It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

The Unjustified Hatred of Donald Trump

page: 27
120
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik




There are 26 pages of conversation in this thread (not to mention all the threads over the years) from which to draw context for that accusation.


Then go ahead and draw the context.

Do you really want me to do the work for you?




posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Do you really want me to do the work for you?

Who asked you to do anything?



posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: jimmyx

Four Presidents had never been elected to public office before becoming President: Zachary Taylor, Ulysses S. Grant, Herbert Hoover, and Dwight D. Eisenhower.


I said experienced with public office ...hoover was director of food administration for the U.S. government in 1917 to 1918, he was also U.S. sec. of commerce from 1921 to 1928, D.D.E. was a 5-star general, and was the supreme commander in Europe during WW2...both men could hardly be considered inexperienced with the U.S. government...as far as the other 2 from more than 150 years ago?...most were inexperienced back then, those 2 were commanding generals of their time.


You said this actually, nothing of which has anything to do with public office, unless I missed a post somewhere along the line:

"so...with that logic...the work you do (if any) can be done perfectly by someone with no experience whatsoever....a doctor doesn't need to know what he is doing, a fireman doesn't need to know what he is doing, a guy can walk into your house not knowing anything about plumbing and you would let him work on your pipes, etc....because, in your words, IT'S A PLUS!!!"

What experience exactly does a supreme commander of the military have that a business man doesn't?



posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik




Who asked you to do anything?


If you're not going to "draw context" or evidence from which to make a baseless accusation, who else will?



posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
If you're not going to "draw context" or evidence from which to make a baseless accusation, who else will?

I already did, that is why I mentioned the 26 pages of this thread from where one could and I actually had drawn context. That is why your explanation of it being a baseless accusation didn't sound logical.

I didn't ask you to do anything.

ETA: It was you making the accusation.


edit on 31-10-2016 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik




I already did, that is why I mentioned the 26 pages of this thread from where one could and I actually had drawn context. That is why your explanation of it being a baseless accusation didn't sound logical.


It's baseless because you didn't provide anything to back it up. You just made an accusation.


I didn't ask you to do anything?


This is not a question. It is an answer.

Invert the order of the subject and the auxiliary verb.

"Didn't I ask you do do anything?"



posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 02:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
It's baseless because you didn't provide anything to back it up. You just made an accusation.

It isn't baseless because the context is in these 26 pages. I don't care if you already have it in mind or go back and look for it or not. You disposition to do so or not does not change the fact that it is there.


This is not a question. It is an answer.

Yes, it is. Fixed, thanks.


Invert the order of the subject and the auxiliary verb.

"Didn't I ask you do do anything?"

The old tyranny of the listener.

ETA: I see you make mistakes as well mister "do do".
edit on 31-10-2016 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

If you cannot back up the accusation, why make it?

Thanks for the fix. Everyone makes mistakes.



posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

After the "hypocrisy" thing earlier in the thread I figured that there is no point in trying to back up anything for you.

I'm sure I don't have to even try for other readers. You don't have to agree with the accusation or even contemplate it for it to be correct.

You'll notice that I answered your "baseless" accusation (when you threw mine back at me) well enough without you even needing to write more than two words. That was because I drew context from the rest of the thread.
edit on 31-10-2016 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik



After the "hypocrisy" thing earlier in the thread I figured that there is no point in trying to back up anything for you.

I'm sure I don't have to even try for other readers. You don't have to agree with the accusation or even contemplate it for it to be correct.

You'll notice that I answered your "baseless" accusation (when you threw mine back at me) well enough without you even needing to write more than two words. That was because I drew context from the rest of the thread.


It wasn't correct. You were wrong and I showed you why. For one, it wasn't even my argument, which you misrepresented; and two it was fallacious.

Now you accuse me of card stacking and suppressing evidence, reverting right back to the same fallacy I called you on before: Tu Quoque.



posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I already explained that it wasn't tu quoque because it wasn't specifically about your actions.

If the listener insistes on being a tyrant then what can the speaker do?

ETA: It just dawned on me that I never said your argument was wrong so, even if I did point out your actions, which might seem to contradict the above but I will leave it there just the same, it wasn't to discredit the validity of your logical argument. Therefore, not tu quoque.
edit on 31-10-2016 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 04:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I already explained that it wasn't tu quoque because it wasn't specifically about your actions.

If the listener insistes on being a tyrant then what can the speaker do?


You explained it wrongly, because in reply to me asking where I was being hypocritical, you specifically stated:

"You said hating Trump without knowing him is unjustifiable but hating those who perform, in nothing more than your opinion, piss-poor journalism and those who adhere to it is justified."

Tu Quoque is claiming the argument is flawed by pointing out that the one making the argument is not acting consistently with the claims of the argument.

So again, wrong.



posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 04:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Tu Quoque is claiming the argument is flawed by pointing out that the one making the argument is not acting consistently with the claims of the argument.

Like I said It wasn't your action but the other argument. Can't seem to get your head around that.

ETA In case you need it explained, the argument that getting emotional over the words of piss-poor journalists is justified is in contradiction with the argument that getting emotional over words from Trump is unjustified. What ever you do is not part of that equation. Your actions are just an example.



edit on 31-10-2016 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 04:23 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik




Like I said It wasn't your action but the other argument. Can't seem to get your head around that.

ETA In case you need it explained, the argument that getting emotional over the words of piss-poor journalists is justified is in contradiction with the argument that getting emotional over words from Trump is unjustified. What ever you do is not part of that equation. Your actions are just an example.


I asked for an example of my hypocrisy and that's what you replied with. Either it is not hypocrisy, or it is tu quoque. The goal-posts keep widening.

I never said getting emotional over the words of piss-poor journalists is justified, and neither did I say getting emotional over words from Trump is unjustified. More misrepresentation.



posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 04:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
I asked for an example of my hypocrisy and that's what you replied with. Either it is not hypocrisy, or it is tu quoque. The goal-posts keep widening.

It is an example of your hypocrisy. Pointing that out would only be tu quoque if the intent was to prove the original argument false. It wasn't, it was to show the hypocrisy of your actions. The original argument is correct.


I never said getting emotional over the words of piss-poor journalists is justified, and neither did I say getting emotional over words from Trump is unjustified. More misrepresentation.

Not in those words but you said that they deserve your ire. Don't waste your time trying to do the semantic twist. I used the word "emotional" for a reason.
edit on 31-10-2016 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik




It is an example of your hypocrisy. Pointing that out would only be tu quoque if the intent was to prove the original argument false. It wasn't, it was to show the hypocrisy of your actions. The original argument is correct.


Tu Quoque is a form of ad hominem. You're appealing to hypocrisy, saying I'm inconsistent and hypocritical. You're not saying anything about my arguments. You could say I contradicted myself and show how, but you haven't been able to do so.


Not in those words but you said that they deserve your ire. Don't waste your time trying to do the semantic twist. I used the word "emotional" for a reason.


Just quote my arguments in full instead of offering your little strawmen and you won't have any issues.



posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 04:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Tu Quoque is a form of ad hominem. You're appealing to hypocrisy, saying I'm inconsistent and hypocritical. You're not saying anything about my arguments. You could say I contradicted myself and show how, but you haven't been able to do so.

I think I did but you just don't want to see it.


Just quote my arguments in full instead of offering your little strawmen and you won't have any issues.

I don't have any issues now. Others know what I mean.



posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 04:53 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik




I think I did but you just don't want to see it.

You thought you did, but you had to completely change my arguments in order to do so. Quote them in full, and show how they are contradictory.



I don't have any issues now. Others know what I mean.


I hope so. But if they agree, they are wrong for the very same reasons.



posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 04:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
You thought you did, but you had to completely change my arguments in order to do so. Quote them in full, and show how they are contradictory.

No, I did. You were left nit picking the semantics instead of proving how the logic in one doesn't apply to the other.


I hope so. But if they agree, they are wrong for the very same reasons.

Maybe you are the one that is mistaken?



posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 05:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
You thought you did, but you had to completely change my arguments in order to do so. Quote them in full, and show how they are contradictory.

No, I did. You were left nit picking the semantics instead of proving how the logic in one doesn't apply to the other.


I hope so. But if they agree, they are wrong for the very same reasons.

Maybe you are the one that is mistaken?


No you didn't. You gave me a truncated version of my arguments, neither of which are contradictory, and at the end you said: "That is hypocrisy."

Tu quoque.



new topics

top topics



 
120
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join