The Occupy Wall Street Movement is WORKING!!!

[Ropey]

This is just getting to be to damn funny.

That's because Dragon is the true non sequitur and in the true comedic sense.

Meister's statement that most read and contextually respond and that dragon didn't is a single logical extension and so how could it not follow?

Use of Non Sequitur Properly

Dragon misses the context, comes back and explains why he did not miss what he clearly missed.

Now that does not follow and is humorous, so it fits both requirements of a non sequitur.

 

[georgephillip]

lame excuse

"1. Don't say 'capitalism.'

"'I'm trying to get that word removed and we're replacing it with either "economic freedom" or "free market,"' (Frank) Luntz said. 'The public . . . still prefers capitalism to socialism, but they think capitalism is immoral. And if we're seen as defenders of quote, Wall Street, end quote, we've got a problem."

Do you think capitalism is immoral?

Are you defending Wall Street?

How Republicans are being taught to talk about Occupy Wall Street | The Ticket - Yahoo! News

Dude....what I'm saying is that both the dems and the repubs do this kind of word game...it isn't a one party thing. Both parties even take polls on which words to use and not use. Try not to be so naive with your one upsmanship.

I never said it was a "one party thing."
In fact I said the exact opposite.
Are you naive (lacking experience, wisdom or judgement) or indifferent to my questions?

Do you think capitalism is immoral?

Are you defending Wall Street in the same way both major parties are?

 

[georgephillip]

You haven't demonstrated anything that I can see and please describe your use of the term non sequitur applied to the conversation.

Sorry you can't see it. I was accused of having not read several posts precursor to the one I quoted, and I demonstrated knowledge of what was in those posts, thus proving that I had read them.

What I mean by non sequitur is a statement presented in follow-up or refutation to something else, but that actually has nothing to do with it. The conversation between Meister and GeorgePhillip went something like this:

GP spoke of a GOP strategist using Orwellian quasi-Newspeak to change the terms of discussion and manipulate opinions.

Meister responded (in post 70) with "George, don't you think the same type of strategy isn't developed from the left?"

GP responded (in post 72) with "The left tries to do exactly the same thing. So far they haven't found anyone nearly as competent as Frank Luntz at crafting the perfect political message. If Frank honestly believes the public is coming to see capitalism as immoral, this will make it much harder to put Newt or Mitt in the White House next November."

Meister responded (in post 73) with "Please take your blinders off and look at the world the way that everyone else does."

This is the non sequitur: a response that is not a response. It has nothing to do with what was being discussed right before it.

No, that does follow. It is not a non sequitur...

Non-sequitur:

"a logical fallacy where a stated conclusion is not supported by its premise."

Newt and Mitt support capitalism.
Frank Luntz thinks the public believes capitalism is immoral.
Therefore, it will be difficult for Republicans to elect Newt or Mitt in 2012.

Did you miss the context?

Non sequitur - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia