Relatives rape 14 year old and kill unborn child.

[Correll]

Do you think you are fooling anyone with your frantic dodging and obfuscations?

Are you fooling even yourself?

I'm dodging nothing. I'm just not playing with your strawmen. Post something about what I actually say and I'm more than happy to reply. Post nonsense about what you think Liberals think, and you'll be wasting your time. I don't speak for Liberals and Liberals don't speak for me.

My point was clear.

Obama identified with the criminal Martin, based on Race.

Libs loved that.

Marianne identified Obama with criminals based on Race and libs hated it.


LIbs are hypocrites.

YOur defense of the violent criminal Trayvon Martin is in keeping with the general lib siding with black criminals.

Your bizarre defense that reaching a conclusion based on evidence and high levels of probability is wrong, just shows how far you libs will go in defense of violent black criminals.

Complete and utter nonsense. There is no "high probability" as to who started the altercation. You are making that up and then using it to lend credibility to your incredulous position.

Who knows what you mean when you say libs loved that Obama sided with Martin because he was black? You haven't said and that is not clear.

I have no idea what you mean by libs hated what Marianne said? Again, the OP says nothing about Obama. Also, not clear.

Using your logic and generalization, cons think blacks are criminals.

And finally, unless you can prove Martin was not acting in self defense, you are lying when you call his actions criminal. Of course, that would be you keeping with the general con belief that blacks are criminals.

SIlly lib.

I wonder, is this more Proof by Assertion Logical Fallacy, or more Shotgun argumentation?

I think Proof by Assertion. YOu keep repeating yourself "regardless of contradiction".


Though you do keep bringing in more Strawmen as part of a Shotgun approach.

I'm surprised how little you've touched on Argumentum ad hominem.

Questions the poster citing himself as an authority to determine Martin committed a crime. What type of fallacy is that?

Strawman.

 

[Faun]

I'm dodging nothing. I'm just not playing with your strawmen. Post something about what I actually say and I'm more than happy to reply. Post nonsense about what you think Liberals think, and you'll be wasting your time. I don't speak for Liberals and Liberals don't speak for me.

My point was clear.

Obama identified with the criminal Martin, based on Race.

Libs loved that.

Marianne identified Obama with criminals based on Race and libs hated it.


LIbs are hypocrites.

YOur defense of the violent criminal Trayvon Martin is in keeping with the general lib siding with black criminals.

Your bizarre defense that reaching a conclusion based on evidence and high levels of probability is wrong, just shows how far you libs will go in defense of violent black criminals.

Complete and utter nonsense. There is no "high probability" as to who started the altercation. You are making that up and then using it to lend credibility to your incredulous position.

Who knows what you mean when you say libs loved that Obama sided with Martin because he was black? You haven't said and that is not clear.

I have no idea what you mean by libs hated what Marianne said? Again, the OP says nothing about Obama. Also, not clear.

Using your logic and generalization, cons think blacks are criminals.

And finally, unless you can prove Martin was not acting in self defense, you are lying when you call his actions criminal. Of course, that would be you keeping with the general con belief that blacks are criminals.

SIlly lib.

I wonder, is this more Proof by Assertion Logical Fallacy, or more Shotgun argumentation?

I think Proof by Assertion. YOu keep repeating yourself "regardless of contradiction".


Though you do keep bringing in more Strawmen as part of a Shotgun approach.

I'm surprised how little you've touched on Argumentum ad hominem.

Questions the poster citing himself as an authority to determine Martin committed a crime. What type of fallacy is that?

Strawman.

Diversion.