Alexandria Ocasio Cortez has a New Rule

ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Not sure what you are responding to. I simply am pointing out that what @Padawanbater2 said is a fallacy. Progressive(TM) Democrats aren't going to populate a majority of the seats of congress because too few of them ran for Congressional office. One must run for an office before they can win it in an election.

To remind you of what Pad said:



Nothing. Absolutely nothing kept Progressives(TM) from running. Yet only a few did and fewer won. What is hypocritical about the above statement and your inane defense of it, is the hue and cry made by you and Pad when a PAC told Tillemann, a self described Progressive(TM) who was running for a congressional seat in the CO 6th district, they wouldn't give him money.

The converse of Pads statement is true: There were plenty of progressives such as Lamb in the PA 13th district who won and also refused corporate PAC money.

So I'm just using Pad's false statement as a teaching moment to help you and others understand and hopefully correct your faulty thinking. Pad made a conclusion of causality that was not the cause for the cause.
Click to expand...
You're arrogant and think that anyone who disagrees with you has a logic deficiency. Worse, you can't be dragged kicking and screaming to read anything that might cause you to question your biases, no matter how qualified the speaker might be. That makes you ignorant. Everyone else isn't wrong, you're just out of touch and your grasp of economics is weak.

Just go sign up with the Republican Party, already.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
You're arrogant and think that anyone who disagrees with you has a logic deficiency. Worse, you can't be dragged kicking and screaming to read anything that might cause you to question your biases, no matter how qualified the speaker might be. That makes you ignorant. Everyone else isn't wrong, you're just out of touch and your grasp of economics is weak.

Just go sign up with the Republican Party, already.
Click to expand...
Not sure what you are responding do. Regarding my previous post, I am simply pointing out that what @Padawanbater2 said is a fallacy. Progressive(TM) Democrats aren't going to populate a majority of the seats of congress because too few of them ran for Congressional office. One must run for an office before they can win it in an election. Please explain how Progressives(TM) can possibly control Congress when only 12 of them ran for House seats and it takes 218 seats to win a majority?

Whether or not I am arrogant, biased, unqualified, ignorant, out of touch and weak on economics has no bearing on my argument. So, I will use this as another teaching moment to help my Progressive(TM) partners in the Democratic Party improve their reasoning and debating skills. By criticizing my character and abilities rather than respond to my talking points you are using a logical fallacy rather than respond to what I had said. The one you used is called the:

Ad Hominem Fallacy
When people think of “arguments,” often their first thought is of shouting matches riddled with personal attacks. Ironically, personal attacks run contrary to rational arguments. In logic and rhetoric, personal attacks are called ad hominems. Ad hominem is Latin for “against the man.” Instead of advancing good sound reasoning, ad hominems replace logical argumentation with attack-language unrelated to the truth of the matter.

 
Last edited:
Unclebaldrick

Unclebaldrick

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Ad Hominem Fallacy
When people think of “arguments,” often their first thought is of shouting matches riddled with personal attacks. Ironically, personal attacks run contrary to rational arguments. In logic and rhetoric, personal attacks are called ad hominems. Ad hominem is Latin for “against the man.” Instead of advancing good sound reasoning, ad hominemsreplace logical argumentation with attack-language unrelated to the truth of the matter.

Click to expand...
He is never going to learn logic. Logic to him is anything he does. Fallacies are things other people who do not agree with him 100% say.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Unclebaldrick said:
He is never going to learn logic. Logic to him is anything he does. Fallacies are things other people who do not agree with him 100% say.
Click to expand...
But was what I said wrong? A very consistent refrain and complaint from our friends, the Progressives(TM) is that we are arrogant. They are confusing arrogance with confidence. We are confident BECAUSE our arguments are logical and based upon facts that we have verified to be true. I'd like to help them become as confident as we are. So, I'm using their invective-filled fallacious arguments as teaching moments.

I think maybe then, tty might be able to actually move out into the world rather than hurl insults into the internet because he's jealous. He could get a job, learn some things about the real world, maybe even become somebody that someone else could find attractive and settle down in a fine manner. He might accomplish something of note and become a contributing member of society and in his spare time engage in interesting discussions about the workings of the world. Heck, he might even get laid and stop walking around in a haze caused by a continuous case of blue balls.

Wouldn't that be nice?
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
But was what I said wrong? A very consistent refrain and complaint from our friends, the Progressives(TM) is that we are arrogant. They are confusing arrogance with confidence. We are confident BECAUSE our arguments are logical and based upon facts that we have verified to be true. I'd like to help them become as confident as we are. So, I'm using their invective-filled fallacious arguments as teaching moments.

I think maybe then, tty might be able to actually move out into the world rather than hurl insults into the internet because he's jealous. He could get a job, learn some things about the real world, maybe even become somebody that someone else could find attractive and settle down in a fine manner. He might accomplish something of note and become a contributing member of society and in his spare time engage in interesting discussions about the workings of the world. Heck, he might even get laid and stop walking around in a haze caused by a continuous case of blue balls.

Wouldn't that be nice?
Click to expand...
A veritable master class of strawmanning.

I must own a lot of real estate in your head.

Too bad it so utterly lacks anything approaching value.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
A veritable master class of strawmanning.

I must own a lot of real estate in your head.

Too bad it so utterly lacks anything approaching value.
Click to expand...
Again, what you said might be true but it has nothing to do with the basis of my argument. @Padawanbater2 claimed that Progressives(TM) won't own a majority in the House "because Democratic candidates took PAC money". My argument back at him is that only 12 Progressives(TM) ran for office this election cycle. It takes 218 Democrats to hold a majority. Also, quite a few progressive Democrats refused corporate PAC money and some of them won. So, his argument is fallacious.

Your reply avoids Pad's mistakes also mostly avoids your most recent ad hominem attacks. Still, you fail to address the points I've made. Instead you used:

Equivocation (ambiguity)
Equivocation happens when a word, phrase, or sentence is used deliberately to confuse, deceive, or mislead by sounding like it’s saying one thing but actually saying something else. Equivocation comes from the roots “equal” and “voice” and refers to two-voices; a single word can “say” two different things. Another word for this is ambiguity.

When it’s poetic or comical, we call it a “play on words.” But when it’s done in a political speech, an ethics debate, or in an economics report, for example, and it’s done to make the audience think you’re saying something you’re not, that’s when it becomes a fallacy. Sometimes, this is not a “fallacy” per se, but just a miscommunication. The equivocation fallacy, however, has a tone of deception instead of just a simple misunderstanding.

Sorry, I don't have a You Tube video to help you through this one. Let me just say that 12 is less than 218 regardless of what you just said.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Again, what you said might be true but it has nothing to do with the basis of my argument. @Padawanbater2 claimed that Progressives(TM) won't own a majority in the House "because Democratic candidates took PAC money". My argument back at him is that only 12 Progressives(TM) ran for office this election cycle. It takes 218 Democrats to hold a majority. Also, quite a few progressive Democrats refused corporate PAC money and some of them won. So, his argument is fallacious.

Your reply avoids Pad's mistakes also mostly avoids your most recent ad hominem attacks. Still, you fail to address the points I've made. Instead you used:

Equivocation (ambiguity)
Equivocation happens when a word, phrase, or sentence is used deliberately to confuse, deceive, or mislead by sounding like it’s saying one thing but actually saying something else. Equivocation comes from the roots “equal” and “voice” and refers to two-voices; a single word can “say” two different things. Another word for this is ambiguity.

When it’s poetic or comical, we call it a “play on words.” But when it’s done in a political speech, an ethics debate, or in an economics report, for example, and it’s done to make the audience think you’re saying something you’re not, that’s when it becomes a fallacy. Sometimes, this is not a “fallacy” per se, but just a miscommunication. The equivocation fallacy, however, has a tone of deception instead of just a simple misunderstanding.

Sorry, I don't have a You Tube video to help you through this one. Let me just say that 12 is less than 218 regardless of what you just said.
Click to expand...
Another wall of text which desperately tries to distract from the fact that you have nothing to say because you have cut yourself off from anything that doesn't reek of self congratulatory confirmation bias.

But by all means, keep wasting your time.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
Another wall of text which desperately tries to distract from the fact that you have nothing to say because you have cut yourself off from anything that doesn't reek of self congratulatory confirmation bias.

But by all means, keep wasting your time.
Click to expand...
What you said does not address that fact that 12 Progressive (TM) candidates -- even if all of them win office, which is already not possible because about half lost their primaries -- cannot make a majority in the House of Representatives. The House is made up of 435 representatives. I leave calculating how many Progressives(TM) would have to win seats in order to capture a majority in the House as an exercise for the student.

I'm not saying your claims are untrue. It's just that ad Hominem attacks are a distraction in themselves. You can do better, tty, but you must extend yourself further.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
What you said does not address that fact that 12 Progressive (TM) candidates -- even if all of them win office, which is already not possible because about half lost their primaries -- cannot make a majority in the House of Representatives. The House is made up of 435 representatives. I leave calculating how many Progressives(TM) would have to win seats in order to capture a majority in the House as an exercise for the student.

I'm not saying your claims are untrue. It's just that ad Hominem attacks are a distraction in themselves. You can do better, tty, but you must extend yourself further.
Click to expand...
You told me yourself that change happens slowly.

Now you hold that up as evidence of the failure of the movement.

Your own hypocrisy ensnares you.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
You told me yourself that change happens slowly.

Now you hold that up as evidence of the failure of the movement.

Your own hypocrisy ensnares you.
Click to expand...
Nice. You have given me a new fallacy to discuss but first, let me drag you back to the origin of our discussion. @Padawanbater2 replied to @Sour Wreck with a causal fallacy:
Sour Wreck said:
nothing would make me happier then to piss off white evangelicals.

i hope the county goes hard left, fuck them....
Click to expand...
Padawanbater2 said:
It won't because the majority of Democrats accept corporate/PAC money
Click to expand...
While it is true that the majority of Democrats accept PAC money from Corporations that is not the reason the Progressives(TM) will fail to hold the majority in the House or Senate. The country cannot go hard left in the next election cycle because only about 12 people who fully endorse hard left policies ran for office this cycle and only about 6 won their primaries. So, Pad's claim is false and fits the causal fallacy argument.

Now then. Regarding your post and your fallacy. I did not say that the hard left or Progressive(TM) movement is failing because only about 6 Progressives will be running in the fall. I'm saying that Progressives(TM) cannot hold the majority after this term because 6 or 12 is not enough to do so. The fallacy you used in your post was the

Straw Man
It’s much easier to defeat your opponent’s argument when it’s made of straw. The Strawman fallacy is aptly named after a harmless, lifeless, scarecrow. In the straw man fallacy, someone attacks a position the opponent doesn’t really hold. Instead of contending with the actual argument, he or she instead attacks the equivalent of a lifeless bundle of straw, an easily defeated effigy, which the opponent never intended upon defending anyway.

Straw man fallacies are a cheap and easy way to make one’s position look stronger than it is. Using this fallacy, opposing views are characterized as “non-starters,” lifeless, truthless, and wholly unreliable. By comparison, one’s own position will look better for it. You can imagine how straw man fallacies and ad hominems can occur together, demonizing opponents and discrediting their views.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Nice. You have given me a new fallacy to discuss but first, let me drag you back to the origin of our discussion. @Padawanbater2 replied to @Sour Wreck with a causal fallacy:



While it is true that the majority of Democrats accept PAC money from Corporations that is not the reason the Progressives(TM) will fail to hold the majority in the House or Senate. The country cannot go hard left in the next election cycle because only about 12 people who fully endorse hard left policies ran for office this cycle and only about 6 won their primaries. So, Pad's claim is false and fits the causal fallacy argument.

Now then. Regarding your post and your fallacy. I did not say that the hard left or Progressive(TM) movement is failing because only about 6 Progressives will be running in the fall. I'm saying that Progressives(TM) cannot hold the majority after this term because 6 or 12 is not enough to do so. The fallacy you used in your post was the

Straw Man
It’s much easier to defeat your opponent’s argument when it’s made of straw. The Strawman fallacy is aptly named after a harmless, lifeless, scarecrow. In the straw man fallacy, someone attacks a position the opponent doesn’t really hold. Instead of contending with the actual argument, he or she instead attacks the equivalent of a lifeless bundle of straw, an easily defeated effigy, which the opponent never intended upon defending anyway.

Straw man fallacies are a cheap and easy way to make one’s position look stronger than it is. Using this fallacy, opposing views are characterized as “non-starters,” lifeless, truthless, and wholly unreliable. By comparison, one’s own position will look better for it. You can imagine how straw man fallacies and ad hominems can occur together, demonizing opponents and discrediting their views.
Click to expand...
He bloviates...
 
zeddd

zeddd

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
You're arrogant and think that anyone who disagrees with you has a logic deficiency. Worse, you can't be dragged kicking and screaming to read anything that might cause you to question your biases, no matter how qualified the speaker might be. That makes you ignorant. Everyone else isn't wrong, you're just out of touch and your grasp of economics is weak.

Just go sign up with the Republican Party, already.
Click to expand...
Are you shouting at the mirror again?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top