The New liberal Name For Our *PRESIDENT*...

[KarlMarx]

Why am I a liberal? What do you mean, because I studied logic and philosophy?

No, you seem to be liberal in your position on issues. Studying logic and philosophy has nothing to do with whether you are liberal or conservative.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

There is no error in my logic. It's based solely on my reading, listening and watching the liberal media bias, and then stating what I've read, heard and seen on here. The main stream media is biased liberal. There is NO error in that statement. It's fact. You've now admitted that yourself. But that's what irritates me when you say I made the assumption that the main stream media was liberal WITHOUT FIRST KNOWING THAT, and then insist I PROVE it. THAT was a twisted line of bologna.

Now we're no longer arguing about two different things, and I'm not mad.

Sounds good. I don't doubt that your belief that the media is liberal is without reason. However, the fact that a conclusion has been reached using a set of premises does not mean that that conclusion validates all premises.

It seems to me that your argument goes something like this:

The media does not always add the qualification "President" when referring to President Bush, a conservative.
Not adding the qualification "President" is disrespectful.
A liberal media would be disrespectful to a conservative.

Therefore, the media is liberal.

It seems to me that the fallacy lies in assuming that 1) not adding the qualification is disrespectful and 2) a liberal media would only do that to a conservative.

It seems that industry custom supports the view that it is not disrespectful and that the liberal media has done the same to a non-conservative.

Correct me if I am wrong however.

On edit: I do not insist that your prove the media is liberal, just that you follow the standard that you prove it by the facts which you claim prove it (not using "President") if that is your argument.

 

[007]

Sounds good. I don't doubt that your belief that the media is liberal is without reason. However, the fact that a conclusion has been reached using a set of premises does not mean that that conclusion validates all premises.

My GOD duncan... the longer this conversation goes on, the more rediculous you get. That statement above has got to take the cake for the most liberal psycho-babble ever made on this board.

You've lost the argument, so now you resort to twisting, spinning, fluff and psycho-babble.

Like I said, you liberals will argue just for the sake of an argument. If I said the sun rose this morning, you'd argue it didn't. Rediculous.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

For starters, it's spelled 'ridiculous'. I'll assume you were attempting to emphasize the 're' syllable.

And I have in no way lost my argument. YOU refuse to engage in my argument. You respond with name calling and reinforcement of a different argument to which I do not wish to engage in.

Psycho babble is a new description regarding the rules of logic. Therefore, I guess I'm a psycho babbler...and thanks.

And I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing (which isn't inherently bad either).

WHY is it impossible for you to engage my argument that based on the rules of formal logic, you're reasoning is incorrect?

 

[musicman]

For starters, it's spelled 'ridiculous'. I'll assume you were attempting to emphasize the 're' syllable.

Oh, OK. Is that what we're doing now - correcting and spell-checking one another? Great. Let's ALL go on a self-improvement kick.

And I have in no way lost my argument. YOU refuse to engage in my argument. You respond with name calling and reinforcement of a different argument to which I do not wish to engage in.

Tsk, tsk. There's three more bricks out of your little house in heaven. Please do not end a sentence with a preposition.

Psycho babble is a new description regarding the rules of logic.

You are incorrect, sir.

And I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing (which isn't inherently bad either).

You are insane, sir.

WHY is it impossible for you to engage my argument that based on the rules of formal logic, you're reasoning is incorrect?

Why on earth would you use the contraction, "you're" in this context?

Wow - I feel better. We could all have great fun doing this, MJ. Or, we could understand that the tone is loose and conversational around here, and we all live in glass houses, and all like that.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

Why on earth would you use the contraction, "you're" in this context?

Thanks, you got me there. If there is one thing I dislike...it is the trouble people have with your and you're and there, their, they're. Perfection is not of man, so thank you.

I spoke with a logic professor I had and this is the extent of the email:

Duncan wrote:

"Extensive research shows that the media is liberal
Therefore, the media is liberal.

That is the argument that I would rather not engage. The second is
where I have a question.

The media does not always add the qualification "President" when
referring to President Bush, a conservative.
Not adding the qualification "President" is disrespectful.
A liberal media would be disrespectful to a conservative President.
Therefore, the media is liberal.

I know I am a bit rusty but that is the basics of the argument.

My intuition says that the first argument is in some sense valid and I
concede that for the sake of the second."

In any case, both arguments are inductive arguments and are not
deductively valid.

"It seems to me though that the
second is based on a conclusion which then attempts to conform the facts
to that conclusion."

What you're picking up on, I think, is the inductive nature of the
second argument. Unfortunately, nothing in your coursework on symbolic
logic can help sort out which inductive arguments are good and which aren't.

 

[007]

And I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing

WHY is it impossible for you to engage my argument

Could you come up with a better contradiction if you tried? Need more time maybe?

And below is Grade A Prime "psycho-babble"...

My intuition says that the first argument is in some sense valid and I
concede that for the sake of the second."

In any case, both arguments are inductive arguments and are not
deductively valid.

"It seems to me though that the
second is based on a conclusion which then attempts to conform the facts
to that conclusion."

What you're picking up on, I think, is the inductive nature of the
second argument. Unfortunately, nothing in your coursework on symbolic
logic can help sort out which inductive arguments are good and which aren't.

Your intuition or anything else other than pure and simple common sense are all that were needed here from the beginning. You KNOW the media is liberal, you KNOW they refer to *PRESIDENT* Bush as mister Bush, and that they do it as a cut, a slander, to be disrespectful, but yet you CHOOSE to take apart, dilute, spin, and psychoanalyze that simple fact until it's almost unrecognizable. Which doesn't surprize me, that's what you liberals do. The TRUTH is something that you people can rarely handle. It exposes you for the morons you are.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

Could you come up with a better contradiction if you tried? Need more time maybe?

What are you referring to? How are those two statements contradictory? One says I'm not arguing for the SAKE of arguing...the next asks why you won't engage in a PARTICULAR (i.e. NOT for the sake of arguing but for the sake of a specific point) argument.

And below is Grade A Prime "psycho-babble"...

Great idea...don't want to respond? Just insult. Requires minimal brain power too!

Your intuition or anything else other than pure and simple common sense are all that were needed here from the beginning. You KNOW the media is liberal, you KNOW they refer to *PRESIDENT* Bush as mister Bush, and that they do it as a cut, a slander, to be disrespectful, but yet you CHOOSE to take apart, dilute, spin, and psychoanalyze that simple fact until it's almost unrecognizable. Which doesn't surprize me, that's what you liberals do. The TRUTH is something that you people can rarely handle. It exposes you for the morons you are.

"I KNOW the media is liberal" - I wasn't even debating this point, and again, I DON'T WANT TO. Irrelevant point to mean on this thread. ONCE AGAIN - my point was to show your logical error.

"I KNOW they refer to...." - You really do believe that saying something makes it true. How on EARTH do you know why the do it? It seems some people have already shown it is a common practice in journalism. Sorry bud. But again, not what I want to talk about.

And I'll ask you again to quit with the broad stereotypes. I know your life would be easier and fit a nice mold if I fit into some stereotype that you have but life is not so simple. Stop attacking an indefinite notion like 'liberals' and bring some facts, quotes, instances, etc. SOMETHING to back up what you say.

 

[manu1959]

"I KNOW the media is liberal" - I wasn't even debating this point, and again, I DON'T WANT TO. Irrelevant point to mean on this thread. ONCE AGAIN - my point was to show your logical error.

so you agree with him but not his logic?....that is taking the piss for the sake of taking the piss at its best...oh yea you said you were not doing that

"I KNOW they refer to...." - You really do believe that saying something makes it true. How on EARTH do you know why the do it? It seems some people have already shown it is a common practice in journalism. Sorry bud. But again, not what I want to talk about.

so you agree that they call him mister bush wich is true and a fact but some hoe cuz pale says it it isn't true? oh and you are talking about it... and again taking the piss for the sake of taking the piss....which you said you were not doing

 

[MJDuncan1982]

Are you not capable of telling the difference between arguing for its own sake and calling someone on their logical errors while engaged in argument?

He still has yet to acknowledge that his logic is flawed. THAT is why I posted and that is why I continue to post.

THIS IS NOT PISSING FOR ITS OWN SAKE. How on Earth can we debate if we don't follow the rules of logic? It is MUCH easier to convince people of something if the facts alone are in doubt and not the facts AND the structure of the argument.

I'll try to lay it out:

An argument usually has two parts:

1. Premise(s)

2. Conclusion

In reaching his conclusion, he used erroneous logic. It DOES NOT MATTER what you fill in for 1 and 2 - there are rules for the conclusion to be valid. He made a rule-based error and I called him on it. He could have been arguing about ANYTHING.

And yes - of course I admit they call him just Bush and they treat all ex-presidents the same. Last comment I want to make on the subject matter of the argument.

 

[007]

An argument usually has two parts:

1. Premise(s)

2. Conclusion

1. Premise: Liberals call *PRESIDENT* Bush, mister Bush.

2. Conclusion: They do it to show disrespect, and to piss off the conservatives who voted him there.

What the fuck is sooooooooo hard to understand about that?

Think straight, and you'll get it. Forget all that gobbledee gook your puking, and think. You can do it. The logic is without "FLAW".

 

[MJDuncan1982]

1. Premise: Liberals call *PRESIDENT* Bush, mister Bush.

2. Conclusion: They do it to show disrespect, and to piss off the conservatives who voted him there.

What the fuck is sooooooooo hard to understand about that?

Think straight, and you'll get it. Forget all that gobbledee gook your puking, and think. You can do it. The logic is without "FLAW".

That is not a logical argument. I am beginning to assume you have little knowledge of Logic. How does your premise lead to your conclusion? Your full argument should look like this:

1. Liberals call President Bush simply Mr. Bush.
2. To call President Bush simply Mr. Bush is a sign of disrespect.

Therefore, When liberals call President Bush simply Mr. Bush, it is a sign of disrespect.

That would be a 'valid' argument and if you believe the first two premises, you must believe the conclusion, however..

The flaw in the logic is the circularity. You claim that the media is liberal. Anything that is liberal is disrespectful to a conservative President. Then you claim that because they are liberal, they do not refer to President Bush as President. Finally, you conclude that they do this out of disrespect. Thus YOUR argument is like this:

1. Liberals disrespect President Bush
2. Liberals call President Bush simply Mr. Bush
3. To call President Bush simply Mr. Bush is a sign of disrespect

Therefore, those that disrespect President Bush call President Bush simply Mr. Bush and to call President Bush simply Mr. Bush is disrespectful. So...those that disrespect President Bush are disrespectful.

Circular and logically erroneous.

 

[007]

That is not a logical argument. I am beginning to assume you have little knowledge of Logic. How does your premise lead to your conclusion? Your full argument should look like this:

1. Liberals call President Bush simply Mr. Bush.
2. To call President Bush simply Mr. Bush is a sign of disrespect.

Therefore, When liberals call President Bush simply Mr. Bush, it is a sign of disrespect.

That would be a 'valid' argument and if you believe the first two premises, you must believe the conclusion, however..

The flaw in the logic is the circularity. You claim that the media is liberal. Anything that is liberal is disrespectful to a conservative President. Then you claim that because they are liberal, they do not refer to President Bush as President. Finally, you conclude that they do this out of disrespect. Thus YOUR argument is like this:

1. Liberals disrespect President Bush
2. Liberals call President Bush simply Mr. Bush
3. To call President Bush simply Mr. Bush is a sign of disrespect

Therefore, those that disrespect President Bush call President Bush simply Mr. Bush and to call President Bush simply Mr. Bush is disrespectful. So...those that disrespect President Bush are disrespectful.

Circular and logically erroneous.

I can't keep this up dunc. You are full of more fluff, psycho-babble, spin, discomebooberation and bullshit, I'm done with you, until you can talk sense.

It's like I say, "to pour a glass of orange juice, first you take the cap off, then tip the jug, and then fill your glass".

But YOU say, "no first you have to get out of bed in the morning, stand up, walk to the kitchen, open the refrigerator, make decision to have orange juice, bend over, grab orange juice, stand back up, set orange juice on counter..... and :blah2: :blah2: :blah2:

You take something that a FIRST GRADER can understand, and then ADD so much bull shit to it, it is then unrecognizable. Again, I know this tactic is one of you liberals favorite things to do, and thus, one the reasons most people prefer convertives.

And I suppose you all were in heaven when your savior and favorite President, *mister* clinton, said, "it depends on what the definition of is, is".

 

[musicman]

1. Liberals disrespect President Bush
2. Liberals call President Bush simply Mr. Bush
3. To call President Bush simply Mr. Bush is a sign of disrespect

Therefore, those that disrespect President Bush call President Bush simply Mr. Bush and to call President Bush simply Mr. Bush is disrespectful. So...those that disrespect President Bush are disrespectful.

Circular and logically erroneous.

No - not circular and logically erroneous. Just laid out - by you - in reverse order. Try this:

1. To call President Bush simply Mr. Bush is a sign of disrespect.
2. Liberals call President Bush simply Mr. Bush. Therefore,
3. Liberals disrespect President Bush.

In other words, MJ, your logic is ass-backwards. Not to worry, though - it's a common malady found in liberalism. In fact, I think it's a prerequisite. "Abandon common sense, all ye who enter here".