What are libertarians?

[TemplarKormac]

You do realize you're throwing a tantrum right now, right Pogo?

 

[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?

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.

Not necessarily. It could be fact. The fact that you come running in from the sidelines picking sides you already had doesn't affect the fallacy that was already there. The credence of "their" argument depends on them making it -- not what somebody else says about it.

So where are these strawmen "we" brought in?

Wait, hang on a sec...
(looks around..... nobody here)
Apparently I work alone. So where are these strawmen I brought in?

 

[Pogo]

You do realize you're throwing a tantrum right now, right Pogo?

No-- but I see you're trying to fantasize one.

Why is that? Deflection?

 

[TemplarKormac]

By saying his argument is fallacious without proving why it is fallacious, yet insisting on its fallaciousness purely by word of mouth means in fact you have erected a strawman of your own. It's easy to see, why can't you see it?

 

[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?

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

When has that ever happened?
(Disclaimer -- violent thunderstorm starting right now, if I disappear, that'll be the reason.)

Look, you've got a lot of dodged unanswered questions piling up. Why don't we start at the beginning:

Explain to the world --Aristotle, Socrates, the whole gang -- how a strawman argument is NOT a fallacy. Start there.

 

[Pogo]

By saying his argument is fallacious without proving why it is fallacious, yet insisting on its fallaciousness purely by word of mouth means in fact you have erected a strawman of your own. It's easy to see, why can't you see it?

Actually I did that several days ago. You just got here. I suggest you read back.

And btw even if that had been the case that's ipse dixit, not a strawman.

A strawman is where you set up an argument, attribute it to somebody else, and then knock it down.

In this case Kaz brought a double fallacy, putting a strawman (the Founders were Marxists) in the mouths of a blanket generalization ("the left" or "duh liberals" or whatever it was) -- which also defies the laws of linear time, ascribing philosophies of a man who hadn't even been born yet to people who aren't present.

I ask again - are you a Woodist or not? Do you know what that means?

 

[TemplarKormac]

By saying his argument is fallacious without proving why it is fallacious, yet insisting on its fallaciousness purely by word of mouth means in fact you have erected a strawman of your own. It's easy to see, why can't you see it?

Actually I did that several days ago. You just got here. I suggest you read back.

Actually, Foxfyre nailed you pretty good. When she accuses someone of not understanding the context of the argument, you know you're wrong. No, you did not in fact establish anything three days ago, this is nothing but grandstanding on your part.

 

[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.

When has that ever happened?
(Disclaimer -- violent thunderstorm starting right now, if I disappear, that'll be the reason.)

Look, you've got a lot of dodged unanswered questions piling up. Why don't we start at the beginning:

Explain to the world --Aristotle, Socrates, the whole gang -- how a strawman argument is NOT a fallacy. Start there.

Strawman is a fallacy, but you have yet to prove his argument is a strawman. I never once said the strawman fallacy isn't a fallacy. You have to prove the fallacy before it becomes one. We call that one "burden of proof" Pogo. Onus probandi.

 

[Pogo]

You do realize you're throwing a tantrum right now, right Pogo?

Ipse dixit fantasy.

 

[Pogo]

By saying his argument is fallacious without proving why it is fallacious, yet insisting on its fallaciousness purely by word of mouth means in fact you have erected a strawman of your own. It's easy to see, why can't you see it?

Actually I did that several days ago. You just got here. I suggest you read back.

Actually, Foxfyre nailed you pretty good. When she accuses someone of not understanding the context of the argument, you know you're wrong. No, you did not in fact establish anything three days ago, this is nothing but grandstanding on your part.

So you cannot explain how a strawman is not a fallacious argument.

And here you're saying Foxfyre is always right? That's what it says here.

 

[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?

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

When has that ever happened?
(Disclaimer -- violent thunderstorm starting right now, if I disappear, that'll be the reason.)

Look, you've got a lot of dodged unanswered questions piling up. Why don't we start at the beginning:

Explain to the world --Aristotle, Socrates, the whole gang -- how a strawman argument is NOT a fallacy. Start there.

Strawman is a fallacy, but you have yet to prove his argument is a strawman. I never once said the strawman fallacy isn't a fallacy. You have to prove the fallacy before it becomes one. We call that one "burden of proof" Pogo. Onus probandi.

Done last week. Going doesn't make it go away.

 

[TemplarKormac]

He/she/it is engaging in a strawman by putting that premise up. It's using a strawman to make a blanket generalization, and it's as transparent as a summer day is long.

You cannot "influence" people retroactively before your own birth. The premise is absurd

She didn't say Marx influenced anybody retroactively either. She used the term "Marxist' as it is understood today to describe concepts that leftists attribute to the Founders today. The concepts existed long before Marx wrote them into a political philosophy. But we didn't have a label to put on them until Marx wrote them into a political philosophy. I simply refuse to believe that you are too dense to understand that, so I have to believe by now you are simply too proud to admit that you are wrong.

Naturally, Pogo, I came to the same conclusion she did, without having so much as read back.

 

[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.

When has that ever happened?
(Disclaimer -- violent thunderstorm starting right now, if I disappear, that'll be the reason.)

Look, you've got a lot of dodged unanswered questions piling up. Why don't we start at the beginning:

Explain to the world --Aristotle, Socrates, the whole gang -- how a strawman argument is NOT a fallacy. Start there.

Strawman is a fallacy, but you have yet to prove his argument is a strawman. I never once said the strawman fallacy isn't a fallacy. You have to prove the fallacy before it becomes one. We call that one "burden of proof" Pogo. Onus probandi.

Done last week. Going doesn't make it go away.

Actually, I'm not the one doing that. You are. I have the distinct feeling I've backed you into a corner.

 

[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?

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

When has that ever happened?
(Disclaimer -- violent thunderstorm starting right now, if I disappear, that'll be the reason.)

Look, you've got a lot of dodged unanswered questions piling up. Why don't we start at the beginning:

Explain to the world --Aristotle, Socrates, the whole gang -- how a strawman argument is NOT a fallacy. Start there.

Strawman is a fallacy, but you have yet to prove his argument is a strawman. I never once said the strawman fallacy isn't a fallacy.

Read it and weep:

Just because he commits an argumentative fallacy does not in fact invalidate his argument.

After which, one might add, you actually tried to suggest that I'm not allowed to call out the fallacy.

REeeeally....

 

[Pogo]

He/she/it is engaging in a strawman by putting that premise up. It's using a strawman to make a blanket generalization, and it's as transparent as a summer day is long.

You cannot "influence" people retroactively before your own birth. The premise is absurd

She didn't say Marx influenced anybody retroactively either. She used the term "Marxist' as it is understood today to describe concepts that leftists attribute to the Founders today. The concepts existed long before Marx wrote them into a political philosophy. But we didn't have a label to put on them until Marx wrote them into a political philosophy. I simply refuse to believe that you are too dense to understand that, so I have to believe by now you are simply too proud to admit that you are wrong.

Naturally, Pogo, I came to the same conclusion she did, without having so much as read back.

So you haven't read the context and are just making it up then? What a surprise.

Well that explains why you can't answer on being a "Woodist".

 

[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?

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

When has that ever happened?
(Disclaimer -- violent thunderstorm starting right now, if I disappear, that'll be the reason.)

Look, you've got a lot of dodged unanswered questions piling up. Why don't we start at the beginning:

Explain to the world --Aristotle, Socrates, the whole gang -- how a strawman argument is NOT a fallacy. Start there.

Strawman is a fallacy, but you have yet to prove his argument is a strawman. I never once said the strawman fallacy isn't a fallacy. You have to prove the fallacy before it becomes one. We call that one "burden of proof" Pogo. Onus probandi.

Done last week. Going doesn't make it go away.

Actually, I'm not the one doing that. You are. I have the distinct feeling I've backed you into a corner.

Whatever you say Danth.


Let's face it -- you got all butthurt to see one of your own busted and came in to pile on. Even now you have yet to address the topic at all.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

The benefit of not having a job.

 

[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.

When has that ever happened?
(Disclaimer -- violent thunderstorm starting right now, if I disappear, that'll be the reason.)

Look, you've got a lot of dodged unanswered questions piling up. Why don't we start at the beginning:

Explain to the world --Aristotle, Socrates, the whole gang -- how a strawman argument is NOT a fallacy. Start there.

Strawman is a fallacy, but you have yet to prove his argument is a strawman. I never once said the strawman fallacy isn't a fallacy.

Read it and weep:

Just because he commits an argumentative fallacy does not in fact invalidate his argument.

After which, one might add, you actually tried to suggest that I'm not allowed to call out the fallacy.

REeeeally....

Based on sound logic I might add, I showed you the definition, you ignored it. Argumentum ad logicam, the act of invalidating an argument based on a presumptive fallacy made by the person positing the original point. No sir.

 

[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.

When has that ever happened?
(Disclaimer -- violent thunderstorm starting right now, if I disappear, that'll be the reason.)

Look, you've got a lot of dodged unanswered questions piling up. Why don't we start at the beginning:

Explain to the world --Aristotle, Socrates, the whole gang -- how a strawman argument is NOT a fallacy. Start there.

Strawman is a fallacy, but you have yet to prove his argument is a strawman. I never once said the strawman fallacy isn't a fallacy. You have to prove the fallacy before it becomes one. We call that one "burden of proof" Pogo. Onus probandi.

Done last week. Going doesn't make it go away.

Actually, I'm not the one doing that. You are. I have the distinct feeling I've backed you into a corner.

Whatever you say Danth.


Let's face it -- you got all butthurt to see one of your own busted and came in to pile on. Even now you have yet to address the topic at all.

Actually, I am quite calm, Pogo. It seems you are the one getting irritated, bud. Your ad hominem is showing.

 

[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?

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

When has that ever happened?
(Disclaimer -- violent thunderstorm starting right now, if I disappear, that'll be the reason.)

Look, you've got a lot of dodged unanswered questions piling up. Why don't we start at the beginning:

Explain to the world --Aristotle, Socrates, the whole gang -- how a strawman argument is NOT a fallacy. Start there.

Strawman is a fallacy, but you have yet to prove his argument is a strawman. I never once said the strawman fallacy isn't a fallacy. You have to prove the fallacy before it becomes one. We call that one "burden of proof" Pogo. Onus probandi.

Done last week. Going doesn't make it go away.

Actually, I'm not the one doing that. You are. I have the distinct feeling I've backed you into a corner.

Whatever you say Danth.


Let's face it -- you got all butthurt to see one of your own busted and came in to pile on. Even now you have yet to address the topic at all.

Actually, I am quite calm, Pogo. It seems you are the one getting irritated, bud. Your ad hominem is showing.

Again --- burden of proof?
No? Nothing? Just the imaginarium is it?

You're the onliest one who's brought up emotion here.
Why is that, TK?
Yet still more deflection?

Woodist?