Breitbart Defeats Mob

Damn Yankee said:
Oh look, and ad hom.
Click to expand...


Not an ad hominem, which is a fallacious argument which depends on attacking the messenger rather than the merit of his message or agument. sh e as doing no such thing, but rather making a simple sttement of fact, which is that Andrew Breitbart is a proven liar. He is the one who fed he heavily edited video to the news media that made it look as if Shirley Sherrod, an employee of the Obama USDA, and a former member of the NAACP had made racist statements during her speech at an NAACP fundraiser. This happened immediately after the NAACP pointed out racism in the tea party. Sec of Ag Tom Vilsack asked Ms Sherrod, who is black, to resign her position at the USDA, which she did, and the GOP went apeshit, hooting and whining about reverse racism in the NAACP and the Obama administration. The next day, Breitbart released the full 40-minute tape, which showed the full story told by Ms Sherrod, which was about overcoming racial animosity and working together with a white farm family to help them secure a loan to keep their family farm, while the original, edited tape left out the cooperation and ended at the racial animosity. Since Breitbart's original tape was clearly an attempt to create a false impression in the viewers' minds that she was a racist, such was not the case, since the part of the tape that established the full context and gist of the story gad been omitted, this qualifies as a "lie of omission," whereby all the elements of a story presented are factual, but the key elements are withheld or omitted, leading a listener or viewer to draw a false conclusion about the nature of the event or argument. lying is about presenting a false scenario with the intent of deceiving others. It is the intent that makes the lie, and whether it is accomplished with falsehoods or factual statements is irrelevant.

Breitbart was also actively involved in mentoring that little criminal shitbag responsible forthe slandering of ACORN, and who was subsequently arrested for trying to disrupt the federally-owned phone system in Senator Mary Landrieu's office. Referring to Breirbart a a liar is a statement of fact (one correction for Rana: there is no such thing as a half truth, a statement or statements must hold 100% true in all circumstances to be considered th truth. Anythng less than 100% true is false, so there is no half truth,

An ad hominem comes into being usually when one of the parties to an argument has no answer to an argument, so he or she goes after the one who made the argument, saying his position can't be true because he's a nazi or a socialist or a fascist or a secret Muslim or born in Kenya. saying Breitbart is a lying sack of shlt is mot an ad hominem. He is a liar, but refusing to believe him on anything he says due to that one incident is Saying one should be cautious about taking him at his word, and advising extra diligence in researching his claims are not ad hominem. Rejecting his out of hand is.

Clear?
 
ZappasGuitar said:
And you are both outright lying about what the audience does on that video...
Click to expand...

Zappy - where have I said anything about the audience in that video in this thread?

You get so excited with thinking you've hit paydirt, you mix things up in the three digit IQ brain of yours!

It must be crowded in there with the other two numbers...
 
zoombwaz said:
Not an ad hominem, which is a fallacious argument which depends on attacking the messenger rather than the merit of his message or agument. sh e as doing no such thing, but rather making a simple sttement of fact, which is that Andrew Breitbart is a proven liar. He is the one who fed he heavily edited video to the news media that made it look as if Shirley Sherrod, an employee of the Obama USDA, and a former member of the NAACP had made racist statements during her speech at an NAACP fundraiser. This happened immediately after the NAACP pointed out racism in the tea party. Sec of Ag Tom Vilsack asked Ms Sherrod, who is black, to resign her position at the USDA, which she did, and the GOP went apeshit, hooting and whining about reverse racism in the NAACP and the Obama administration. The next day, Breitbart released the full 40-minute tape, which showed the full story told by Ms Sherrod, which was about overcoming racial animosity and working together with a white farm family to help them secure a loan to keep their family farm, while the original, edited tape left out the cooperation and ended at the racial animosity. Since Breitbart's original tape was clearly an attempt to create a false impression in the viewers' minds that she was a racist, such was not the case, since the part of the tape that established the full context and gist of the story gad been omitted, this qualifies as a "lie of omission," whereby all the elements of a story presented are factual, but the key elements are withheld or omitted, leading a listener or viewer to draw a false conclusion about the nature of the event or argument. lying is about presenting a false scenario with the intent of deceiving others. It is the intent that makes the lie, and whether it is accomplished with falsehoods or factual statements is irrelevant.

Breitbart was also actively involved in mentoring that little criminal shitbag responsible forthe slandering of ACORN, and who was subsequently arrested for trying to disrupt the federally-owned phone system in Senator Mary Landrieu's office. Referring to Breirbart a a liar is a statement of fact (one correction for Rana: there is no such thing as a half truth, a statement or statements must hold 100% true in all circumstances to be considered th truth. Anythng less than 100% true is false, so there is no half truth,

An ad hominem comes into being usually when one of the parties to an argument has no answer to an argument, so he or she goes after the one who made the argument, saying his position can't be true because he's a nazi or a socialist or a fascist or a secret Muslim or born in Kenya. saying Breitbart is a lying sack of shlt is mot an ad hominem. He is a liar, but refusing to believe him on anything he says due to that one incident is Saying one should be cautious about taking him at his word, and advising extra diligence in researching his claims are not ad hominem. Rejecting his out of hand is.

Clear?
Click to expand...

It was an ad-hom on Breitbart:

The other type of ad hominem argument is a form of genetic fallacy. Arguments of this kind focus not on the evidence for a view but on the character of the person advancing it; they seek to discredit positions by discrediting those who hold them. It is always important to attack arguments, rather than arguers, and this is where arguments that commit the ad hominem fallacy fall down.
Click to expand...
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/ad-hominem/
 
usaloyal2theend said:
Zappy - where have I said anything about the audience in that video in this thread?

You get so excited with thinking you've hit paydirt, you mix things up in the three digit IQ brain of yours!

It must be crowded in there with the other two numbers...
Click to expand...

You were responding to Dumb Yankees comments about the audience in the Sherrod video..right here:

Originally Posted by Damn Yankee
Why bother with Media Matters, a George Soros puppet? Why not go straight to the film?

Compare Breitbart's short version with the full length video. He presented the racism issue in context, with her redemption. He's not pointing to present day racism by Sherrod, but the seeming approval of her racism by the NAACP audience during her telling of the story.

Look at the video: she expresses racism, and the audience seems to approve; she then talks about her redemption in the next sentence, and the audience is silent. This is exactly the same on both the full length video and Breitbart's shortened version.

Here is the full video:

YouTube- Shirley Sherrod: the FULL video

The story in question begins at time 17:00, and the approval of her racism comes about 30 seconds later.

This is exactly the same in Breitbart's video:

YouTube- Shirley Sherrod Shows Her True Colors

Breitbart didn't manipulate the video, he simply isolated this one story to shorten it.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
You were responding to Dumb Yankees comments about the audience in the Sherrod video..right here:

Originally Posted by Damn Yankee
Why bother with Media Matters, a George Soros puppet? Why not go straight to the film?

Compare Breitbart's short version with the full length video. He presented the racism issue in context, with her redemption. He's not pointing to present day racism by Sherrod, but the seeming approval of her racism by the NAACP audience during her telling of the story.

Look at the video: she expresses racism, and the audience seems to approve; she then talks about her redemption in the next sentence, and the audience is silent. This is exactly the same on both the full length video and Breitbart's shortened version.

Here is the full video:

YouTube- Shirley Sherrod: the FULL video

The story in question begins at time 17:00, and the approval of her racism comes about 30 seconds later.

This is exactly the same in Breitbart's video:

YouTube- Shirley Sherrod Shows Her True Colors

Breitbart didn't manipulate the video, he simply isolated this one story to shorten it.
Click to expand...

No Zappless. I was responding to Southernman about Froggy swallowing lies.
 
Damn Yankee said:
It was an ad-hom on Breitbart:

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/ad-hominem/
Click to expand...




Sorry, no. It wasn't a dismissal of an argument he made, and in fact did not address any claims he has made as a Washington Times columnist, or any other positions he has staked out. There was no mention in her post of dismissing any position he has taken, because he is a liar. She merely made the point that he is a liar, a point that is borne out by his actions.

Once more, a negative characterization of a person is not an ad hominem in and of itself, but becomes so only when offered as a reason to disregard an argument. The quote you presented says exactly that: "Arguments of this kind focus not on the evidence for a view but on the character of the person advancing it; they seek to discredit positions by discrediting those who hold them." She wasn't making an argument or using his dishonesty in an attempt to disprove one of his arguments, nor did she say that any future arguments he might make were to be discredited.

The distinction is right there in your quote, for crying out loud. Learn to read for comprehension.
 
usaloyal2theend said:
You're supposed to be duly impressed with the sheer volume of his words and his ability to correctly spell million dollar words in a single bound!

Look! Up in the Sky! It's a bird! It's a plane! It's Superzoombwaz!
Click to expand...


No, you're supposed to be able to understand the English language, something for which you have demonstrated a limited facility.
 
Rana said:
Excusing what he did is lame! and not honest!
Click to expand...

What RWs can't dispute is the breitbart used this woman to push their agenda, and he never dreamed of the blowback he got for it.

It's hilarious. They're using the same arguments to criticize Sherrod that they railed against when those same arguments were used to criticize Joe the Plumber.
 
zoombwaz said:
Not an ad hominem, which is a fallacious argument which depends on attacking the messenger rather than the merit of his message or agument. sh e as doing no such thing, but rather making a simple sttement of fact, which is that Andrew Breitbart is a proven liar. He is the one who fed he heavily edited video to the news media that made it look as if Shirley Sherrod, an employee of the Obama USDA, and a former member of the NAACP had made racist statements during her speech at an NAACP fundraiser. This happened immediately after the NAACP pointed out racism in the tea party. Sec of Ag Tom Vilsack asked Ms Sherrod, who is black, to resign her position at the USDA, which she did, and the GOP went apeshit, hooting and whining about reverse racism in the NAACP and the Obama administration. The next day, Breitbart released the full 40-minute tape, which showed the full story told by Ms Sherrod, which was about overcoming racial animosity and working together with a white farm family to help them secure a loan to keep their family farm, while the original, edited tape left out the cooperation and ended at the racial animosity. Since Breitbart's original tape was clearly an attempt to create a false impression in the viewers' minds that she was a racist, such was not the case, since the part of the tape that established the full context and gist of the story gad been omitted, this qualifies as a "lie of omission," whereby all the elements of a story presented are factual, but the key elements are withheld or omitted, leading a listener or viewer to draw a false conclusion about the nature of the event or argument. lying is about presenting a false scenario with the intent of deceiving others. It is the intent that makes the lie, and whether it is accomplished with falsehoods or factual statements is irrelevant.

Breitbart was also actively involved in mentoring that little criminal shitbag responsible forthe slandering of ACORN, and who was subsequently arrested for trying to disrupt the federally-owned phone system in Senator Mary Landrieu's office. Referring to Breirbart a a liar is a statement of fact (one correction for Rana: there is no such thing as a half truth, a statement or statements must hold 100% true in all circumstances to be considered th truth. Anythng less than 100% true is false, so there is no half truth,

An ad hominem comes into being usually when one of the parties to an argument has no answer to an argument, so he or she goes after the one who made the argument, saying his position can't be true because he's a nazi or a socialist or a fascist or a secret Muslim or born in Kenya. saying Breitbart is a lying sack of shlt is mot an ad hominem. He is a liar, but refusing to believe him on anything he says due to that one incident is Saying one should be cautious about taking him at his word, and advising extra diligence in researching his claims are not ad hominem. Rejecting his out of hand is.

Clear?
Click to expand...

:good4u: You da man!
 
zoombwaz said:
Sorry, no. It wasn't a dismissal of an argument he made, and in fact did not address any claims he has made as a Washington Times columnist, or any other positions he has staked out. There was no mention in her post of dismissing any position he has taken, because he is a liar. She merely made the point that he is a liar, a point that is borne out by his actions.

Once more, a negative characterization of a person is not an ad hominem in and of itself, but becomes so only when offered as a reason to disregard an argument. The quote you presented says exactly that: "Arguments of this kind focus not on the evidence for a view but on the character of the person advancing it; they seek to discredit positions by discrediting those who hold them." She wasn't making an argument or using his dishonesty in an attempt to disprove one of his arguments, nor did she say that any future arguments he might make were to be discredited.

The distinction is right there in your quote, for crying out loud. Learn to read for comprehension.
Click to expand...

Oh look, now you're ad-hom'n on me. :)

What you have done, first to Breitbart, now to me, meets the definition exactly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top