Old Devil Bush Was Right? Hardly....

[bountyh]

-Bounty's arguments in recent months are not as intact.

Yes... except that the stunning rebuttals are simple ad hominems like yours.

Perhaps you refer to when I got refuted when I proved the Swiftvets were liars? Oh, wait.... no actually, I shredded them. Oh, but how about when I posted proof the saudis have financed our true enemy (Al Qaeda) for ten years and I was challenged on that? No, turns out I was right again. But there was that one about Hussein not being hooked up with Al Qaeda? No, not that one either. And all the times I was shown "wrong" as the famous smoking guns on WMD's were "uncovered" in Iraq by our troops... all of which turned out to be false.



I am not going to waste time itemizing to the list of this post, but I will say this:

MY VIEW of Bush has never changed and it has never been "schizophrenic". And my views on the Iraq war have never changed.

 

[bountyh]

How about rewriting the facts?

You just did it here:

Here is what Baxter wrote:

So since Iraq started, what has been done about RNK? Nada.. That's not multitasking, its called ignoring a problem.

Here is what you ERRONEOUSLY claim he said:

- - US has forces in Iraq
- Bush has not solved the North Korean problem
Ergo, US forces in Iraq is the cause for not solving problems in North Korea.

A = B
C = Q
Therefore A is the cause of World Problems.

I can summarize: if I was still a TA, you would have just flunked LOGIC. Your "interpretation equations" do not match the statement, in fact they make no sense at all. He said:

"Iraq war"/"NKorea indifference" are simultaneous events in time.

The two tasks were not effectively dealt with simultaneously.

The most you can INFER that he is saying is that the Iraq war is a cause of the neglect of the Korea issue... but you again built a straw man by expanding it to:

"Therefore A is the cause of World Problems."


Which is nonsense. He never said that Bush's obsession with Iraq caused all the world problems, he just observed that Bush spent our valuable resources on a problem which is orders of magnitude less threatening than Korea.

And by the way... he is 100% right on that, and your straw man just caught fire.

It's an embarrassing nonsequitur of logic

I agree, but I am referring to the one I listed above.

you already held your "conclusions" and are simply looking for sound bites for those with double digit IQ.

Guess who wrote this:

"Staff moniker entitles me to no more than anyone else/it does require that you play by the Forum Rules

See the difference here/? I take issue with your argument. You take issue with me. It's more than nuance."

Please post the argument offered by the "double digit IQ's" that you are addressing in your reply.

 

[Rich Lucibella]

Bounty-

I am stuck with these three useless college degrees

Interesting admission. As they say, from your lips to God's ear.

the point of the original thread is that this thing has already "gotten away" from Bush.

Depends on your frame of reference. If understanding that our goal was to allow free Iraqis to determine their own course and seed the idea of freedom in the area, things appear to be pretty much on schedule. If your original assumption was to "destroy the yahoo that threatened his dad, and secure a spot for US bases in the region... and install a puppet regime which would pump cheap oil."....well, then, either they aren't going so well OR your original premise had no basis in reality.

the track record of seeing the most probable outcomes of the Iraq "adventure" has been very accurately mapped by those you ridicule, and the admin has failed almost 100%.

Might wish to edit this Bounty. While you're at it, you may wish to swab the froth off. I don't know a man or woman alive who will comprehend a word of it. I can only assume you are referring to the stated positions of the Omniscient Left. I've provided their quotes above. That dog won't hunt.

-Bounty's arguments in recent months are not as intact.
Yes... except that the stunning rebuttals are simple ad hominems like yours.

Incorrect. For the second time, there's a difference between attacking an argument and attacking a person. Attacking your argument may hurt your feelings, but that does not create "ad hominem". Nuance, Bounty. It's much more clearcut than nuance.

MY VIEW of Bush has never changed and it has never been "schizophrenic". And my views on the Iraq war have never changed.

Argumentum ad Ignorantiam

The most you can INFER that he is saying is that the Iraq war is a cause of the neglect of the Korea issue

Agreed. And that is exactly what I stated to be the conclusion of Baxter's argument when I wrote, "Ergo, US forces in Iraq is the cause for not solving problems in North Korea." My second example was not a metaphor but a simile; an example of faulty logic. It's a common form of reductio ad absurdum. Check it out; it may help you land that TA position you speak of.


My statement:

unless you already held your "conclusions" and are simply looking for sound bites for those with double digit IQ.

For the third time, Bounty, this is not an ad hominem, despite your use of argumentum ad verecundiam. It is a statement of fact that there are people in this world who possess double digit IQ, agreed? I did not state (nor infer) that you, Baxter or anyone else here is in that group. I stated that the argument might appeal to those of such persuasion. Nuance again, Bounty. It's much more clearcut than nuance. Ad hominems are easily recognized once you comprehend the definition.

Please post the argument offered by the "double digit IQ's" that you are addressing in your reply.

I already did, only to have you re-subscribe to it in your own words:

he just observed that Bush spent our valuable resources on a problem which is orders of magnitude less threatening than Korea.

Respectfully submitted at great personal risk of becoming another data point in that famous "smoldering trail of arrogant rednecks who got put through the meat grinder".

Rich

 

[Fred Hansen]

LMAO

 

[Mike Irwin]

You know, it's really funny to hear all this talk about how North Korea is the bigger danger as if it's an absolute given.

2 or so years ago many in the world, including Republicans and Democrats here at home, the same people who authorized the use of force in Iraq, as well as our international allies, felt pretty certain that Saddam Hussein's government posed a significant risk, and in fact very likely possessed weapons of mass destruction, or at least the means of making and using such weapons.

The Iraqi government's own refusal to allow international inspectors to do their job certainly didn't make many people feel a lot better about that.

In the intervening years, we now have a situation where there were apparently no WMDs, and many of the same people who agreeded that Iraq posed a pretty serious threat are now carping about how Bush lied, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum.

Now we're hearing, from a lot of the same people, about how North Korea is this huge threat because they say that they have viable nuclear weapons. Of course, no independent inspection verifications have agreed with that, only that it's likely, but not certain. No nuclear tests have been detected in the North, and its only their say so that they have managed to craft operating weapons.

And, we also have to consider that the last time North Korea invaded a neighbor was in 1950, and as far as anyone knows, has never used chemical or biological warfare agents on its own people, or people of another nation, something Iraq did at least half a dozen times.

So, tell me, facing the same sort of information blur with North Korea that we faced with Iraq (despite what some say, it's impossible to get hard and fast information on an unfriendly, isolated, secretive nation), just how can it be categorically said that North Korea poses a much greater threat now than Iraq did 3 years ago?

So, say the United States did disengage from Iraq completely, and decides to strike North Korea in an effort to eliminate the threat of a rogue state that might have the ultimate in WMDs.

And, say, it's determined that North Korea was, in fact, lying about its nuclear arsenal.

I wonder how quickly the cries of "Bush Lied" would resurface among those who are now saying North Korea is a threat?

 

[bountyh]

Still Waiting For You To Answer This:

Respectfully submitted at great personal risk of becoming another data point in that famous "smoldering trail of arrogant rednecks who got put through the meat grinder".

So you don't try to duck the issue or accuse me of breaking forum rules, I am saying right up front I am disputing your FALLACIOUS NON REASONED ARGUMENT and pointing out that you in correctly condemned Baxter for a "non sequitur" when in fact, his argument was logically coherent, passed the common sense test, and also happened to be true. I notice you refused to answer this when I posted it before, I repost it as I humbly suggest you apologize to Mr Baxter and you may wish to stop blowing the "non sequitur" horn so frequently... since it is not really that impressive and non sequiturs seem to flow freely from your keyboard in the very post where you claim to find them in others.

Here is your argument which I dispute:

Baxter-
You're dancing around the issue. Here's your argument in a nutshell:

- US has forces in Iraq
- Bush has not solved the North Korean problem
Ergo, US forces in Iraq is the cause for not solving problems in North Korea.

A = B
C = Q
Therefore A is the cause of World Problems.

It's an embarrassing nonsequitur of logic; unless you already held your "conclusions" and are simply looking for sound bites for those with double digit IQ.
-

Here is why I dispute the argument: you lied about what Baxter said. His actual statement is this:

So since Iraq started, what has been done about RNK? Nada.. That's not multitasking, its called ignoring a problem.

You claim that your "logic" reveals he is saying:

A = B
C = Q
Therefore A is the cause of World Problems.

Which is false. He never made any claim that Bush's obsession about Iraq was the cause of all the World's Problems. You made that up in a logical error called Straw Man where one ascribes a false staement to his opponents argument to ridicule because he can't dispute the actual argument. It is also a "non sequitur" (for those who did not study logic, it translates literally to "it does not follow" and applies to any argument with a defect which makes the conclusion invalid). Your stated conclusion which you incorrectly ascribe to Mr Baxter is that he said this, which he did not... so your conclusion is invalid. Non sequitur is as non sequitur does....

As I said, if you were in my class you would have gotten an "F" because your straw man just burst into flames.

For the record: what can be logically inferred from Mr Baxter's statement is that the focus on the Iraq war detracted from what should have been focus on a more urgent problem (NK nukes). You may dispute this assertion, but that's what he said. That is a far cry from claiming that Mr Baxter concluded Bush's war was "the cause of World Problems".



As to the second issue you ignored, I will again point out I am taking issue with YOUR STATEMENT which was:

"Staff moniker entitles me to no more than anyone else/it does require that you play by the Forum Rules.. See the difference here/? I take issue with your argument. You take issue with me. It's more than nuance."

So I have requested that you please post the "argument" put forth somewhere by Mr Baxter that necessitated you to "take issue" with it and declare:

you already held your "conclusions" and are simply looking for sound bites for those with double digit IQ.

Since you already disciplined me and pointed out you NEVER engage in personal attacks, LOGIC would require that for this to be true, the only possible case is that I must be overlooking an argument put forth by Mr Baxter somewhere that he favors pandering to those with low IQ's and you are simply pointing out the error of this strategy (disagreeing with his argument)... because if such an argument had not been offered by him, one might believe this looked like a PERSONAL ATTACK on Mr Baxter where you labeled his "conclusions" as so stupid that they could only appeal to morons with a "double digit IQ". But, since you never engage in personal attacks, clearly it must follow there is an argument somewhere you were responding to and I just can't find it.

Go ahead and diagram that.

Respectfully submitted at great personal risk of becoming another data point in that famous "smoldering trail of arrogant rednecks who got put through the meat grinder".

I didn't even need a meat grinder to shred your "argument". It was dead on arrival.

 

[Rich Lucibella]

You claim that your "logic" reveals he is saying:

Sigh. Negatory, Bounty. I "claimed" my logic reveals his argument concludes "US forces in Iraq is the cause for not solving problems in North Korea." That's all I needed to respond to the "logic" of Baxter's claim.

Now lets try once more. This time more slowly. My second example was clearly simile, not metaphor. Shall I define the difference? Feel free to substitute any words you choose for my use of "Therefore A is the cause of World Problems." It will be just as effective. Know why? Because it's a simile in logic.....conclusion of absurdity. Get it? S-I-M-I-L-E. Example of the logic not a distillation of the argument. A second refutation of the argument would have been redundant and unnecessary, in light of my first. And I try not to be redundant...except when someone continues to ask the same question over and over and over and over and over.

You keep crying "Straw Man" when none was raised. I'd love to respond to your rebuttal, but I'm hard pressed when your premise of what was clearly stated is, once again, patently incorrect.

Now, though it's been a fun and revealing detour, I'll provide one more attempt to correct your misunderstanding of "personal attack". Then, could we please return to your elucidation of the Iraqi problem and leave enforcement of the Forum Rules to those better equipped to determine the meaning of ad hominem? Thanks much.

You claim that I engaged in personal attack when I wrote,

you already held your "conclusions" and are simply looking for sound bites for those with double digit IQ.

It's a statement of fact that you intentionally lifted half the statement, out of context. Reasons: Unknown; Malicious Intent: Not Ascribed. Here's what I actually said:

It's an embarrassing nonsequitur of logic; unless you already held your "conclusions" and are simply looking for sound bites for those with double digit IQ.

See that? Part A attacks the argument Bounty; Part B claims the argument might work well on those with limited intellectual capacity. Feel free to continue wrestling with it, as long as required.

one might believe this looked like a PERSONAL ATTACK on Mr Baxter

Correct. One "might". And one "might" believe that Julius Caesar Spoke in Poor Modern Day Prose, but it would still be an embarrassment to state such publicly.

I didn't even need a meat grinder to shred your "argument".

Yup, you sure taught us "rednecks" a thing or two about the Socratic Method, Bounty. We can certainly see you're a force to be reckoned, when you enter the world of reasoned debate; Dunno I can say the same about your habit of posting hastily Googled Left Wing Propaganda, though. You might work on that a bit.

C'mon back now, y'hear?
Rich

 

[bountyh]

Nice Try

Sigh. Negatory, Bounty. I "claimed" my logic reveals his argument concludes "US forces in Iraq is the cause for not solving problems in North Korea." That's all I needed to respond to the "logic" of Baxter's claim.

NO, now you try to rewrite history with the information staring you in the face. You falsely claimed that Baxter said (I quote you verbatim):

- - US has forces in Iraq
- Bush has not solved the North Korean problem
Ergo, US forces in Iraq is the cause for not solving problems in North Korea.

A = B
C = Q
Therefore A is the cause of World Problems.

And your conclusion is a lie. He actually said:

So since Iraq started, what has been done about RNK? Nada.. That's not multitasking, its called ignoring a problem.

As a point of fact, you claimed Baxter committed a logical error when he did not. His statement is logically valid, although the conclusion is an opinion... based on common sense and available data (ie, that it is impossible to have two #1 priorities at the same time and ergo, Iraq would detract from focus of other problems). So, you never disproved his conclusion (nor could you), you never showed a logical fallacy (there was none), but you committed one yourself by posting a false conclusion implying it was what Baxter stated. Tap dancing doesn't change what you posted.

I clearly understand you are now claiming that the second part of the text is "unrelated" to the top part.. are you serious?

Now lets try once more. This time more slowly.

I think the material has been presented quite clearly, and I think all concerned know who came up short.

You keep crying "Straw Man" when none was raised. I'd love to respond to your rebuttal, but I'm hard pressed when your premise of what was clearly stated is, once again, patently incorrect.

I showed very clearly where you switched conclusions in an attempt to ridicule his argument and opinion. It is posted for the fourth time right above. Problem is, you tried to make it look like what he was saying was invalid by illogical razzle dazzle, but in reality: he was just staing a valid opinion with supporting premises... which you could not refute. And you got nailed.

Now, though it's been a fun and revealing detour, I'll provide one more attempt to correct your misunderstanding of "personal attack".

Thanks, but I already know what a personal attack is... and everybody else does as well. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

It's an embarrassing nonsequitur of logic; unless you already held your "conclusions" and are simply looking for sound bites for those with double digit IQ.

Good luck trying to explain what "argument you are addressing" when you say somebody is posting "sound bytes" to appeal to morons. And by the way... his statement was not a non sequitur, but your response sure was.

Yup, you sure taught us "rednecks" a thing or two about the Socratic Method, Bounty.

I think we know who was the grinder and who was the handle.

Better luck next time.

Regards.

 

[Rich Lucibella]

There now, Bounty. We'll give you the last word. What's been said is clearly documented for all to read.

Now, onto the point at hand. Where were we? Oh, that's right. You were busy demonstrationg to us how a year old Interim Constitution in Iraq; one which has allowed Women to vote, is evidence that:

That is a whole different ballgame.... and means they have time warped back 1000 years and their women will all be forced to wear those black body bags again.

I found your analysis fascinating. Kindly continue.


Rich

 

[fallingblock]

so bountyhunter is over here at TFL, gettin' shredded by 'rednecks'

Carry on Rich, bountyhunter is more fun than a slipperyslide with jello.

 

[Derius_T]

Now, far be it from me to EVER engage in a political discussion, but I cannot help but comment on this.

BountyH wrote:

because if such an argument had not been offered by him, one might believe this looked like a PERSONAL ATTACK on Mr Baxter where you labeled his "conclusions" as so stupid that they could only appeal to morons with a "double digit IQ".

Rich Lucibella originally wrote:

It's an embarrassing nonsequitur of logic; unless you already held your "conclusions" and are simply looking for sound bites for those with double digit IQ.

Hmmm, its odd bountyh, that you so often do what you accuse others of. Where, in the above statement from Rich, do you find the words you used, as in:

where you labeled his "conclusions" as so stupid that they could only appeal to morons

Stupid....morons? Maybe thats simply how you felt at the time after Rich smoked you again? Its hard to be proven wrong time after time, and I imagine that trying to fight facts and logic of this 'caliber' could possibly leave one hurting a bit. I never saw Rich use those words. Lets stick to the FACTS here, and if we are going to QUOTE others, at least qoute their actual statement.

And, I would never personally attack anyone, just asked some simple questions and provided my OPINION. If my questions or opinions make you mad, or bother you personally, I'm sorry. Maybe open debate is not your thing? And as they say......truth hurts......