|
Post by rmarks1 on Aug 11, 2019 12:39:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Aug 11, 2019 12:48:22 GMT -5
Nope. I never said that at all. From the fact that Hitler was a vegetarian who loved dogs, it does not follow that vegetarians and dog lovers are automatically Nazis. And from the fact that Hitler was a white supremacist, it does not follow that white supremacists are Nazis. That's right. The way you put it is a well known logical error, the Undistributed Middle Term. (All horses are animals; all dogs are animals; therefore all horses are dogs).
What you should have said is that both Hitler and white supremacists share racist beliefs.
Wrong. You made an error in logic. All I did was point it out by giving another example of that error. You're wrong again. Neither I nor the dictionary used the term "invasion force." Therefore neither I nor the dictionary was using the same term as the white supremacists. You are conflating two different terms. Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Aug 11, 2019 18:16:06 GMT -5
So you don't have a good answer again, eh?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2019 9:29:48 GMT -5
You're wrong again. Neither I nor the dictionary used the term "invasion force." Therefore neither I nor the dictionary was using the same term as the white supremacists. You are conflating two different terms. Bob I used the term "invasion force", in my question which I have directed at you. Do you agree with their stance, yes or no? Do you think framing immigrants as an invasion force is accurate and correct? I also used the term "military invasion". What do you guys think? Is it a good thing for American media to use white supremacist rhetoric that frames immigration as a military invasion? Are you going to answer the fucking question, yes or no?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2019 9:31:15 GMT -5
And from the fact that Hitler was a white supremacist, it does not follow that white supremacists are Nazis. That's right. The way you put it is a well known logical error, the Undistributed Middle Term. (All horses are animals; all dogs are animals; therefore all horses are dogs). What you should have said is that both Hitler and white supremacists share racist beliefs.
What does this have to do with my question?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Aug 15, 2019 10:38:00 GMT -5
That's right. The way you put it is a well known logical error, the Undistributed Middle Term. (All horses are animals; all dogs are animals; therefore all horses are dogs). What you should have said is that both Hitler and white supremacists share racist beliefs.
What does this have to do with my question?
Simple. You asked: "What do you guys think? Is it a good thing for American media to use white supremacist rhetoric that frames immigration as a military invasion?"
Your question as you stated it is incoherent. For one thing no one said that this was a "military" invasion. That was your addition.
Second and more important, your question is a Complex Question Fallacy.
If you re-word your question so that it does not commit Logical Fallacies, we "guys" will be able to give you an answer.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2019 14:32:44 GMT -5
Second and more important, your question is a Complex Question Fallacy.
No, it's not. If you don't want to answer the question, then have the intellectual honesty to say so.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Aug 15, 2019 17:26:11 GMT -5
Second and more important, your question is a Complex Question Fallacy. No, it's not. As usual, you are making a claim without giving any evidence whatsoever. Are we just supposed to take your word for it? And if you want to claim that your question is not a Complex Question Fallacy, you should have the intellectual honesty to do so by giving an explanation. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2019 17:47:19 GMT -5
As usual, you are making a claim without giving any evidence whatsoever. And if you want to claim that your question is not a Complex Question Fallacy, you should have the intellectual honesty to do so by giving an explanation. Bob You dismissed my questions as fallacious without providing any evidence in support. I don't need to give you anything.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Aug 15, 2019 21:49:07 GMT -5
As usual, you are making a claim without giving any evidence whatsoever. And if you want to claim that your question is not a Complex Question Fallacy, you should have the intellectual honesty to do so by giving an explanation. Bob You dismissed my questions as fallacious without providing any evidence in support. I don't need to give you anything.
LOL! And you provided no counter-evidence to show that your questions were not in fact Complex Question Fallacies.
This is the question you asked: "What do you guys think? Is it a good thing for American media to use white supremacist rhetoric that frames immigration as a military invasion?"
1) Your question as stated assumes that all of "American media" is using white supremacist rhetoric. Where is your proof that all of American media is doing this?
2) Your question also assumes that all American media is framing immigration as a military invasion. Again, where is your evidence? you didn't give any.
Since your question assumes facts not in evidence, it is a Complex Question Fallacy.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2019 6:56:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Aug 16, 2019 12:29:57 GMT -5
Yes. A short post. However when evidence is requested to back up that short post, it must be supplied, as I did for Maverick later in that thread.
So now I am requesting evidence from you to back up your claims. Do you have any?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2019 14:22:24 GMT -5
Yes. A short post. However when evidence is requested to back up that short post, it must be supplied, as I did for Maverick later in that thread.
So now I am requesting evidence from you to back up your claims. Do you have any?
Bob
I've supplied evidence in the original post right at the top of this thread. Did you miss it?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Aug 16, 2019 17:06:23 GMT -5
Yes. A short post. However when evidence is requested to back up that short post, it must be supplied, as I did for Maverick later in that thread.
So now I am requesting evidence from you to back up your claims. Do you have any?
Bob
I've supplied evidence in the original post right at the top of this thread. Did you miss it?
No you didn't. Did you bother to read your own post?
You followed up your original post with another. You said: "What do you guys think? Is it a good thing for American media to use white supremacist rhetoric that frames immigration as a military invasion?"
The problem is that your top post made no mention of "white supremacist rhetoric" at all. That was something you added.
Since "white supremacist rhetoric" was not mentioned at all, that makes your question a Complex Question Fallacy since you are assuming a "fact" not in evidence.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2019 12:58:09 GMT -5
Right in my first post.
Are you disputing that the El Paso shooter was a white supremacist, or are you disputing that the "immigrant invasion" theory constitutes "white supremacy rhetoric"?
Or do you simply find it distasteful of me to link the immigrant invasion theory to white supremacy beliefs?
Where exactly does your position on this issue differ from Fox News, or the El Paso shooter's?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Aug 17, 2019 14:13:44 GMT -5
Or do you simply find it distasteful of me to link the immigrant invasion theory to white supremacy beliefs?
Where exactly does your position on this issue differ from Fox News, or the El Paso shooter's?
Undistributed Middle Term Error.
From the fact that cats and dogs are both animals, it does not follow that cats are dogs.
From the fact that white supremacists claim that there is an "invasion" on the Southern border of the U.S., it does not follow that everyone holding that belief is a white supremacist.
Bob
|
|
|
Post by debutante on Aug 17, 2019 14:14:21 GMT -5
I don't think the position of right has changed much over the years.
What has happened is that the Left has become so crazy -- so nuts -- so out of control insane -- that they think that the same positions the right have always held are now "White Supremacist". They don't realize that it is their insanity that is being projected onto ordinary positions. They are the ones who moved into crazy land.
As far as this shooter --- who knows what group (if any) he may belong to -- but I doubt he's your average run of the mill person on the right.
There are around 5,000 estimated KKK and skinheads in the US. That's nowhere near the amount these insane leftists are imagining behind every bush.
They need extensive therapy and I don't believe anyone on the right should attempt to keep buying into defending their imaginary hordes of nonexistent "white supremacists".
It's crap. They're just nuts.
--Debutante
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2019 16:51:48 GMT -5
Or do you simply find it distasteful of me to link the immigrant invasion theory to white supremacy beliefs?
Where exactly does your position on this issue differ from Fox News, or the El Paso shooter's?
Undistributed Middle Term Error. From the fact that white supremacists claim that there is an "invasion" on the Southern border of the U.S., it does not follow that everyone holding that belief is a white supremacist.
Bob
Did I call you a white supremacist? So please explain, where do you disagree with the El Paso shooter?
I don't think the position of right has changed much over the years. I agree with you there, Debbie.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Aug 17, 2019 18:55:00 GMT -5
Undistributed Middle Term Error. From the fact that white supremacists claim that there is an "invasion" on the Southern border of the U.S., it does not follow that everyone holding that belief is a white supremacist. Bob Did I call you a white supremacist? Did I say you called me a white supremacist? Since I didn't say that you did, why are you bringing it up? I don't know what the El Paso shooter said. All I do know are his actions. He killed a lot of innocent people. That makes him a monster and I strongly condemn his brutal and sadistic actions. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2019 20:57:04 GMT -5
Did I call you a white supremacist? Did I say you called me a white supremacist? Since I didn't say that you did, why are you bringing it up? You are correct. I mistook your usual blustering for defensiveness. It's mentioned in the article I posted in my first post of this thread.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Aug 17, 2019 23:27:55 GMT -5
Did I say you called me a white supremacist? Since I didn't say that you did, why are you bringing it up? You are correct. I mistook your usual blustering for defensiveness. What a relief. For a moment I mistook what you wrote for your usual tendency to insult rather than give a rational argument. Wrong. No direct quotes from the shooter were given. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2019 12:43:57 GMT -5
Wrong. No direct quotes from the shooter were given. I never said there were direct quotes. Most media refused to post the shooter's manifestor for ethical and political reasons.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Aug 18, 2019 14:31:56 GMT -5
Wrong. No direct quotes from the shooter were given. I never said there were direct quotes. Most media refused to post the shooter's manifestor for ethical and political reasons.
So then we really have no idea of what the shooter actually said, do we?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2019 4:23:20 GMT -5
I never said there were direct quotes. Most media refused to post the shooter's manifestor for ethical and political reasons. So then we really have no idea of what the shooter actually said, do we? Bob
How does this follow?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Aug 19, 2019 8:35:35 GMT -5
So then we really have no idea of what the shooter actually said, do we? Bob
How does this follow?
If we don't have direct quotes, then how do we know what the shooter actually said?
Wasn't this a point you brought up yourself when you (mistakenly) accused Hicks of not giving direct quotes?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2019 12:42:17 GMT -5
If we don't have direct quotes, then how do we know what the shooter actually said? Wasn't this a point you brought up yourself when you (mistakenly) accused Hicks of not giving direct quotes? Bob
I didn't say there are no direct quotes available anywhere. I just said that no mainstream media outlet published his manifesto. If you want to know more, here is an article by that communist propaganda rag, the NYT on the subject: www.nytimes.com/2019/08/03/us/patrick-crusius-el-paso-shooter-manifesto.html
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Aug 19, 2019 14:25:49 GMT -5
So then we really have no idea of what the shooter actually said, do we? Bob
How does this follow?
It follows because you don't have any direct quotes. How doe we know if the person writing the article is giving an accurate account?
Or have you changed your mind about the necessity to give accurate quotes?
Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Aug 19, 2019 14:36:46 GMT -5
If we don't have direct quotes, then how do we know what the shooter actually said? Wasn't this a point you brought up yourself when you (mistakenly) accused Hicks of not giving direct quotes? Bob
I didn't say there are no direct quotes available anywhere. I just said that no mainstream media outlet published his manifesto. If you want to know more, here is an article by that communist propaganda rag, the NYT on the subject: www.nytimes.com/2019/08/03/us/patrick-crusius-el-paso-shooter-manifesto.html
The link only gave the first 2 paragraphs of the article and they didn't have any direct quotes from the manifesto.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2019 19:37:03 GMT -5
It follows because you don't have any direct quotes. How do we know if the person writing the article is giving an accurate account? Or have you changed your mind about the necessity to give accurate quotes? Bob
The NYT has a couple lines quoted out of context, given the standards you apply to authors you already agree with, such as Hicks or Maverick, that should be enough for an objectively correct and accurate picture.[/quote]
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Aug 19, 2019 20:35:07 GMT -5
It follows because you don't have any direct quotes. How do we know if the person writing the article is giving an accurate account? Or have you changed your mind about the necessity to give accurate quotes? Bob
The NYT has a couple lines quoted out of context, given the standards you apply to authors you already agree with, such as Hicks or Maverick, that should be enough for an objectively correct and accurate picture. Huh? I never said that the NY Times quoted anything out of context. Where did you get that from? Not me. And your comments about what I allegedly did are a Circumstantial Ad Hominem. And that doesn't refute my point at all. The NY Times did not quote what the killer actually said. Therefore we cannot know what the killer was thinking. Bob
|
|