It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: introvert
A logical fallacy exists with or without me agreeing or disagreeing with it.
Funny, considering that in another post you said this:
Damn. If that isn't proof of your own hypocrisy, I don't know what is.
I did not say it was. I was providing a counter to your source. The truth lies somewhere in the middle. If you were truly interested in letting people make up their own mid, you would have presented an argument for both sides. But you did not so to make such a claim is dishonest.
Does that somehow justify your use of a crap source and hypocrisy?
I think you have proven that people on the Right, and people such as yourself, have the same tendency to lash-out at people instead of engaging specifics.
By your own actions, you prove that your source is disingenuous and the same could be found on the other side of the equation.
originally posted by: snarfbot
what exactly from the article is logically false?
its not as though it was a scientific journal like what was shared by kayla, which was demonstrably false regardless of the rigors of the scientific method.
its just a blog basically, with some anecdotal information, the reader encouraged to take from it what they will.
originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: face23785
Doesn’t change the fact that you posted an article that was derogatory to the left. It was not a neutral article. You didn’t include anything derogatory to the right for balance.
There is nothing personal in stating those facts. There is nothing personal in stating what you did. Just because I pointed out that the facts don’t align with what you are claiming your goal is, that doesn’t make it personal.
That is true, and in this case there wasn't one.
You just say that about anything you disagree with as if everything that can't be proven 100% factual is a logical fallacy. Sometimes it's just someone's opinion. Just put "anyone who disagrees with me made a logical fallacy" as your sig bud. It would save everyone time.
If you don't get the difference between saying "it looks like" and someone authoritatively stating something as fact, you really should lay off the usage of logical fallacy. It's getting embarrassing.
This would make sense if people were exposed to my thread in a vacuum and would never see contrary information. Obviously that's not the real world. And, as I explained to kayluv, this was mainly focused toward people who already have left-leaning thinking. How exactly is reading my thread limiting them to one side? They already know the other side and have chosen they prefer it.
Wait, are we or are we not pretending you linked to that biased left-wing piece from The Outlet simply to provide balance to my right-wing source?
Were you or weren't you trying to post it to definitely show that my source couldn't be trusted?
I mean, if you acknowledge your source is biased then it doesn't show that at all. If you admitted your source saying my source is bogus is itself bogus and you only provided it for balance, I guess we can go there. But you can't have it both ways. You talked yourself into a pretzel again. Maybe that should be your sig.
That's ironic considering you didn't engage on any of the specifics of what I posted with your initial reply. More fighting hypocrisy with hypocrisy? Brilliant. Welcome to my level.
Nothing I do can affect the validity of my source in any way. Did you really just say my actions prove my source is disingenuous?
That's just... wow. A year of Trump really has rotted your brain.
You used to be pretty good at sounding smart.
And you appear to have admitted your source claiming my source is bunk is bunk itself, so... yeah.
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: face23785
Yes, there is. Can you spot the most obvious one?
What you describe is not necessarily a logical fallacy. I'm beginning to wonder if you know what a logical fallacy is.
Either way, you prove that you were not interested in providing the issue in complete context so that a reader could make an informed decision. You admit it was directed at certain people.
Again, you openly state your hypocrisy.
You can play pretend all you want. I'd rather not. I provided the source to show that is another side to the story.
I did not have to post anything for people to know your source cannot be trusted. A little bit of research would find that. Sadly, most of you do not seem to do that.
I've talked myself in to a pretzel?
Read what you just posted and tell me how that makes much sense. I really have no clue what you are trying to say.
I was specific in my first post, specifically mentioning hostility and emotions, as it was framed by the source and how it can apply to both sides. I also did not lash-out at people. such as you did.
No. Your actions prove your own hypocrisy and how you actually embody that which your source talks about. I shouldn't have to explain this to you.
What does Trump have to do with this? Are you really out of ideas on how to come back with an intelligent response?
I don't care. Are you trying to invoke some sort of emotional response, or are your arguments just this bad?
I did. Sadly, it appears you have missed the most basic premise behind what I said.
Not surprised in the least.