Classic use of fallacy

Post #18,104 by Silverlock 11/13/01 3:51:30 PM Reply	Classic use of fallacy Which fallacy is left as an exercise for the student. For help in understanding what a fallacy is, go [link\|http://www.primenet.com/~byoder/fallazoo.htm\|here]. How to mangle the truth; Have it reported by any major U.S. media outlet.
Post #18,117 by screamer 11/13/01 4:21:04 PM Reply	Classic use of phallus... For a brain. heh, heh, Beavis, he said phallus... WTF are you talking about? Writing notes to yourself? Just a few thoughts, Screamer "I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, smile and grin at the change all around, pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday..." P. Townshend "Nietzsche has an S in it" Celina Jones
Post #18,122 by Silverlock 11/13/01 4:29:50 PM Reply	Consistency not one of your strong points? You joined this thread with a rant that included the line "I'm really tired of this "style" of "debate", ie. It was the Clinton modus operandi - attack character of anyone you disagree with." Well maybe. I notice you don't metion insults as something you're tired of. And your use of them indicates you do like them. So, in the spirit of the game... your signature pic suits you well. How to mangle the truth; Have it reported by any major U.S. media outlet.
Post #18,132 by Ashton 11/13/01 5:14:09 PM Reply	Nahh. the pic is an insult to Zippy Who has a deeper comprehension of the Murican Zoo than most folk around, whereas The Scream King.. prefers EZ black/white doggerel and, apparently - the waving of flags to exorcise embarrassing Conundrums* in the Zoo cages. * like that National Bird Conundrum: the One-Two Party with Two Right Wings -- him so funny that Bird -- flies only in a downward spiral. Notice it nearing the ground? Please apologize to Zippy; his feelings are easily hurt by wrongful associations! All for (1, 2, ..3) Unity Now ... Card-carrying member, Zippy Is Tops Society
Post #18,191 by screamer 11/13/01 11:36:10 PM Reply	Intelligence not one of yours? I also joined this "rant" with a lot of other "stuff" too... To which you reply to some mythical "students" (implying that scholarly folks will see some mythical fallacy in my post?) No, I insulted you because your last post is an insult to rhetoric. You declare there is a fallacy, you don't point it out, you instead choose to imply (to some mythical students - like this is some type of 101 Rhetoric class!) that... You have exemplarily displayed the attitude that I have come to detest from the current crop of so called liberals... The condescending attitude - "you're wrong... Trust me, I know, 'cause I'm really really smart. I won't bother to tell you why, that's below me" Which pretty much summarizes the entire state of the Democratic party these days. We know what's best for everyone. Trust us. Send us your money and we'll do all the social engineering for you all... 'Cause we're smart and you're not... Any other questions? Class dismissed. Right? Just a few thoughts, Screamer "I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, smile and grin at the change all around, pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday..." P. Townshend "Nietzsche has an S in it" Celina Jones
Post #18,216 by Silverlock 11/14/01 8:39:16 AM Reply	Evidently not I keep replying to your trolliing. How to mangle the truth; Have it reported by any major U.S. media outlet.
Post #18,231 by screamer 11/14/01 10:14:59 AM Reply	I'm not done with you yet. And yes, I am trolling. And I perceive it as a reply to your troll about As(s)croft and "students" and other vacuous comments paid for and contributed by the left... LOOKY HERE... You are in the War On Terrorism forum. You come out railing about your Chicken Licken fear about the Fourth Amendment. I point out that the Constitution (or more specifically, the Bill of Rights) is not a static document. That it has been, is and will be open to interpretation. I don't ask you where the hell you've been hiding your head through the last twenty years during the erosion of same Ammendment by our "War on Drugs" or the erosion of perceived civil rights with our wars on Poverty, Smoking, etc... It just seemed to me that you were parroting some talk show host (Bill Maher, maybe?) with his condescending left wing crap... What I have seen is a consistent pattern from your posts to put out some kind of agenda that I've seen before. I am willing to listen if you will throw something substantive on the table. NOW... The sight you posted is interesting and yes, rhetoric must appeal to ethos, pathos, logos, something... And logic should be, well, logical. What I fail to see is what specific fallacy are you pointing out in my post that would do anything to deter from my main point which is that the Constitution is not nor has ever been a static document... This was important for me to establish to try to ascertain why you are now so upset with this current (perceived) assault. Instead, you chose to hide behind some childish (condescending, too) duck with your "fallacy" post and link... So, maybe your not a paid shill for the Democratic Party, and maybe we just got off on the wrong foot... I ask you again, what is your major concern with this particular erosion of the Fourth Amendment? Just a few thoughts, Screamer "I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, smile and grin at the change all around, pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday..." P. Townshend "Nietzsche has an S in it" Celina Jones
Post #18,236 by screamer 11/14/01 10:37:29 AM Reply	One more thing... What is the TRUTH? You keep accusing me of "mangling" it. What is the truth? And just what exactly makes you believe that you have some magical path to it that I don't? Could it be that maybe you THINK you know the "truth" about whatever it is your think you know the "truth" about, but I THINK you may be wrong... Or do you consider things like that in "truthworld"? If the "truth" means that the current administration is further eroding the Fourth Ammendment because of the current fear of terrorism, then I think there is no argument. If you think the "truth" is that this only happens when Repos are in charge (which you imply), then, I THINK you are incorrect... Which is what I've been trying to point out. If you think the "truth" is that you can do anything constructive ABOUT it, by a juvenile mispelling of Ashcroft's name and calling the President by an initial,etc.. on an INET forum and parroting some Democratic mindspeak... well, then maybe, just maybe you'd be barking up the wrong tree as well. Which again, I suggested to you in the "if your so smart..." remark. And if the truth is that in "truthworld" noone ever calls anyone out to question, then welcome to America and the Internet... This is where I am coming from... Have I clearly identified why I am screaming at you? Maybe I'm too sensitive? Yeah... Right... Just a few thoughts, Screamer "I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, smile and grin at the change all around, pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday..." P. Townshend "Nietzsche has an S in it" Celina Jones
Post #18,247 by Silverlock 11/14/01 11:27:24 AM Reply	Ok, I'll explain As far as your comment re. "mangling the truth". Not directed at you at all. It's part of my sig. On to my comments regarding the constitution. The term "gutting" is, I admit, an exageration. But not much of one. The fallacy I refer to is false analogy, goes like this- Person A does a very bad thing. I point out that person A has done a very bad thing Person B does a somewhat bad thing you deny the thing done by person A is very bad by pointing out that person B has done the somewhat bad thing. Let alone the relative severity of the bad things done, how does the actions of another excuse the actions of the first? Following that logic could lead to things like, "You can't put me in jail for murder your Honor because you failed to put that person in jail for theft." Now, you may not think that that the recent actions of McCongress and Asscroft (Yeah it's juvenile, so what? I'm insulting them, not you) are any more significant than other actions taken in the past. I do think these are significant. There you go. My last attempt at civility with you. The ball is in your court. How to mangle the truth; Have it reported by any major U.S. media outlet.
Post #18,260 by screamer 11/14/01 12:41:33 PM Reply	We're getting there... Sorry about the noise about the sig... I've had major problems with sigs myself... I'm all for civility as well. I am glad that you have admitted that your initial post had some exagerration. As well, I felt that the "tone" (implying that our current government hates freedom worse than the Taliban - is a slight exagerration as well :-) )... All water under the proverbial bridge now. Now, I'll admit that I "loaded" statements in my following posts. I was intending to first take apart the rhetoric, then lead to the meat, which is entirely important. I failed miserably... such is life. Getting back to the Fourth Amendment, I absolutely agree with your premise that it is being "challenged" again with the current crop o' politicos... I just felt it necessary to point out that we truly have been through this kind of "law by reaction" in the past and when cooler heads prevail, then the changes are rescinded. That is my hope in any event. I have been railing long and hard about the protection of the Bill of Rights and how it has been "stretched", beginning with the sixties (probably before that, but I wasn't around then!). The creation of agencies with legislative and oversight power (never a part of the Constitution). The legal system with too many laws, lawyers and not enough sense to dispense common justice... I could go on :-) What is important to keep in mind is that people in this country truly are scared, liberals and conservatives alike. Noone (most probably) could have conceived of commercial jets being flown into the World Trade Center or the ramifications that it would have on Arabs, suspected terrorists, etc... It stands to reason, IMHO, that doing nothing is NOT better than attempting to find these types of folks. It does require a tradeoff. How far we are willing to trade our privacy for security is a matter to be played out. I honestly didn't think that our government would "stretch" the Fourth (and Fifth for that matter) as much as it did fighting the "war on drugs"... It did. So there is plenty of reason for our concern. We added a new agency for Homeland Security... That got the hairs on the back of my liberal neck standing straight up... Hell, these guys and we the people are all "winging it" right now. There is no precedent for the current scenario saving the old Peter Sellers "Mouse that Roared" movie. But then, they didn't really attack anything... For what it's worth, I am very concerned about our Fourth Amendment rights (as I understand them) and took offense (rightly or wrongly) by how I feel they are being "politicized" currently. Whenever issues become politicized, there is also a tendency for them to become marginalized as well. I feel they are too important to become just another blip on the American commercial network... Perhaps what we, the concerned citizenry, should be asking for is that any modifications to the Bill during wartime are up for immediate review as soon as the crisis is passed? Then we can clearly scrutinize how badly we've jeopardized individual liberties. In other words, I like what you're saying, but I don't like how you're saying it... Critics voice, take your choice... You have no problem with me. Just a few thoughts, Screamer "I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, smile and grin at the change all around, pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday..." P. Townshend "Nietzsche has an S in it" Celina Jones
Post #18,267 by Silverlock 11/14/01 1:11:15 PM Reply	Refreshing I just love it when a thread is saved from the flames. I think we aren't too far apart on this. My original point (however badly expressed) was in the nature of a logic exercise. I regret the implication that I think our gov is worse than the Taliban. However, I strongly disagree with your contention that the current inroads on civil liberties are simply more of the same that others have done in the past. I think this is much more serious. With that in mind, the point I was trying to make was, given the rhetoric of our administration regarding the aims of the terrorists, we have already lost the "war on terrorism" due to our actions in response. How to mangle the truth; Have it reported by any major U.S. media outlet.
Post #18,278 by screamer 11/14/01 2:27:46 PM Reply	Point taken... And I'm no prophet. I am guardedly optimistic that this is more of the same... We can agree to disagree on the "degree" of severity of this current power grab, and we can agree to agree that we must try to diligently guard our rights to unlawful search and seizure and due process... I'm ready to put this to rest if you are. Just a few thoughts, Screamer "I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, smile and grin at the change all around, pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday..." P. Townshend "Nietzsche has an S in it" Celina Jones
Post #18,280 by Silverlock 11/14/01 2:37:39 PM Reply	Putting it to rest. Complete agreement. (about putting it to rest. Other things? We'll see.) :-) How to mangle the truth; Have it reported by any major U.S. media outlet.
Post #18,299 by Ashton 11/14/01 4:05:20 PM Reply	PS to both. Mouse That Roared !! Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. I'd forgotten that masterpiece.. Would that 'we-all' had not: there is no finer pomposity-buster than Sellers in a good vehicle - and that one was a Ferrari Testa Rossa on nitro. The Q Bomb says it all. Nice to see Sweet Reason is alive and well at, at least zIWE. I too shall attempt next to avoid merely replying in kind to shibboleths and, if I can - point out as well: the sight of a process doomed to doggerel by M$-like initial Awful McDesign. (repeat after self the mantra.. scale and relativity, scale and relativity, scale and relativity..) Peace. We have to become accustomed (but not inured) to the Interesting Times - and remain vigilant of the BS of all the bounders, each looking for opportunities, whatever sewn-on label they sport. No? Ashton
Post #18,301 by Silverlock 11/14/01 4:33:19 PM Reply	Pomposity buster Being There. Sellers most understated role. And an absolute delight to watch. The cluelessness of the politicians/media/business leaders reacting to this "Gardner" is hilarious. The Shirly MacClaine masturbation scene is especially rich in wry humor. Highly recommended to any with an appreciation of subtlety in film. I've got to get the book to see how much is left out of the movie. How to mangle the truth; Have it reported by any major U.S. media outlet.
Post #18,310 by Ashton 11/14/01 5:02:36 PM Reply	Yes.. of Course! Timeless and entirely current Maybe more than Mouse. Everyone got to watch close-ups of most congresscritters recently - in that orchestrated Let's Get Horny Billy rewrite of The Ten Commandments Live! on color Tee Vee! Permanently ingrained: those faces, that High Dudgeon, that McSincerity! er hypocrisy dripping onto the expensive carpeting. Mr. YouthfulIndiscretionHyde presiding with requisite silver-hair and avuncular epithets. Cackle.. glorp.. One of the few videos I bought. Thanks - have to view it again soon, with a cohort. Chauncy Gardner Lives! He lives in the hearts and minds of every little girl at Christmas time.. Yes! Virginia - there IS a Chauncey Gardner !!! Ashton ain't us homo-saps a Riot!? RIP Mr. Sellers
Post #18,312 by screamer 11/14/01 5:13:28 PM Reply	Okay, Okay.... I'll bite... The Party is the ultimate in my view... Birdy num nums, birdy num nums... Just a few thoughts, Screamer "I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, smile and grin at the change all around, pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday..." P. Townshend "Nietzsche has an S in it" Celina Jones
Post #18,372 by boxley 11/14/01 10:40:35 PM Reply	nope there is a girl in my soup and dont forget leu licunce pour la mahenky thanx, bill tshirt front "born to die before I get old" thshirt back "fscked another one didnja?"
Post #18,326 by jb4 11/14/01 6:38:22 PM Reply	If you can't keep up, take notes. From your latest noodle-logic rant: What happened to the rights of smokers under Clinton? Actually, the same thing that happened to the "rights" of smokers under George I and Ronald McDonald. BTW, the fallacy is that smoking is a privilege, not a right, Butthead. Therefore, there is no "right" to smoke. Just as there is no right to drive. Hope you were paying attention this time...there will be a quiz... jb4 (Resistance is not futile...)
Post #18,398 by screamer 11/15/01 9:58:54 AM Reply	Exqueeze me... Noodle man... I have the right to do anything I damn well please until someone tells me it's illegal... It was perfectly fine and dandy to smoke anywhere until the late '80's and '90's. While you may not perceive that as a right, you'd be wrong. I could smoke cigs in public until the Bush/Clinton admin if I so desired. Reason it was brought up ... as it has been before, where the hell were you when this right was taken away? It probably didn't bother you 'cause you didn't smoke... You claim you have the "right" not to breath second hand smoke where it never existed before... OH? By what magic "right" did this happen? Which is exactly what is happening now with the perceived "rights" of people to privacy - albeit that privacy is more universal and sexy than smoking... See my point. Or do you want me to go through this again but more slowly... Just a few thoughts, Screamer "I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, smile and grin at the change all around, pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday..." P. Townshend "Nietzsche has an S in it" Celina Jones
Post #18,436 by jb4 11/15/01 2:16:30 PM Reply	Re: Exqueeze me... Noodle man... So you claim to have the right to drive a car (or an 18-wheeler, for that matter)? jb4 (Resistance is not futile...)
Post #18,440 by inthane-chan 11/15/01 2:43:32 PM Reply	I guess that also extends the right... ...to own, concentrate, and release into the environment substances that are toxic to others? "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Post #18,449 by screamer 11/15/01 4:09:14 PM Reply	You got it pal... now give me your car keys... Just a few thoughts, Screamer "I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, smile and grin at the change all around, pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday..." P. Townshend "Nietzsche has an S in it" Celina Jones
Post #18,452 by inthane-chan 11/15/01 4:28:54 PM Reply	Which is why... ...we have emissions tests here in Washington state as a prerequisite to relicensing, and California is forcing automakers to move towards zero-emission vehicles. My father chain-smoked while I was growing up. I was frickin' miserable the whole time, and couldn't stand it. He finally quit when I was around 20. If you have a right to blow smoke in my face, (smoking not being an essential service - transportation is a HELL of a lot more essential than smoking) I have a right to urinate in your beer. So, where do you keep your supply? "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Post #18,456 by screamer 11/15/01 5:18:20 PM Reply	Which is absolute and total bullshit... you have no "right" to do anything if we view the world from your myopic perspective. Everything is a priviledge unless YOU deem it okay? Is this how it works? Or are YOU now gonna hide behind the "oppressive majority" to claim your rights? If so, then screw you when you need my help... Isn't this how it works? My dad chainsmoked too. I hated it. I also hate loud music in cars. I also hate people who wear too much perfume. I also hate people who don't open doors for other people. You know what, so fucking what? When you use legislation to cram stupid laws down people's throats because of the way the political wind is blowing, then you end up giving up rights... Again, which is my point. If you are not willing to defend the unpopular ones, where is the consistency in that. Why do I care if YOUR privacy is infringed? I mean, I have nothing to hide, let 'em bug me all they want... In any event, if you can't see the correlation, I'm not going to belittle this any further. And as far as you beer pissing, I'd just throw it in your face anyway... Then blow smoke on you. Just a few thoughts, Screamer "I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, smile and grin at the change all around, pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday..." P. Townshend "Nietzsche has an S in it" Celina Jones
Post #18,457 by inthane-chan 11/15/01 5:29:54 PM Reply	No, I see the correlation. Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins." Now, if smoking did no harm to others, then by all means, I'd be all for you comitting suicide in whatever way you choose necessary. And I don't advocate creating "smoking laws" - the idea of creating a targeted law is exactly the kind of thing that gets us all in a lot of deep shit. We create laws that apply to "all cases, except where noted in subsections b., c., d. f.42, and this other law over here." Get back to basics, I say. Cut out all the crap, and instead pass a single environmental law that defines a maximum acceptible carcinogen output. I'll admit I'm pulling this idea out of my nether regions right now, so I'm not really sure how we'd benchmark that, but I'm sure something fairly reasonable could be dreamed up. Then apply that standard across the board. You drive? It applies to you. You smoke? It applies to you as well. You piss in somebody's beer? Well, you've got other problems, in addition to the carcinogen law. :) I'd love to have a solution without laws. The problem is, we're human beings. Anarchy is a great state, if all you've got is totally enlightened beings, which our species seems to be lacking in. It might very well be that the carcinogen output from cars would completely blow away second-hand cigarrete smoke. I'm fine by that, and quite frankly, I wouldn't be surprised at all. Cigarretes do make me personally ill, and maybe specifically attacking them is wrong - but saying that we have a "right to smoke" without regards to those around us IMO is wrong. "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Post #18,464 by screamer 11/15/01 6:14:17 PM Reply	It's becoming a lovefest... :-) And yes, it would be great if we could get an "enlightened public" to be mindful of others all the time at all places. Having said all of this, I'm glad that the smoking bans are in place as well 'cause there's nothing to more annoying than walking into a smoke filled room to eat (or drink - something I personally don't do). As well, having played the "bar scene" for many years with rock bands, etc... smoking is even the more personally offensive. I've have been smoke free for about 4 months now (Zyban - which may explain my mood swings!) and this is a very touchy subject for me. The point I'm getting at though is that every little liberty that we the people are willing to cede for comfort or security, add up. Kind of like the jokes about congress "a billion here and a billion there, pretty soon your talking about real money..." I'm getting so verbose lately thought that I'm boring myself... As stated earlier, I hope that the Silverlocks of the world are able to keep civil liberties on the "front burner" and believe it or not, I'm trying to help out by tempering the message (a political filter if you will) so it can't be easily dismissed as being just more partisan bickering... Oh, and as a personal favor, can we agree to poopcan the beer thing. It makes me ill every time you say it... It just confirms one of my greatest fears concerning the color and smell of American beer... Please? Just a few thoughts, Screamer "I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, smile and grin at the change all around, pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday..." P. Townshend "Nietzsche has an S in it" Celina Jones
Post #18,476 by inthane-chan 11/15/01 7:11:27 PM Reply	No more beer comments, I assure you. :P "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Post #18,493 by inthane-chan 11/15/01 9:36:31 PM Reply	But ya know... ...it does make me wonder: Are you more afraid I'll piss in your beer, or that you'll realize that me pissing in your beer would dramatically increase the quality of it? (Evil grin) "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Post #18,470 by jb4 11/15/01 6:48:10 PM Reply	WARNING - red-herring alert! Instead of: [...]you have no "right" to do anything if we view the world from your myopic perspective. Everything is a priviledge [sic] unless YOU deem it okay? Is this how it works? Or are YOU now gonna hide behind the "oppressive majority" to claim your rights? If so, then screw you when you need my help... Isn't this how it works? How' bout you answer the question: Where's your beer supply? jb4 (Resistance is not futile...)
Post #18,451 by screamer 11/15/01 4:17:34 PM Reply	You don't need a license to smoke... But since we brought this up, the topic of what is a "right" or a "priviledge" is a good one to have. Probably not in the War On Terrorism forum, but good nonetheless... If you are asking about the right to drive, no, I'd say that you have a right to receive a license if you meet the requirements and follow the rules of your state. But since we have juxtaposed cars into this smoking equation, you still have the right to pollute my air with yours... Much more toxically (a word?) than any second hand smoke can... so by all rights, and using the same logic as was used to ban smoking in public, we should be able to ban motor vehicles for the "second hand smoke" they produce, right? Oh, that would be umpopular, wouldn't it... Politics... Go figure. Just a few thoughts, Screamer "I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, smile and grin at the change all around, pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday..." P. Townshend "Nietzsche has an S in it" Celina Jones
Post #18,472 by jb4 11/15/01 6:50:21 PM Reply	Actually, I agree... I would support a law prohibiting driving a polluting vehicle indoors.... jb4 (Resistance is not futile...)
Post #18,481 by Ashton 11/15/01 8:11:31 PM Reply	Or: Everything not prohibited is compulsory.

Welcome to IWETHEY!