ZOMG! The global-internationalists have taken over! Run!!
Yet another
sophomoric response from a person that is only able to debate or argue using logical fallacies, such as appeals to ridicule, hasty generalizations, from Ignorance: because something is not known to be true, it is assumed to be false and then ridiculed.
I didnt use a logical fallacy, dipshit. I mocked you. Because your rhetoric is stupid. It is something picked up on the whackier libertarian websites and the darker sillier corners of the Internet. It isnt even debatable. It is merely name-calling,not an argument.
Now get back under your rock.
You are apparently ignorant of what logical fallacies are. Mocking someone and calling them names is a logical fallacy ace. You need to look up what logical fallacies are and learn something, if that's possible. You failed to refute with any scholarly credibility whatsoever what I posted. What I posted is not unsubstantiated "rhetoric". What I stated can be substantiated with facts. You are unable to argue on the merits of the argument so you resort to juvenile name calling and mocking.
Personal Attack (Argumentum Ad Hominem, literally, "argument toward the man." Also called "Poisoning the Well"): Attacking or praising the people who make an argument, rather than discussing the argument itself. This practice is fallacious because the personal character of an individual is logically irrelevant to the truth or falseness of the argument itself.
“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” -Mark Twain
I see I am dealing with a college sophomore. A little knowledge is a ridiculous thing.
Ridicule is not a logical fallacy. It isnt logical at all. Except in your case. Your posts are so filled with name calling and jargon the only proper response is ridicule until you go away.
Using ridicule instead of addressing the argument itself is a logical fallacy ace because you're not arguing with any logic or reason just replying with ridicule (ad hominem) and hence the fallacy, the quality of being false or wrong. Appealing to ridicule is a logical fallacy and it's quite apparent you're ignorant as to the variety of logical fallacies taught in a liberal arts education. Appealing to ridicule is one of the logical fallacies listed in college level liberal arts text books of which you're apparently not familiar with.
You're engaging in another logical fallacy, a straw man, by stating my posts are "so filled with name calling and jargon". Yet, you cite no examples of my posts being "filled with name calling and jargon". A misrepresentation of my postings and at the very least a gross exaggeration.
Straw Man Argument: A subtype of the red herring, this fallacy includes any lame attempt to "prove" an argument by overstating, exaggerating, or over-simplifying the arguments of the opposing side. Such an approach is building a straw man argument. The name comes from the idea of a boxer or fighter who meticulously fashions a false opponent out of straw, like a scarecrow, and then easily knocks it over in the ring before his admiring audience. His "victory" is a hollow mockery, of course, because the straw-stuffed opponent is incapable of fighting back. When a writer makes a cartoon-like caricature of the opposing argument, ignoring the real or subtle points of contention, and then proceeds to knock down each "fake" point one-by-one, he has created a straw man argument.
For instance, one speaker might be engaged in a debate concerning welfare. The opponent argues, "Tennessee should increase funding to unemployed single mothers during the first year after childbirth because they need sufficient money to provide medical care for their newborn children." The second speaker retorts, "My opponent believes that some parasites who don't work should get a free ride from the tax money of hard-working honest citizens. I'll show you why he's wrong . . ." In this example, the second speaker is engaging in a straw man strategy, distorting the opposition's statement about medical care for newborn children into an oversimplified form so he can more easily appear to "win." However, the second speaker is only defeating a dummy-argument rather than honestly engaging in the real nuances of the debate.
