Yes or no ? Freedom or slavery ?

Canna Sylvan said:

Even without your qualifier, all insults with intent are Ad Hom. The only instances an insult isn't Ad Hom is when it's unintentional, like if the person is a foreigner and it's not insulting in their culture, the person suffers Tourette, etc.

Click to expand...

Nope.

the ad hominem fallacy is predicated on the use of insults and derision against the arguer in an attempt to discredit his position, without ever actually addressing the position.

just calling somebody a name, or crafting a poetic insult doesnt qualify.

further, those with tourettes DO have intent. they just shout their internal monologue rather than couch their bile in carefully parsed phrases about "Hope N Change".

londonfog said:

Hello.
What do you call people who hate the government, but still use the government to help them in life?

Click to expand...

Abandon Conflict?

Canna Sylvan said:

Even without your qualifier, all insults with intent are Ad Hom. The only instances an insult isn't Ad Hom is when it's unintentional, like if the person is a foreigner and it's not insulting in their culture, the person suffers Tourette, etc.

Click to expand...

Why do people bitch about government helping others, but also use the help that government provide ?

londonfog said:

Why do people bitch about government helping others, but also use the help that government provide ?

Click to expand...

Self interest, greed, hypocrisy, "I've paid in, I'm gonna get mines", "if you can't beat em, join em".

Why do people argue for women's rights for things like abortion but then demand she has a policy that covers colonoscopes, forbids she has a drink in her third trimester, and tries to tell her who she can and can't marry?

londonfog said:

Why do people bitch about government helping others, but also use the help that government provide ?

Click to expand...

There is no one size fits all answer.

First of all coercive government doesn't usually allow alternatives or if they do they set up barriers that discourage them.

In the case of some so called "services" people are forced to pay for them whether they use them or not.

There are no real services that coercive government provides that cannot be performed better and more ethically by voluntary action.

When you call something a service that is provided by coercion, you are using the term "service" in a distorted fashion.
Any real service provider worth anything derives that status because people have weighed the alternatives and freely choose to use the service.

The question you should be asking is, if the "services" provided by government are so good, why do they force people to fund them? Doesn't any real service provider find their customers by delivering a valued service or product rather than thru capturing people?

londonfog said:

Why do people bitch about government helping others, but also use the help that government provide ?

Click to expand...

What help do I get? The government takes from me, not gives. You're confused.

londonfog said:

so is your answer to this "just do away with any regulations"?
What is your point ?

Click to expand...

Was in response to your comment about airlines don't do that crap. Yet they do...

Didn't realize I had to spell that out for you...

Dr Kynes said:

actually he is ALMOST right for once.

an Ad Hom is a fallacious argument that attacks the opponent rather than his position, while an insult simply attacks without regard for argument or postion


example: abandonconflict is a fool, a crypto-marxist, and a phony anarcho-_______________ist...
Insult (and entirely accurate)

...and for these reasons he is always wrong"

and now it's an ad hom.

Click to expand...

Learn the 10 or so standard fallacies. Watch Hannity ( a simpleton when it comes to lying) and Huckabee (a little smoother liar with a few more tricks). When you can tell HOW they are lying on almost every issue they discuss, congratulate yourself you have become a more astute person.

ginwilly said:

Why do people argue for women's rights for things like abortion but then forbid she has a drink in her third trimester?

Click to expand...

you really need a biology 101 course, desperately.

UncleBuck said:

you really need a biology 101 course, desperately.

Click to expand...

So "It's her body she can do what she wants" is trumped when you feel it's OK to tell her what she can do?

Hypocrite.

ginwilly said:

So "It's her body she can do what she wants" is trumped when you feel it's OK to tell her what she can do?

Hypocrite.

Click to expand...

No, it's biology. If she decides she is gonna have a kid, then there are two bodies. Not just one anymore.

Were you thinking the stork just delivered them?

UncleBuck said:

No, it's biology. If she decides she is gonna have a kid, then there are two bodies. Not just one anymore.

Were you thinking the stork just delivered them?

Click to expand...

Oh so NOW you're thinking of the kid.

Some doctors are cool with a glass of wine in the third trimester, but you know better and want to make it illegal for women to do so.

Hypocrite.

So let's recap, "It's her body, she can do what she wants" is the argument for having an abortion, but not when it comes to a glass of wine or an insurance policy that doesn't cover colonoscopys.

BTW, when does prohibition work?

ginwilly said:

Oh so NOW you're thinking of the kid.

Some doctors are cool with a glass of wine in the third trimester, but you know better and want to make it illegal for women to do so.

Hypocrite.

So let's recap, "It's her body, she can do what she wants" is the argument for having an abortion, but not when it comes to a glass of wine or an insurance policy that doesn't cover colonoscopys.

BTW, when does prohibition work?

Click to expand...

So she can kill it purposely if she wants cos it's her body, but she can't have a drink?

I wouldn't approve of it with my missus because common sense but I don't give a shit what other people do to their already retarded foetuses.

Harrekin said:

So she can kill it purposely if she wants cos it's her body, but she can't have a drink?

I wouldn't approve of it with my missus because common sense but I don't give a shit what other people do to their already retarded foetuses.

Click to expand...

There are no laws against it that I am aware of. Wouldn't surprise me if California had such a law.

Once again though, the liberal reaction is legislation not education. The same people will tell you prohibition doesn't work too.

overgrowem said:

Learn the 10 or so standard fallacies. Watch Hannity ( a simpleton when it comes to lying) and Huckabee (a little smoother liar with a few more tricks). When you can tell HOW they are lying on almost every issue they discuss, congratulate yourself you have become a more astute person.

Click to expand...

Then I must be very intuitive, I know hillary clinton is lying every time she opens her mouth.

Is 40 years not enough time for you to grasp the ramifications of roe v Wade?

When did I decry a single.glass of wine by the way?

Might want to brush up on roe v Wade after biology 101, Bible thumper.

ginwilly said:

Oh so NOW you're thinking of the kid.

Some doctors are cool with a glass of wine in the third trimester, but you know better and want to make it illegal for women to do so.

Hypocrite.

So let's recap, "It's her body, she can do what she wants" is the argument for having an abortion, but not when it comes to a glass of wine or an insurance policy that doesn't cover colonoscopys.

BTW, when does prohibition work?

Click to expand...

So aborting an unviable pile of cells is murder, but downing a bottle of schnapps with a 30 week old bun in the oven is all good?


Republicans may just be as retarded as I've suspected they were.

Harrekin said:

So she can kill it purposely if she wants cos it's her body, but she can't have a drink?

I wouldn't approve of it with my missus because common sense but I don't give a shit what other people do to their already retarded foetuses.

Click to expand...

UncleBuck said:

Is 40 years not enough time for you to grasp the ramifications of roe v Wade?

When did I decry a single.glass of wine by the way?

Might want to brush up on roe v Wade after biology 101, Bible thumper.

Click to expand...

So when you said she shouldn't be allowed to drink or smoke during pregnancy you had limit in mind? What's your limit by decree? one a day? two in one day as long as you skip the next?

Face it man, you stepped on your dick on this one showing your true colors. You don't give a damn about women, you don't think they are smart enough to control their own pregnancy, so you want legislation to control her.

BTW, would a law stop a woman from smoking or drinking or would education work better? Prohibition works according to you?

Also, why the mention of Roe v Wade? I'm pro-choice even if personally I don't believe in abortion. Does the verdict have anything to do with her drinking during pregnancy? I missed that part.

UncleBuck said:

So aborting an unviable pile of cells is murder, but downing a bottle of schnapps with a 30 week old bun in the oven is all good?


Republicans may just be as retarded as I've suspected they were.

Click to expand...

Would you lock her up if she did? Is that your answer? hypocrite

So you think she should be able to abort that 30 week old fetus but jailed if she drinks? hypocrite

UncleBuck said:

So aborting an unviable pile of cells is murder, but downing a bottle of schnapps with a 30 week old bun in the oven is all good?


Republicans may just be as retarded as I've suspected they were.

Click to expand...

Abortions stop at the point of viability you say?

Citation puhlese.