For the Removal of Saddam, Yet against the war

[LuvRPgrl]

Go look up the word FLAMER. Folks, the REAL reason Luvergirl despises me so much is because I called her out on a thread in the Religion forum, and she couldn't produce, and she knows it.

Liar. and why would you presume to assume Im a female.?
TWO false assumptions in one post, hmmm

 

[Nightwish]

and proud of it!!

Well, at least you don't deny it. I guess that's one plus.

Ya wanna know whats really funny? I mentioned in the other thread how you drag the debates into mindless details and take them off topic, and now, this thread title is "For the Removal of Saddam, Yet against the war "

and this is how you have wondered off topic with Kathiane:

"First of all, I've not said one word about National Review. Second of all, I have no problem with biased right-wing news journals like National Review and Drudge Report, I just have a problem with lying news journals like Newsmax. Lastly, whatever bias Fair may have is irrelevant. The particular article I linked to is nothing but a collection of the actual print headlines and quotes from various media outlets, most of them left-leaning. What's your problem? Is it simply that you've a newcomer who not only isn't afraid to voice an opinion that differs from the right, but has the gall to dare to not be cowed by the bluster of the right? I know that tends to piss you people off, so is that what's going on here?"

NOT ONE WORD ABUOT THE ORIGINAL TOPIC. NOT ONE. ONE, NOT ONE. GOT IT????

You seem to want to hold me to a different standard that everyone else. Did I wrong you in another life? For some reason, you seem to have no problem with others taking a thread off topic, but if I happen to respond to them, you get your panties all in a wad. What's that about? Are you just incapable of following context?

By the way, for an ad hominum to be a fallacy, it has to include the CONCLUSION, that therefore, since person X, committed act Y, their statement about issue W (which would be completely irrelevant to whatever the person was personally attacked about) is wrong.

No, in fact, it does not. Anytime in a debate that you focus your attack on the person and not the argument, you've committed the fallacy of ad hominem. The model you described is but one of several different variations on the ad hominem fallacy.

A simple attack with no conclusions drawn from the negative opinion does NOT constitute a fallacy.

Sorry, but wrong.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Yes, it is. An ad hominem is the practice of attacking the person instead of the argument. That is always a fallacy. There is never an instance where that is not a fallacy. Never. Live with it.

hahhahahah, you want a good example of an ad hominem attack? Its when you respond to one of my posts by claiming you kicked my ass in the religion thread. NOW THATS AD HOMINEM, couldnt respond to my post here, so you do a personal attack on me from another irrelevant topic, and claim Im mad at you for getting my ass kicked there. hahhahaha AD HOMINEM, TO THE "T"

Now, time for a little education sonny. NOT ALL AD HOMINEMS are fallacies, because not all ad hominems are part of a debate. Here is Dict.com:

"ad homi·nem adv.
Usage Note: As the principal meaning of the preposition ad suggests, the homo of ad hominem was originally the person to whom an argument was addressed, not its subject. The phrase denoted an argument designed to appeal to the listener's emotions rather than to reason, The expression now also has a looser use in referring to any personal attack, whether or not it is part of an argument, as in It isn't in the best interests of the nation for the press to attack him in this personal, ad hominem way. This use is acceptable to 65 percent of the Panel. ·Ad hominem has also recently acquired a use as a noun denoting personal attacks, as in “Notwithstanding all the ad hominem, Gingrich insists that he and Panetta can work together” (Washington Post). This usage may raise some eyebrows, though it appears to be gaining ground in journalistic style.



Let me add that you never responded to this post where I pointed out your BLATANT LIE.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightwish
I think you need to read my post again. I didn't disparage his opinion or his right to it. I said that, lacking experience in military strategy, his opinion has no more weight or authority than those who hold the opposite opinion.


Liar. You did disparage his opinion. You said it was worthless unless he had a degree in military training.

These are YOUR words:
"Your opinion is duly noted. And the moment you obtain a degree or advanced training in military strategy, it will be worth something..."

or in other words it is worth nothing. Saying someones opinion is worth nothing is disparaging.

Plus you seem to have ignored the FACT that he said if saddam were assasinated, it wouldnt solve the problem because another tyrant would merely take his place. DUH!



So, thats two times you were blatantly and undeniably wrong, but will you have the balls to admit it? Oh, and by the way, BOTH of them were off topic,
__________________
Kids need fathers, not visitors

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Well, at least you don't deny it. I guess that's one plus.


You seem to want to hold me to a different standard that everyone else. Did I wrong you in another life? For some reason, you seem to have no problem with others taking a thread off topic, but if I happen to respond to them, you get your panties all in a wad. What's that about? Are you just incapable of following context?.

The problems and reasons are many. One, nobody does it as much as you. Two, I sounded you on it in the other thread, but you insisted on remaining OFF TOPIC, then when I quit responding because you were OFF TOPIC, you then declared you kicked my ass. Then you like to follow up your questions to others with your own delusional reasons that are actually ad hominem attacks. Lastly, you criticize everyone, ALOT. You attacked Hobbit right off the bat in your very first sentence of the very first post of this thread. SEE, THOSE are the reasons, not because I cant follow context.

No, in fact, it does not. Anytime in a debate that you focus your attack on the person and not the argument, you've committed the fallacy of ad hominem. The model you described is but one of several different variations on the ad hominem fallacy..

Oh, now you are gonna limit it to debates? You didnt before,,,,,,,oh, wait, I KNOW! Now you are gonna say something like, "well, its reasonable to assume that we are talking about the context of a debate" BULLSHIT. An ad hominem is ONLY a fallacy is the final step is taken and you use the ad hominem to try and discredit the original statment of the person and the personal attack (ad hominem) is unrelated to the original topic (something you have a hard time staying on) even as you have done here.

Sorry, but wrong.

Yes, you are, Im done with you. Go ahead and claiim victory, but I only wish the moddies would sound you about going off topic so much. And the nightmarish amounts of criticism you shovel.

 

[Nightwish]

The problems and reasons are many. One, nobody does it as much as you.

Since in nearly every one of those cases, the thread was already off topic, your point is meaningless. So go cry about it to somebody else.

Two, I sounded you on it in the other thread, but you insisted on remaining OFF TOPIC,

I stayed with the conversation that was currently going, because it still had life. You got called out, and since you couldn't produce, you instead tried to play Topic Police. I've seen that pattern in you lately -- you get challenged and can't stand up, then you resort to trying play Topic Police. Well, tough. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

then when I quit responding because you were OFF TOPIC, you then declared you kicked my ass.

You and I and everyone else who was following knows you quit responding for one reason only -- because you handwaved about having proof of your claim, then couldn't produce any of it. You got called out, and were shown up as impotent in the end. That pissed you off, so you ran off with your tail between your legs. Your Topic Police diversions were pathetically weak.

You attacked Hobbit right off the bat in your very first sentence of the very first post of this thread.

Hobbit set the tone with his first post, which came before mine. He basically called anyone who thought those things could work crazy. As I told him, you reap what you sew. As it turns out, he says he didn't mean it that way, and I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. But if came across that way, and he's responsible for his own wording, just as I am for mine.

An ad hominem is ONLY a fallacy is the final step is taken and you use the ad hominem to try and discredit the original statment of the person and the personal attack (ad hominem) is unrelated to the original topic (something you have a hard time staying on) even as you have done here.

You really don't know what ad hominem is, do you?

Yes, you are, Im done with you. Go ahead and claiim victory, but I only wish the moddies would sound you about going off topic so much. And the nightmarish amounts of criticism you shovel.

Let me translate that for everyone else: "Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!" Does anyone have a tissue? Lovergirl is getting weepy.

hahhahahah, you want a good example of an ad hominem attack? Its when you respond to one of my posts by claiming you kicked my ass in the religion thread.

That's not ad hominem, that's simply trading bluster. You came in with an uninvited insult, so I responded with bluster. Since ad hominem is a diversion from an argument, there first has to be an argument. A thrown insult from out of the blue is not an argument, therefore my response to you was not a diversion from an argument.

"ad homi·nem adv.
Usage Note: As the principal meaning of the preposition ad suggests, the homo of ad hominem was originally the person to whom an argument was addressed, not its subject. The phrase denoted an argument designed to appeal to the listener's emotions rather than to reason, The expression now also has a looser use in referring to any personal attack, whether or not it is part of an argument, as in It isn't in the best interests of the nation for the press to attack him in this personal, ad hominem way. This use is acceptable to 65 percent of the Panel. ·Ad hominem has also recently acquired a use as a noun denoting personal attacks, as in “Notwithstanding all the ad hominem, Gingrich insists that he and Panetta can work together” (Washington Post). This usage may raise some eyebrows, though it appears to be gaining ground in journalistic style.

Care to explain why you left this part out -- "The phrase now chiefly describes an argument based on the failings of an adversary rather than on the merits of the case: Ad hominem attacks on one's opponent are a tried-and-true strategy for people who have a case that is weak. Ninety percent of the Panel finds this sentence acceptable"? Could it possibly be because it describes the chief reason you use it?

Here, let me give you some more definitions.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/fallacies.htm

ad hominem: Latin for "to the man." An arguer who uses ad hominems attacks the person instead of the argument. Whenever an arguer cannot defend his position with evidence, facts or reason, he or she may resort to attacking an opponent either through: labeling, straw man arguments, name calling, offensive remarks and anger.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#hominem

Argumentum ad hominem literally means "argument directed at the man"; there are two varieties.

The first is the abusive form. If you refuse to accept a statement, and justify your refusal by criticizing the person who made the statement, then you are guilty of abusive argumentum ad hominem.

-snip-

A second form of argumentum ad hominem is to try and persuade someone to accept a statement you make, by referring to that person's particular circumstances.

Liar. You did disparage his opinion. You said it was worthless unless he had a degree in military training.

And the intent and context of that comment, which was admittedly poorly worded, was clarified in the next post. If you can't be bothered to follow, that's your problem.

Plus you seem to have ignored the FACT that he said if saddam were assasinated, it wouldnt solve the problem because another tyrant would merely take his place. DUH!

That's not a fact. That's an opinion. Neither you, nor I, nor Gunny, nor Hobbit knows who would have stepped in to take his place. Nor do any of us know what the character of that person's leadership would be. Your opinion on that may be right, but it's still an opinion, conjecture.

From dictionary.com:

Opinion: 1. A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof.

Fact: 1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences.

I just thought I'd post that, since you seem to be having trouble distinguishing.



PS -- Along with RWA, you're now on Ignore. I may check in on you from time to time, and if you ever develop the ability to argue and debate, rather than flame, I might let you exist again.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

For the Removal of Saddam, Yet against the war

This is really an illogical position. Regardless of how nuanced the ever growing explanations are, if dems had had their way Saddam would still be in power. The Sanctions were not working. Saying they were is a flight of fancy, A nonstop to Stupidville.

So are you against Kim Jong Il staying in power and for the invasion of North Korea, or are you for Kim Jong Il staying power and against the invasion of North Korea?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Assassination - Are you out of your f***ing mind?! Assassination would have, at the least, cost Bush the election and may have landed him in jail.

Only if you could prove to a Republican controlled Congress that he did it.

Assassination of a world leader, no matter how sick, is highly illegal and is frowned upon by most civilized people.

So is invading a nation because you think they might someday in the distant future thing about attacking you. Like any of you righties care what the rest of the world thinks anyway! Please!

Encouraging rebellion - What a joke. Only Saddam's flunkies had guns,

And the Shiites.

"Letting the Sanctions Work" - The purpose of the sanctions was to financially break Saddam, but Saddam would let his people starve before sitting on a non-golden toilet. We've also seen that there are always back channels. Oil for food, anyone? Truth be told, they hadn't worked for over a decade, and they weren't going to work just because we wanted them to.

"Let the Inspectors Do their Job" - which they must have been doing alright considering he had no WMD.

 

[manu1959]

"Let the Inspectors Do their Job" - which they must have been doing alright considering he had no WMD.

no items defined by the UN as WMDs were ever found?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

So are you against Kim Jong Il staying in power and for the invasion of North Korea, or are you for Kim Jong Il staying power and against the invasion of North Korea?

blah blah blah. The old "how can we do one good thing if we don't do them all?" crapminded argument. Easily, one at a time.

 

[manu1959]

So are you against Kim Jong Il staying in power and for the invasion of North Korea, or are you for Kim Jong Il staying power and against the invasion of North Korea?

i belive the clinton era sanctions are working....you should just give them a chance

 

[Mariner]

spokesman Steven Hadley admitted in November that "We were wrong," i.e. the administration's belief that Saddam had WMD's was incorrect, and there were in fact none. Time to catch up with your own President's view of the situation.

Mariner.

 

[manu1959]

spokesman Steven Hadley admitted in November that "We were wrong," i.e. the administration's belief that Saddam had WMD's was incorrect, and there were in fact none. Time to catch up with your own President's view of the situation.

Mariner.

couple of things, he is not my president and who is steven hadley.

so i take it that by you relying on this alleged quote you do in fact belive that no wmd's that met the UN resolution standards were ever found and therefore sadam was in full complaince will all 18 security council resolutions and that is why you belive the war was "illegal"?

is that it in a nut shell

 

[Mariner]

"Steven Hadley" and "We were wrong" and you'll find many reports of that event, which was a major admission by the Administration that Iraq in fact had no WMD's at the time of the invasion. They did it to try to get some closure due to the intensifying questions they faced as the searches for WMDs came up empty-handed.

No, of course Saddam wasn't in compliance with all the UN resolutions. Is North Korea in compliance with all UN resolutions? Israel? China? Why don't we invade them all?

Mariner.

 

[Mariner]

we can't take military action in North Korea is that, unlike Saddam, Kim actually has WMDs and would actually use them against us. So we're forced into diplomacy. It's been good to see the President change his tactics, and soften his line in the past year, sending Condi Rice to negotiate, and finally making some progress in North Korea. His cowboy style "Axis of Evil" stuff wasn't working, and was irritating our ally, South Korea.

Why not try a real response to SpidermanTuba's question, which, in very sharp terms, makes clear the fallacy in the position you and others here take, that war was the only solution to the Iraqi situation? And while you're at it, keep in mind the U.S. Ambassador's recent comment that war was not in fact absolutely necessary when Bush chose to start it, and the vast accummulated information about the exaggeration, distortion, and fakery in Bush and his team's presentation of the reasons for the war.

Mariner.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

So are you against Kim Jong Il staying in power and for the invasion of North Korea, or are you for Kim Jong Il staying power and against the invasion of North Korea?

North Korea is an ENTIRELY different situation. NK is not under a cease fire from a very recent war. NK is flanked by three major powers who have more interest in it not developing WMD's than we are. NK isnt an oil depot. NK has a vast standing army, and invading would be vastly different than invading Iraq was.

I suppose if you had one car that requires $25 to tune it up, and another that requires $250 to tune it up, you would still give both the same consideration on whether to tune it up or not? Especially if the guy next door says he could do the expensive tune up for half the cost?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

"Steven Hadley" and "We were wrong" and you'll find many reports of that event, which was a major admission by the Administration that Iraq in fact had no WMD's at the time of the invasion. They did it to try to get some closure due to the intensifying questions they faced as the searches for WMDs came up empty-handed.

No, of course Saddam wasn't in compliance with all the UN resolutions. Is North Korea in compliance with all UN resolutions? Israel? China? Why don't we invade them all?

Mariner.

You've just been shot four times. Your left hand is not usable. You can only stop the bleeding on each bullet wound one at a time. Since you cant stop them all at once, oh, what the hell, might as well bleed to death.

By the way, if we illegally invaded, then so did Britian, Spain, Japan, Poland, Australia, Italy, Latvia, etc. etc, etc. Apparently the attorney General equivalent in all those nations dont understand international law quite as well as you.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

blah blah blah. The old "how can we do one good thing if we don't do them all?" crapminded argument. Easily, one at a time.

No. I was merely asking a question. I made no such argument about anyone doing any good. I'll repeat it.

Are you against Kim Jong Il staying in power and for the invasion of North Korea, or are you for Kim Jong Il staying power and against the invasion of North Korea?

Which is it? You must answer either/or.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

North Korea is an ENTIRELY different situation. NK is not under a cease fire from a very recent war. NK is flanked by three major powers who have more interest in it not developing WMD's than we are. NK isnt an oil depot. NK has a vast standing army, and invading would be vastly different than invading Iraq was.

And also, you believe that if something is right, but difficult, it should not be done.

Its not an oil depot? Why LuvRgrl, are you suggesting the invasion of Iraq had something to do with oil ???


Are you suggesting we rely on RED CHINA to protect us from North Korea?



I do know one thing for sure. You are FOR Kim Jong Il remaining in power.

I suppose if you had one car that requires $25 to tune it up, and another that requires $250 to tune it up, you would still give both the same consideration on whether to tune it up or not? Especially if the guy next door says he could do the expensive tune up for half the cost?

I see. A war is like a tune up. You know, except thousands of people don't die when I tune up my car.


If both cars need a tune-up they both need a tune-up and if I planned on keeping the cars for the long haul I'd do the tune-up on both of them even if it meant going into debt for a little while.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

You've just been shot four times. Your left hand is not usable. You can only stop the bleeding on each bullet wound one at a time. Since you cant stop them all at once, oh, what the hell, might as well bleed to death.

Obviously, you'd want to stop the bleeding from the wound that was bleeding the worst. You know, like going after the nation that has no WMD instead of after the nation that does.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

No. I was merely asking a question. I made no such argument about anyone doing any good. I'll repeat it.

Are you against Kim Jong Il staying in power and for the invasion of North Korea, or are you for Kim Jong Il staying power and against the invasion of North Korea?

Which is it? You must answer either/or.

You're making the assinine point that "if we're against evil dictators why did we go after saddam and not north korea?" I'm ahead of your sophomoric game. Your question is based on the illogical premise that we cannot do one good thing without doing all good things. That premise is stupid.