APP - FINALLY!

Yurt said:
i never said your opinion is less valid....strawman

i said your debate is not the same as you did not give a reasoned opinion and then citing specifically to the section as fleckman did...as i asked before....why don't you explain or reason as to why you think fleckman is wrong instead of saying: wrong.....and then expecting us just to swallow your opinion....

that is not debating, that is not convincing
Click to expand...

I am saying what you should understand, that opinion without supplying proper evidence is to be doubted, particularly from an unknown source. Being opinion in itself means there can be divergence. My issue is not what he has said but the fact that just supplying the locations at random and not exact quotes in context, in my mind, makes his conclusions suspect.
I don't expect you to swallow my OPINION, just as, for the above reasons, I do not swallow Fleckman's OPINION, which you expect me to accept as fact. Knowing where he seems to be coming from politically and watching what I have seen for the past few days, leaves me with the conclusion that his findings are likely to be thrown in the same dung pile as death panels, infanticide, icebergs, and bureaucrats in the exam room, etc.
 
belme1201 said:
I am saying what you should understand, that opinion without supplying proper evidence is to be doubted, particularly from an unknown source. Being opinion in itself means there can be divergence. My issue is not what he has said but the fact that just supplying the locations at random and not exact quotes in context, in my mind, makes his conclusions suspect.
I don't expect you to swallow my OPINION, just as, for the above reasons, I do not swallow Fleckman's OPINION, which you expect me to accept as fact. Knowing where he seems to be coming from politically and watching what I have seen for the past few days, leaves me with the conclusion that his findings are likely to be thrown in the same dung pile as death panels, infanticide, icebergs, and bureaucrats in the exam room, etc.
Click to expand...
No, he simply asked you to actually refute the opinions with reason rather than the fallacy of ad hominem. The fallacy of ad hominem works on the uneducated who decide their votes on commercials they see during the election cycle, it does not work here.
 
Damocles said:
I see, so your objection is he "presents opinion as fact" and your answer is to refuse to point out where the opinion is wrong and say, "He does it too!"

When my 5 year old tells me that her sister was doing it too, I inform her of one fact. "She was doing it too!" is a confession as much as it is attempting to spread blame. Will you be better than her source? Will you recognize a conversation starter and use it as such?
Click to expand...


No, I am saying it seems to be alright when it is done by somone you agree with but not alright in opposition.
 
belme1201 said:
No, I am saying it seems to be alright when it is done by somone you agree with but not alright in opposition.
Click to expand...
Actually had yours been the original post I would ask others if they could refute the opinions listed as well. Your boggle seems to be on how the opinions were listed, supposedly it "confused" you into thinking they were quotes from the legislation. Nobody here is fooled by this charade, or by ad hominem attacks on sources or attempts at distracting to a different source so that you can argue against one that might be easier to refute.
 
Yurt said:
fleckman explain what he thought the bill said and then gave cites

you just said....p. 436 wrong

quite different and if you don't know the difference i am not going to waste my time educating you....as apparently you just want to hang your hat on someone else's rebuttal instead of actually debating points yourself....
Click to expand...

But ***Dancer hanging her hat on Fleckman's rebuttal is acceptable?

Christie provided rebuttals to every point made by this "Fleckman" character. If ID can use Fleckman's opinions as debating points, then why can't belme do the same?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ZappasGuitar said:
But ***Dancer hanging her hat on Fleckman's rebuttal is acceptable?

Christie provided rebuttals to every point made by this "Fleckman" character. If ID can use Fleckman's opinions as debating points, then why can't belme do the same?
Click to expand...
No, Christie didn't provide any rebuttal, she simply listed the 'rebuttal' from the DNC propaganda machine. She didn't reason out her own opinion, she sipped it from the fountain of kool-aid. Either it's okay to "astroturf" for both sides, or it's time to find different sourcing.
 
belme1201 said:
No, I am saying it seems to be alright when it is done by somone you agree with but not alright in opposition.
Click to expand...

Oh this is rich!

Remove the plank from thine own eye, brother.

That's the way the ball bounces and will always bounce. That's why you subscribe to the beliefs of your political party and others subscribe to theirs.

Is this some kind of mystery like the lost tombs in Egypt?

Tell us belme. What alternate universe do you live in where you get to set the rules, change the rules, and dictate the rules and expect total acquiescense and then wax hysterical when someone dares to have an opinion different than yours?

If you're going to hurl out this question, point it toward yourself. How do you measure up?

Agreeing to disagree is one thing, but you're always milking every last drop to the point of ridiculousness.
 
Damocles said:
No, Christie didn't provide any rebuttal, she simply listed the 'rebuttal' from the DNC propaganda machine. She didn't reason out her own opinion, she sipped it from the fountain of kool-aid. Either it's okay to "astroturf" for both sides, or it's time to find different sourcing.
Click to expand...

Whatever.

If you don't agree with someone, then any "rebuttal" they might present, no matter how well thought out or researched, you automatically discredit.

Ive been here 6 months and that is how it goes EVERY SINGLE TIME with you.

When are you going to drop the beard and just admit you're a Republican shill?
 
Damocles said:
No, he simply asked you to actually refute the opinions with reason rather than the fallacy of ad hominem. The fallacy of ad hominem works on the uneducated who decide their votes on commercials they see during the election cycle, it does not work here.
Click to expand...


The opinions are not what I'm disputing, I am saying his words are presented without quoting the subject limited "cites" directly or in context and therefore I suspect his motives. I would love to discuss the piece point by point, but that's not my point. Unlike some others aboard, I have opinions of my own and don't need others to express what I think for me or tell me what to think and when to think it. Do you actually believe there are no campaign type ad hominem, less than truthful, commercials out there to "work on" the uneducated? Please.
What ad hominem are you referring to? Would you care to go back and read the entire thread here on APP once again?
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Whatever.

If you don't agree with someone, then any "rebuttal" they might present, no matter how well thought out or researched, you automatically discredit.

Ive been here 6 months and that is how it goes EVERY SINGLE TIME with you.

When are you going to drop the beard and just admit you're a Republican shill?
Click to expand...
LOL. I wish I knew that much about people I've only known from contact on the internet for a few "months" where I have only participated for a few weeks... :rolleyes:

While I may scare up some opinion that counters theirs, I would take some time to explain my position.

And I have no shame in "admitting" I am a republican, but shill... Not even close. Maybe had I defended Bush's most egregious errors, maybe if I thought no republican could possibly do something wrong... But nether of those are true.
 
belme1201 said:
The opinions are not what I'm disputing, I am saying his words are presented without quoting the subject limited "cites" directly or in context and therefore I suspect his motives. I would love to discuss the piece point by point, but that's not my point. Unlike some others aboard, I have opinions of my own and don't need others to express what I think for me or tell me what to think and when to think it. Do you actually believe there are no campaign type ad hominem, less than truthful, commercials out there to "work on" the uneducated? Please.
What ad hominem are you referring to? Would you care to go back and read the entire thread here on APP once again?
Click to expand...
I believe that those commercials only work on the uninformed, which is what I stated. I have said that they don't work here, we're a bit more informed in these parts.
 
Damocles said:
No, Christie didn't provide any rebuttal, she simply listed the 'rebuttal' from the DNC propaganda machine. She didn't reason out her own opinion, she sipped it from the fountain of kool-aid. Either it's okay to "astroturf" for both sides, or it's time to find different sourcing.
Click to expand...

I see, Fleckman is to be believed even though we know not who he is, BUT, if the source is a recognizable one whose positions are well known, the rebuttal is automatically rejected. What was the "reasoning of her own opinion" in post number one? Wasn't the original post a result of "astroturfing"?
 
belme1201 said:
I see, Fleckman is to be believed even though we know not who he is, BUT, if the source is a recognizable one whose positions are well known, the rebuttal is automatically rejected. What was the "reasoning of her own opinion" in post number one? Wasn't the original post a result of "astroturfing"?
Click to expand...

Round and round and round you go...
 
belme1201 said:
I see, Fleckman is to be believed even though we know not who he is, BUT, if the source is a recognizable one whose positions are well known, the rebuttal is automatically rejected. What was the "reasoning of her own opinion" in post number one? Wasn't the original post a result of "astroturfing"?
Click to expand...
Again, nobody said you should believe Fleckman, that is a straw man. We, myself and others on the thread, have asked that instead of attacking the source if you could attack the argument.

We understand you don't like the conciseness of what Fleckman said, let's get past that and get into the meat of the opinions.
 
Damocles said:
Again, nobody said you should believe Fleckman, that is a straw man. We, myself and others on the thread, have asked that instead of attacking the source if you could attack the argument.

We understand you don't like the conciseness of what Fleckman said, let's get past that and get into the meat of the opinions.
Click to expand...


Right, and calling Christie a kool-aid drinker for the info in her rebuttal is attacking the argument and not the source.
 
Damocles said:
I believe that those commercials only work on the uninformed, which is what I stated. I have said that they don't work here, we're a bit more informed in these parts.
Click to expand...

As they say, from your mouth to God's ears. I would not say always or never for anything, but, in my opinion, evidence here is that there are more exceptions to the above rule than you might think.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Right, and calling Christie a kool-aid drinker for the info in her rebuttal is attacking the argument and not the source.
Click to expand...
Her "rebuttal" was not hers, was not reasoned, it was simply bot-pasting the DNC propaganda. I will repeat that again too. Then Christie tried to defend her lack of ability to reason out an argument of her own by trying to distract to a different website and use the "they do it too" argument. She tried to mock with somebody else's propaganda rather than a reasoned argument of her own...

Although, if Christie had posted hers first and not used it in some sort of mock "rebuttal" I'd be mocking people that used Fleckman as a source of their rebuttal opinions...
 
Damocles said:
Her "rebuttal" was not hers, was not reasoned, it was simply bot-pasting the DNC propaganda. I will repeat that again too. Then Christie tried to defend her lack of ability to reason out an argument of her own by trying to distract to a different website and use the "they do it too" argument. She tried to mock with somebody else's opinion rather than a reasoned argument of her own...
Click to expand...

And the original information/opinion posted by ID was her own?

Or was it "bot-pasted" from somewhere else?
 
ZappasGuitar said:
And the original information/opinion posted by ID was her own?

Or was it "bot-pasted" from somewhere else?
Click to expand...
No, I will repeat it again, since you refuse to even quote it.

Had Christiefan posted hers first and others used Fleckman's opinion as rebuttal in this particular area where we are trying to encourage higher level debate I would mock those using Fleckman's opinion as their "rebuttal".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top