defensive?Irony.
QuoteYou statements make people defensive. This is common knowledge.so why use them except to attempt to put me on the defensive?
That was your initial response, was it? Rewriting history again, huh? (The first is when you took my mocking your frustration at my refusal to give your logically fallacious arguments any credence with a response out of context.)
Your mentions of Ron Paul and Glen Beck prove my point. Once, afaik, did I mention your liberal leanings and it was incidental ("Go back to your liberal circle jerk blogs") and could easily have been replaced with republican had you been republican. The rest were criticisms of the ideology.
Don't worry. I have no desire to engage someone who thinks "I know you are but what am I" is a valid argument.
Quote from: jenn on April 01, 2010, 07:17:58 AMNice rationalization of attacking me.if you think me pointing out that some of your statements are hypocritical is somehow attacking you, then i don't know what to tell you. I canít fix that persecution complex for you.
In context, I wasn't complaining about being attacked, I was explaining the difference between a valid tu quoque fallacy and an invalid tu quoque fallacy. For example, if I mention that you were saying that I was possibly being dishonest and are now repeatedly taking my comments out of context, which is dishonest, that would be an invalid argument because it has nothing to do with the argument, it is an ad hominem.
You mean your assumption that I don't feel the same way when it's another race (I'm broadening the spectrum since /you/ only mentioned white). The burden of proof in on you for that one.
It's either irony or you did it intentionally. I was kind enough to give you an out.
Again, exception doesn't prove the rule.
Now you're just putting your fingers in your ears. What's next? You gonna hold your breath?
Tu quoque, which has been pointed out several times, is essentially "I know you are but what am I?"
This whole exchange brings to mind two aphorisms"Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level then beat you with experience"
And I can't remember the exact quote but it was something to the effect of "I must hurry for I am their leader and they are leaving without me."And with that, I'm done.
Quote from: Magus on March 01, 2009, 08:50:59 PMJust become a gay. They're always happy.Except for murd0c.
Just become a gay. They're always happy.