baby boomlet occuring in US

Damocles said:
Actual control is a claim. Whether you think it is "terrorist" or not. That coupled with the fact that most of the Jews in Isreal, at that time, lived there when it was created out of thin air in '47 gives them a current claim.

This would be like saying the US doesn't have a claim to this place because it didn't exist historically until we took it from Native Americans. We must live in reality, not in bumper-stickers.
Click to expand...

I really don't care how legitimate you feel Israel is-- the reality is that the majority of their budget and national debt comes from the United States, and a large amount of the anger towards the United States is our repeated attempts to shield Israel from any consequences that would come from their asshattery.
 
gonzojournals said:
I really don't care how legitimate you feel Israel is-- the reality is that the majority of their budget and national debt comes from the United States, and a large amount of the anger towards the United States is our repeated attempts to shield Israel from any consequences that would come from their asshattery.
Click to expand...
Again "legitimacy" is another slogan here. The reality is they control that particular territory, they therefore have a "claim" to it. Reality is often different than slogans or even legality. Now we can have discourse on whether we should shield Israel or not. But saying there is no "claim" to territory they control is just bumper-sticker ridiculous.
 
Damocles said:
Again "legitimacy" is another slogan here. The reality is they control that particular territory, they therefore have a "claim" to it. Reality is often different than slogans or even legality.
Click to expand...

And the reality is that they can hang on to that region on their own; we don't need to be paying for it.
 
gonzojournals said:
And the reality is that they can hang on to that region on their own; we don't need to be paying for it.
Click to expand...
Again, now you are speaking of a different thing. First you said they had no claim at all. I pointed out that reality proves differently and why. Now you are speaking of whether we should remain allies with them. As I said, that is open to debate. However saying that there is no claim to something that in reality they control is just ignoring reality. Posession clearly denotes a claim.
 
Southern Man said:
1. It is commonly referred to as a personal attack in order to divert attention from the argument.
Click to expand...

No, it is an attack offered as evidence against the persons argument.

For instance...
1. Ron: If bac's statement is racist then so is yours.
2. SouthernMan: You are an open border advocate.
3. Therfore Ron's assertion that SouthernMan's statement was racist is invalid.

This is what you implied because it is the only response you gave.

Your examples do not meet either your definition or the correct one. How is my challenging your knowledge of what an ad hom is diverting attention of your claim that I used an ad hom? It is not, it is relevant to the subject.

3. Red Herring.
Click to expand...

Huh, you argued some silly nonsense that an unwelcome guest in your home was guilty of an invasion. I asked you to clarify that silly notion, how you thought it should be applied and what it had to do with immigration.

4. What?
5. Who is arguing tangentially now? I suggest that you refer directly to my post in order to clarify.
Click to expand...

Clearly, you are the one that needs to go back and clarify.

6. Straw Man.
Click to expand...

LOL. I did not attribute the argument to you. I am stating, that using your silly diversion that you are only against illegal immigration, one could argue then that the founders went to war in support of illegal immigration. But, nobody is for illegal immigration, some just believe all legal disitinctions should be removed (as they were during the early years of this nation) or there should be more legal immigration allowed.

Please stop making an ass of yourself and attempting to wiggle away from your weak points. You are starting to sound more and more like nAHZi due to your style of evasion.
 
RStringfield said:
No, it is an attack offered as evidence against the persons argument.....
Click to expand...

Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!"), but this is actually not that common. A more typical manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a source of information -- for example, responding to a quotation from Richard Nixon on the subject of free trade with China by saying, "We all know Nixon was a liar and a cheat, so why should we believe anything he says?" Argumentum ad hominem also occurs when someone's arguments are discounted merely because they stand to benefit from the policy they advocate -- such as Bill Gates arguing against antitrust, rich people arguing for lower taxes, white people arguing against affirmative action, minorities arguing for affirmative action, etc. In all of these cases, the relevant question is not who makes the argument, but whether the argument is valid.
Click to expand...
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum ad hominem

Wrong-o!
 
Southern Man said:
[insult detected] Ding ding! The Southern Man scores!
Click to expand...

No, you are insulting yourself by makinbg assinine assertions concerning strawmen, ad homs, and red herrings when you don't have a clue what any of those mean or how to identify them. You have done nothing but attempt to wiggle your way out of one failed argument after the next and that is all you are doing here. It is telling that you would think this somehow proves the validity of your arguments. You are very fond of faulty reasoning.

Your objective is not to have a legit debate. If it is I suggest you return to the initial point, which you have tried to abandon entirely.

If bac's claim about southerners procreating is racist then how were your comments concerning other groups not?
 
uscitizen said:
I thought it might be a persecution complex.
the more persecuted you are the more right you feel.
Click to expand...


Sounds like you are on to something. It would explain how these types whine about AA and the jab at southerners, but fail to see their own rhetoric in the same light.
 
RStringfield said:
....

If bac's claim about southerners procreating is racist then how were your comments concerning other groups not?
Click to expand...
You appear to be referring to your post#129, and the premise of your question is not valid. In other words, you are making a false accusation of me. For me to answer the question would be to give legitimacy to your question.

Bottom line here is that you appear to be claiming that I am a racist. I therefore challenge you to prove this assertion. If you cannot do that then I ask you to refrain from making that accusation of me again.
 
I've seen nothing that indicates citizens don't have the right to any and all protections, economic or otherwise, which are the result of an enforced border and immigration policy.
 
Southern Man said:
You appear to be referring to your post#129, and the premise of your question is not valid. In other words, you are making a false accusation of me. For me to answer the question would be to give legitimacy to your question.

Bottom line here is that you appear to be claiming that I am a racist. I therefore challenge you to prove this assertion. If you cannot do that then I ask you to refrain from making that accusation of me again.
Click to expand...


Wiggle and squirm...

How is my question not valid? It does not accuse you of anything. I asked... if bac's comments are racist then how are yours not?

I really don't care anymore, because it is apparent by your arguments that you will find some way to slide out of it.
 
RStringfield said:
Wiggle and squirm...

How is my question not valid? It does not accuse you of anything. I asked... if bac's comments are racist then how are yours not?

I really don't care anymore, because it is apparent by your arguments that you will find some way to slide out of it.
Click to expand...

You're asking me to prove a negative. Debate doesn't work that way.
 
Southern Man said:
You're asking me to prove a negative. Debate doesn't work that way.
Click to expand...


BS! I am asking you by what logic are bac's comments racist and yours are not. I did not ask you to prove you are not a racist. That is a strawman and nothing but your attempt to slink your way out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top