Mark Hickey <
[email protected]> wrote in message news:<
[email protected]>...
> [email protected] (Jonesy) wrote:
>
> >Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote...
> >> [email protected] (Jonesy) wrote:
>
> >> If you were to write a book about someone who fired you, why would I
> >> believe it would be balanced?
> >
> >See, here's what is a classic case of ad hominem commentary. By
> >questioning the character and honesty of a person, rather than the
> >actual content of his writings.
>
> Bringing up the fact that he's writing about someone who fired him
> (and by all accounts, a firing he's still quite upset about)
Cite?
> is hardly
> an "ad hominem" commentary. That should be obvious.
How is it obvious? Ad hominem commentary is where the *person* is
attacked, rather than the person's *position.* Since you have no
facts to refute his commentary, all you can do is impugn his
character. The very definition of ad hominem commentary.
> >Resorting to ad hominem commentary is a sure sign that you have lost.
> >Someone said that - I can't remember who...
>
> How about resorting to claiming an ad hominem when there isn't one?
Just because you claim it isn't doen't prove that it isn't. Go ahead
and use the definition of the term "argumentum ad hominem" to show how
what you said isn't ad hominem. (Not a proof - proving a negative is
a logical impossiblity.)
> O'Neill's book has been thoroughly discredited by those who were
> there.
You mean those who have something at stake? After all, that's what
you are claiming for Mr. O'Neill, so it comes down to a "he said, she
said" sort of thing. I think we could dig up a paper from Cheney,
Perle and Wolfowitz that calls into question the veracity of some of
the folks who call O'Neill a liar.
> >> >> It's well known there was a contingency plan for Iraq
> >> >
> >> >There's a difference between some plan on a shelf (invasion of Mexico,
> >> >for instance) and the private foreign policy focus of "we need to take
> >> >that ******* down." (A paraphrase of Bush's quote "**** Saddam.")
> >
> >[ad hominem snipped]
>
> Heh. This is your day for accusing me of ad hominem (this accusation
> must be VERY weak if you can't even leave the original quote).
LOL. You may repost it if you desire. You could also show why it's
not a reiteration of a previous ad hominem, but I doubt you could.
> >I notice you don't actually address my point.
>
> O'Neill's account of that era doesn't coincide with any other member
> of the cabinet.
If any of those folks were remotely objective, or had the reputation
for honesty that O'Neill does, then you might have a point. Now,
here's a question:
*If* what O'Neill says is true, does anyone in the current
administration stand to lose anything?
> >> >Explicitly, no (I've said as much) Implicitly, well, you'd have to be
> >> >a total idiot, or have you head firmly up your ass not to see ANY
> >> >implication.
> >>
> >> Heh heh heh. So point one out.
> >
> >Already have. If you have a problem with the logic presented, you may
> >wish to bring up which part is not logical.
> >
> >> Show me the quote that forces people
> >> to believe there is a direct connection.
> >
> >Look up the definition of "implication," Mr. Strawman.
>
> Heh heh heh. So you can't point out anything that Bush said that led
> anyone to the conclusion
Sure I have - it's called an "implication." People soemtimes reach
conclusions because of implied actions or statements - in fact, we do
it all the time. Non-verbal communication, at it's basis, is
implication. Here's a definition of "imply" for you:
"Main Entry: im·ply
Pronunciation: im-'plI
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): im·plied; im·ply·ing
Etymology: Middle English emplien, from Middle French emplier, from
Latin implicare
1 obsolete : ENFOLD, ENTWINE
2 : to involve or indicate by inference, association, or necessary
consequence rather than by direct statement <rights imply obligations>
3 : to contain potentially
4 : to express indirectly <his silence implied consent>
synonym see SUGGEST
usage see INFER"
> but remain firmly convinced that somehow he
> managed to do it - with words that don't support the conclusion.
And yet, nearly 70% of the public at one time reached such a
conclusion. You have yet to explain how that might be possible if
Bush didn't explicitly say anything to that effect (he didn't) or he
and his minions didn't imply it. You can feel free to explain it
without the misdirection, but watching you squirm is funny.
> So which is he, a dupe or an evil genius who can say things and yet
> convince the majority of those listening (or even those not listening
> since more than 30% don't even bother to listen) that Iraq was
> directly connected to 9/11?
False choice. Somehow, those folks got that idea. So, if he didn't
say it directly, how did they reach that conclusion?
> >> >While you being an asshole is my opinion, you being pedantic is quite
> >> >obvious. Hingeing your whole case on what was or was not implied
> >> >means that you really don't have much of a case. And real world data
> >> >suggest that you are in a small minority in your belief.
> >>
> >> I have no case ? - and you can't provide a single quote to prove your
> >> point. Heh.
> >
> >I have already proved my point logically. Maybe you just don't
> >understand what the conversation is about.
>
> Let's look at your logic...
>
> 1) Bush never actually said anything to support the conclusion that
> Iraq and 9/11 are directly connected.
> 2) 70% of the US population believe there is a direct connection
> 3) Therefore Bush is responsible for the belief
I am at a loss to understand how you cannot use computer tools
effectively. That's not the argument I made, so why are you making up
a different one?
> I don't consider that "logic".
Of course you don't. Misstating my position makes a lovely strawman,
doesn't it:
"Description of Straw Man
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a
person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or
misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has
the following pattern:
1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of
X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted
version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the
position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing
of a person to hurt the person.
Examples of Straw Man
1. Prof. Jones: "The university just cut our yearly budget by
$10,000."
Prof. Smith: "What are we going to do?"
Prof. Brown: "I think we should eliminate one of the teaching
assistant positions. That would take care of it."
Prof. Jones: "We could reduce our scheduled raises instead."
Prof. Brown: " I can't understand why you want to bleed us dry
like that, Jones."
2. "Senator Jones says that we should not fund the attack submarine
program. I disagree entirely. I can't understand why he wants to leave
us defenseless like that."
3. Bill and Jill are arguing about cleaning out their closets:
Jill: "We should clean out the closets. They are getting a bit
messy."
Bill: "Why, we just went through those closets last year. Do we
have to clean them out everyday?"
Jill: "I never said anything about cleaning them out every day.
You just want too keep all your junk forever, which is just
ridiculous."
> But you remain convinced so I think we
> are wasting our time discussing it - don't you agree?
The argument I actually made is the logical one. The one you invented
isn't.
> <snip>
> >The fact that near 70% of Americans at one time thought as
> >much proves this point.
>
> I rest my case.
If you had actually made some case, you might have a point. I am
asking you how they got that idea. You seem to think that it's
something other than by Administration implication. Something
undefined, or unprovable. I, on the other hand, beleive some
implication was made, in order to make a *subtle* connection, and let
peoples' imaginations do the rest. Propaganda isn't always about
whacking people with a big stick, "If you don't support this war, you
are commiting treason!" It's sometimes about making a suggestion.
"Kerry's intern was shuffled off to Africa, where she'd be 'out of the
way'."
> >> >[snip Liebermann quote]
> >> >
> >> >If two people, one from the Republican party, the other from the
> >> >Democratic party, say that the moon is made of green cheese, does that
> >> >make it true? Is it a fact then?
> >>
> >> You really like strawmen.
> >
> >This is called an "analogy." Look it up. Just because Bush and some
> >Democrat(s) think something doesn't make it true. Plenty of folks
> >used to think the world was the center of the universe, for example.
>
> Your definition of a strawman doesn't seem to agree with the textbook.
I am not claiming that you or any other real person believes any
particular thing. It is, in general, an analogy bent to the
ridiculous to illustrate a point. Let me recast it, so you won't try
and make it something more than it was ever meant to be:
If a Republican and a Democrat believe something that is not true, the
fact that both a Democrat and a Republican believe it does not make it
true. The "something" in this case is that "the moon is made of green
cheese."
> That is, a hypothetical situation that is concocted in such a way to
> be easy to destroy (like your "green cheese" example).
Bzzzt. I'm not claiming anyone actually believes it. This is a
really weak red herring.
I don't care if 10 or 100 or 1000 people believe something that's not
true. It doesn't become true by virtue of common thought, or whether
or not some authority believes it. Did you know, that at the turn of
the 20th century, most physicists believed that there was some
substance between stars and planets called "ether?" They were wrong,
and the fact that educated, professional and expert men believed it
didn't make it true.
> >> Do you really think that there's only one
> >> Democrat who believes there was a connection between Iraq and Al
> >> Qaeda?
> >
> >This is the perfect example of a strawman. Oh, I get it, you think I
> >like them, so you keep constructing them. Not the sharpest knife in
> >the drawer, are you?
>
> Asking whether you believe
> only one Democrat believes there's a connection between Iraq and AQ
> consitutes a strawman in your mind?
This is an example of "poisoning the well." From:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html
"Description of Poisoning the Well
This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person
might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or
false) about the person. This "argument" has the following form:
1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is
presented.
2. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.