What are libertarians?

[kaz]

It's amusing how liberals won't read what each other write either.

Perhaps not everyone believes in blockthink.
What a concept.
Since you and this "Stevie" have such vivid creative imaginariums, why not come up with a new fallacy? I mean hasty generalization and biased sample-- them's older than dirt.

Right, name two liberal politicians who disagree on any relevant issue.

 

[Ravi]

Squirm all you like but you tried to float a fatal strawman and got caught at it. To wit the reference:

"the revisionist Democratic history that the Founding Fathers were actually Marxists"

-- which defies linear time and in the latest squirm apparently appeals to a third party who isn't even present.
Looks like you're trying to do the same thing with a "Stevie" now. I'm sure wherever that's going promises to be interesting. And then a segue back to the old reliable ad hom.

You enjoy your fallacies. They must be amusing. I don't get the joke.

Taking statements that are not literal and don't say they are literal and treating them as they are literal is just brain dead, little boy. Grow up.

Hey Pogo, I'm so hungry I could eat a horse. I could eat an elephant! LOL, dimwit.

Kaz finally admits he's fos.

 

[kaz]

Squirm all you like but you tried to float a fatal strawman and got caught at it. To wit the reference:

"the revisionist Democratic history that the Founding Fathers were actually Marxists"

-- which defies linear time and in the latest squirm apparently appeals to a third party who isn't even present.
Looks like you're trying to do the same thing with a "Stevie" now. I'm sure wherever that's going promises to be interesting. And then a segue back to the old reliable ad hom.

You enjoy your fallacies. They must be amusing. I don't get the joke.

Taking statements that are not literal and don't say they are literal and treating them as they are literal is just brain dead, little boy. Grow up.

Hey Pogo, I'm so hungry I could eat a horse. I could eat an elephant! LOL, dimwit.

Kaz finally admits he's fos.

Um...OK? I will never grasp a liberal circle jerk. But you sure do do enjoy them.

 

[Ravi]

There's a lot of stuff you don't grasp.

 

[Pogo]

It's amusing how liberals won't read what each other write either.

Perhaps not everyone believes in blockthink.
What a concept.
Since you and this "Stevie" have such vivid creative imaginariums, why not come up with a new fallacy? I mean hasty generalization and biased sample-- them's older than dirt.

Right, name two liberal politicians who disagree on any relevant issue.

Fallacies-R-Us must be having a sale. Check out Kaz' new Moving the Goalposts model. Spiffy.

All of a sudden you want to weasel-word yourself over to "politicians" now, after the whole spiel was about "liberals like dad2three argue all money belongs to the State and that rw believes government has ubiquitous power and so on that they think they were Marxists" (which doesn't even make grammatical sense) -- references to at least two other posters who aren't even in this ring, with the identity of one "Stevie" still a mystery.... now you want to shift the whole thing over to "politicians"??

Your own post above refers to posters on this board, albethem nonpresent, and now you wanna jump to "politicians"?

You're trying to bury your own fallacies in bullshit just to avoid admitting they're fallacies? Really?

Are you just incapable of following your own point?

 

[TemplarKormac]

There's a lot of stuff you don't grasp.

I'm pretty sure he's elated that he can't grasp the stupidity that comes from your side of the aisle.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Squirm all you like but you tried to float a fatal strawman and got caught at it. To wit the reference:

"the revisionist Democratic history that the Founding Fathers were actually Marxists"

-- which defies linear time and in the latest squirm apparently appeals to a third party who isn't even present.
Looks like you're trying to do the same thing with a "Stevie" now. I'm sure wherever that's going promises to be interesting. And then a segue back to the old reliable ad hom.

You enjoy your fallacies. They must be amusing. I don't get the joke.

Taking statements that are not literal and don't say they are literal and treating them as they are literal is just brain dead, little boy. Grow up.

Hey Pogo, I'm so hungry I could eat a horse. I could eat an elephant! LOL, dimwit.

Kaz finally admits he's fos.

You admit you have no argument. Normally, when you say someone is fos, you have no argument and are conversely fos. Sorry.

 

[Pogo]

Squirm all you like but you tried to float a fatal strawman and got caught at it. To wit the reference:

"the revisionist Democratic history that the Founding Fathers were actually Marxists"

-- which defies linear time and in the latest squirm apparently appeals to a third party who isn't even present.
Looks like you're trying to do the same thing with a "Stevie" now. I'm sure wherever that's going promises to be interesting. And then a segue back to the old reliable ad hom.

You enjoy your fallacies. They must be amusing. I don't get the joke.

Taking statements that are not literal and don't say they are literal and treating them as they are literal is just brain dead, little boy. Grow up.

Hey Pogo, I'm so hungry I could eat a horse. I could eat an elephant! LOL, dimwit.

Kaz finally admits he's fos.

You admit you have no argument. Normally, when you say someone is fos, you have no argument and are conversely fos. Sorry.

It's already established, TK. Kaz got busted moving his/her own strawman to different movable goalposts, not to mention flouting the laws of linear time. And frankly with "your side of the aisle" you're adding a blanket statement overcoat to that strawman without even addressing the topic.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Squirm all you like but you tried to float a fatal strawman and got caught at it. To wit the reference:

"the revisionist Democratic history that the Founding Fathers were actually Marxists"

-- which defies linear time and in the latest squirm apparently appeals to a third party who isn't even present.
Looks like you're trying to do the same thing with a "Stevie" now. I'm sure wherever that's going promises to be interesting. And then a segue back to the old reliable ad hom.

You enjoy your fallacies. They must be amusing. I don't get the joke.

Taking statements that are not literal and don't say they are literal and treating them as they are literal is just brain dead, little boy. Grow up.

Hey Pogo, I'm so hungry I could eat a horse. I could eat an elephant! LOL, dimwit.

Kaz finally admits he's fos.

You admit you have no argument. Normally, when you say someone is fos, you have no argument and are conversely fos. Sorry.

It's already established, TK. Kaz got busted moving his/her own strawman to different movable goalposts, not to mention flouting the laws of linear time. And frankly with "your side of the aisle" you're adding a blanket statement overcoat to that strawman without even addressing the topic.

You two spent more time pointing out his fallacies than making your own argument. Known as the fallacy fallacy. Just because he commits an argumentative fallacy does not in fact invalidate his argument.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Moreover,saying someone is full of shit lends the argument they made more credence, not less. You guys came at his strawmen with your own strawmen.

 

[Pogo]

Squirm all you like but you tried to float a fatal strawman and got caught at it. To wit the reference:

"the revisionist Democratic history that the Founding Fathers were actually Marxists"

-- which defies linear time and in the latest squirm apparently appeals to a third party who isn't even present.
Looks like you're trying to do the same thing with a "Stevie" now. I'm sure wherever that's going promises to be interesting. And then a segue back to the old reliable ad hom.

You enjoy your fallacies. They must be amusing. I don't get the joke.

Taking statements that are not literal and don't say they are literal and treating them as they are literal is just brain dead, little boy. Grow up.

Hey Pogo, I'm so hungry I could eat a horse. I could eat an elephant! LOL, dimwit.

Kaz finally admits he's fos.

You admit you have no argument. Normally, when you say someone is fos, you have no argument and are conversely fos. Sorry.

It's already established, TK. Kaz got busted moving his/her own strawman to different movable goalposts, not to mention flouting the laws of linear time. And frankly with "your side of the aisle" you're adding a blanket statement overcoat to that strawman without even addressing the topic.

You two spent more time pointing out his fallacies than making your own argument. Known as the fallacy fallacy. Just because he commits an argumentative fallacy does not in fact invalidate his argument.

Yeah actually it does. Especially a strawman, because that destroys his/her whole premise.
And it wouldn't have eaten that much time if he/she would simply cop to it and start over.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Argumentum ad logicam, Pogo.

Argument from fallacy - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Pogo]

Argumentum ad logicam, Pogo.

Argument from fallacy - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

You're going to prolong this tangent even further by proposing that a strawman represents a valid argument?

Are you going to tell us time is not linear as well?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Argumentum ad logicam, Pogo.

Argument from fallacy - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

You're going to prolong this tangent even further by proposing that a strawman represents a valid argument?

Are you going to tell us time is not linear as well?

You speak from your own biases. First a 'strawman' then a 'tangent.' That's argumentum ad passiones. You, Pogo, have not invalidated the point, you insist on its invalidity without explaining why it is invalid.

Time is a human invention. You don't feel time, you don't see time. But I'm not here to debate the finer points of Quantum Physics...

 

[Pogo]

Argumentum ad logicam, Pogo.

Argument from fallacy - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

You're going to prolong this tangent even further by proposing that a strawman represents a valid argument?

Are you going to tell us time is not linear as well?

You speak from your own biases. First a 'strawman' then a 'tangent.' That's argumentum ad passiones. You, Pogo, have not invalidated the point, you insist on its invalidity without explaining why it is invalid.

Time is a human invention. You don't feel time, you don't see time. But I'm not here to debate the finer points of Quantum Physics...

Oh pleeeease. Don't try to bury the hole you're in with utter bullshit. You, posting from your posterior on the internets, are going to singlehandedly rewrite the laws of time AND logic??

Get over yourself.
FACT: poster stated a strawman. FACT: that's a fallacy; FACT: he/she got busted on it.
Period, the end.

You can dispense with the silly Argumentum ad Butthurtium. You're only digging a second hole.

Are you a Woodist then?

 

[Pogo]

Moreover,saying someone is full of shit lends the argument they made more credence, not less. You guys came at his strawmen with your own strawmen.

"made more credence" doesn't make sense. Essplain the rest.

You KNOW you're gonna get called on this, right?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Anger does not help your argument either. Argument ad baculum. I can play the same game, if not more effectively. And who is it going on tangents now, Pogo? That post of yours is demonstrative proof that your argument was the fallacious one, not his. I smell rage throughout that post of yours.

 

[Pogo]

Anger does not help your argument either. Argument ad baculum. I can play the same game, if not more effectively. And who is it going on tangents now, Pogo? That post of yours is demonstrative proof that your argument was the fallacious one, not his. I smell rage throughout that post of yours.

Argumentum ad Makeitupasyougoalongium.

Give up yet?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Moreover,saying someone is full of shit lends the argument they made more credence, not less. You guys came at his strawmen with your own strawmen.

"made more credence" doesn't make sense. Essplain the rest.

You KNOW you're gonna get called on this, right?

No I do not. Do you have my phone number?

At any rate, when someone says "you're full of shit" they only lend his argument more credence. Not theirs.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Anger does not help your argument either. Argument ad baculum. I can play the same game, if not more effectively. And who is it going on tangents now, Pogo? That post of yours is demonstrative proof that your argument was the fallacious one, not his. I smell rage throughout that post of yours.

Argumentum ad Makeitupasyougoalongium.

Give up yet?

Nope. You know I can argue well into the night and morning. I know for a fact you'll give up before I do.