Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Unbelievable that even he would actually post such a thing. I didn't think they made dunce caps that huge.
I think I'm incapable of being surprised by anything leftists do any more.
Desensitized by overexposure to lefty idiots here.
I think I'm incapable of being surprised by anything leftists do any more.
Desensitized by overexposure to lefty idiots here.
Geez, didn't mean to hurt your feelings ...
So let's start with the definition of the Argument by Authority fallacy? Do you have a definiltion [sic], not a definition that you made up on your very own but a definition by a real authority, and if you cite the authority that would make it sort of scholarly.
So let's start with the definition of the Argument by Authority fallacy? Do you have a definiltion [sic], not a definition that you made up on your very own but a definition by a real authority, and if you cite the authority that would make it sort of scholarly.
This is all you can do? Endlessly 'request' that I teach you the same lesson over and over and over? You're pathetic. You are spamming at this point.
Every time you are left with nothing but this silly game you prove that you cannot defend that scumbag FDR.
Maybe in your eyes a failure, but in the eyes of the voters of that period, a total success. During FDR's time the American people elected FDR four times in a row, a reward the people gave to no other president. Add to the people's electing FDR four times, the historians since 1948 have rated FDR as one of the three greatest American presidents and in the last rating, rated FDR as America's greatest president. Winning four elections and historians rating FDR as America's greatest president, is not proof nor even evidence of a failed presidency?
And in the eyes of voters of this period, Obama is the Messiah. The fact that you can get retards in the moment to believe anything impresses no one but other retards.
Obama is not viewed as the Messiah. His approval ratings are below 50%. The actual far left are almost always angry with him. The whole Messiah thing is a propaganda ploy by the right to convince low information supporters like yourself that they are intellectually above those who support Obama. Hence, people who disagree with your political values are "retards". In the meantime, if one goes back and reads your post on the subject of FDR they find absolutely no facts or even opinions in regards to the subject. Instead they find jiberish, name calling, silly insults, etc. In other words, nothing intellectual or academic. Think about this, you just called what American's have come to call "The Greatest Generation" a bunch of retards. The people who worked themselves out of the worlds greatest depression and went on to win the worlds greatest war in history were a bunch of retards according to you. Really, give it some thought. Who is the retard, or at least who is the one with a retarded thought process?
If I were a politician I would rather have the Koch brothers support my campaign than have people call me a Messiah.
If I were a politician I would rather have the Koch brothers support my campaign than have people call me a Messiah.
So let's start with the definition of the Argument by Authority fallacy? Do you have a definiltion [sic], not a definition that you made up on your very own but a definition by a real authority, and if you cite the authority that would make it sort of scholarly.
This is all you can do? Endlessly 'request' that I teach you the same lesson over and over and over? You're pathetic. You are spamming at this point.
Every time you are left with nothing but this silly game you prove that you cannot defend that scumbag FDR.
The problem is that your definition of the Authority fallacy is different than the ones in my texts.
If I were a politician I would rather have the Koch brothers support my campaign than have people call me a Messiah.
The Koch Brothers myth is a creation of the Leftist propaganda machine. It is designed to hide the financial manipulations of the Leftist criminal George Soros.
As folks....not you, of course,....became aware of the breadth and depth of Soros' power, it became incumbent upon his minions to find some way to shield him.
The point: the financial input of Koch, as compared to Soros, would be like comparing a bamboo hut to the palace of Versailles.
Soros has claimed that he has donated over $7 billion to Leftwing groups.
"The New Leviathan," Horowitz and Laksin
Three Koch foundations made a total of 181 grants worth $25,405,525 in 2010 (most recent available records). The one Tides Foundation made a total of 2,627 grants worth $143,529,590 in 2010.
Liberal group grants over 5x as much as Koch Brothers but goes largely unnoticed by the media | Human Events
This is all you can do? Endlessly 'request' that I teach you the same lesson over and over and over? You're pathetic. You are spamming at this point.
Every time you are left with nothing but this silly game you prove that you cannot defend that scumbag FDR.
The problem is that your definition of the Authority fallacy is different than the ones in my texts.
No, the problem is that you don't understand the full definition because you only read the jacket of an intro course book. I very kindly explained it to you in full but you are either too stupid to understand or refuse to do so because it would deprive you of your one and only argument in defending that scumbag FDR.
The problem is that your definition of the Authority fallacy is different than the ones in my texts.
No, the problem is that you don't understand the full definition because you only read the jacket of an intro course book. I very kindly explained it to you in full but you are either too stupid to understand or refuse to do so because it would deprive you of your one and only argument in defending that scumbag FDR.
If I were the only one defending FDR I might be concerned .
....as cited on page 118 of Introduction to Logic by Copi, U of Hawaii and Cohen, U of Michigan: The fallacy appeal to inappropriate authority arises when the appeal is made to parties having no legitimate claim to authority in the matter at hand.
Seems the 238 noted historians have some claim to be authorities.
Fuck you unkotare. you would have made a perfect member of the America first committee with lindbergh [sic] you anti semite [sic] scum
....as cited on page 118 of Introduction to Logic by Copi, U of Hawaii and Cohen, U of Michigan: The fallacy appeal to inappropriate authority arises when the appeal is made to parties having no legitimate claim to authority in the matter at hand.
Seems the 238 noted historians have some claim to be authorities.
Remember when I told you that you didn't understand the full definition? Well, you've proved it again. That, or you are so completely out of hope now that you are being deliberately dishonest.
If I were a politician I would rather have the Koch brothers support my campaign than have people call me a Messiah.
The Koch Brothers myth is a creation of the Leftist propaganda machine. It is designed to hide the financial manipulations of the Leftist criminal George Soros.
As folks....not you, of course,....became aware of the breadth and depth of Soros' power, it became incumbent upon his minions to find some way to shield him.
The point: the financial input of Koch, as compared to Soros, would be like comparing a bamboo hut to the palace of Versailles.
Soros has claimed that he has donated over $7 billion to Leftwing groups.
"The New Leviathan," Horowitz and Laksin
Three Koch foundations made a total of 181 grants worth $25,405,525 in 2010 (most recent available records). The one Tides Foundation made a total of 2,627 grants worth $143,529,590 in 2010.
Liberal group grants over 5x as much as Koch Brothers but goes largely unnoticed by the media | Human Events
Just another fine example of left wing bias in the media....and yet there are those on the Left who still proclaim left wing media bias does not exist....further proof of their psychosis.
Ask any run of the mill Leftist about the Koch brothers and many become unhinged. Ask them about Soros and many will not even know who he is. CRAZY!
....as cited on page 118 of Introduction to Logic by Copi, U of Hawaii and Cohen, U of Michigan: The fallacy appeal to inappropriate authority arises when the appeal is made to parties having no legitimate claim to authority in the matter at hand.
Seems the 238 noted historians have some claim to be authorities.
Remember when I told you that you didn't understand the full definition? Well, you've proved it again. That, or you are so completely out of hope now that you are being deliberately dishonest.
So I'll give you another source and definition: "Attacking Faulty Reasoning" by T. Edward Damer of Emory College. "Definition This fallacy consists in attempting to support a claim by quoting the judgement of one who is not an authority in the field, of an unidentified authority, or the judgement of an authority who is likely to be biased in some way."
Let's face it, you got caught creating a definition that supported your argument and when someone called you on it. You checked and found you were wrong so you created a smokecreen that no one was capable of understanding the definition. A grade school tactic. In any case I now have a read on your scholarship or lack thereof.
Remember when I told you that you didn't understand the full definition? Well, you've proved it again. That, or you are so completely out of hope now that you are being deliberately dishonest.
So I'll give you another source and definition: "Attacking Faulty Reasoning" by T. Edward Damer of Emory College. "Definition This fallacy consists in attempting to support a claim by quoting the judgement of one who is not an authority in the field, of an unidentified authority, or the judgement of an authority who is likely to be biased in some way."
Let's face it, you got caught creating a definition that supported your argument and when someone called you on it. You checked and found you were wrong so you created a smokecreen that no one was capable of understanding the definition. A grade school tactic. In any case I now have a read on your scholarship or lack thereof.
You keep proving my point that you don't understand the full definition - even after I've explained it to you over and over and over again.
I've even tried to give you an out by suggesting you let go of the fallacy and simply attempt to defend the scumbag yourself. You refuse to answer questions when you have no answer for them, and sooner or later you fall right back on logical fallacy again.
I have to conclude that you're a partisan hack and just plain stupid.
