Jump to content
ben4titans

THE BIG UGLY - DO NOT MERGE (Merged: Mod)

Recommended Posts

patsplat   

Maybe because there's an ocean of difference between "what do think about this guy" and "can you break into this guy's house and take a photo of him wiping his ass"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ben4titans said:

Where is the evidence?

All the evidence (and there is a ton of it) is circumstantial. Mueller is connecting the dots.Or are you one of those people who think the Trump tower meeting was just "normal politicsl"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Omar   
4 minutes ago, TennesseeTuxedo said:

Crickets from the flakes.

I also am getting crickets from my question above. Again..ran on lock her up, Gop has control of house and senate. Why has this not been done? Investigate the Ukraine issue..if the Pres wanted to, he could, it's his justice dept. What's the problem?

Edited by Omar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, freakingeek said:

All the evidence (and there is a ton of it) is circumstantial. Mueller is connecting the dots.Or are you one of those people who think the Trump tower meeting was just "normal politicsl"?

This is premature at best. Dont become what hate the most.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Omar said:

I also am getting crickets from my question above. Again..ran on lock her up, Gop has control of house and senate. Why has this not been done? Investigate the Ukraine issue..if the Pres wanted to, he could, it's his justice dept. What's the problem?

Doesn't matter who has control.

It is about morals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Omar   
1 hour ago, TennesseeTuxedo said:

Doesn't matter who has control.

It is about morals.

I agree, so it should be easy to tell the DOJ to investigate her, for anything.  If he thinks there is any real evidence..why would he not do this? If there are real crimes, I would welcome it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
patsplat   

Where is the outrage?

I dunno, take your pick (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies)

  • Appeal to the stone (argumentum ad lapidem) – dismissing a claim as absurd without demonstrating proof for its absurdity.[16]
  • Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – assuming that a claim is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false, or vice versa.[17]
  • Argument from incredulity (appeal to common sense) – "I cannot imagine how this could be true; therefore, it must be false."[18]
  • Argument from repetition (argumentum ad nauseam, argumentum ad infinitum) – signifies that it has been discussed extensively until nobody cares to discuss it anymore;[19][20] sometimes confused with proof by assertion
  • Argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio) – where the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence.[21][22]
  • Argument to moderation (false compromise, middle ground, fallacy of the mean, argumentum ad temperantiam) – assuming that the compromise between two positions is always correct.[23]
  • Begging the question (petitio principii) – providing what is essentially the conclusion of the argument as a premise.[24][25][26][27]
  • Shifting the burden of proof (see – onus probandi) – I need not prove my claim, you must prove it is false.
  • Circular reasoning (circulus in demonstrando) – when the reasoner begins with what he or she is trying to end up with; sometimes called assuming the conclusion.
  • Circular cause and consequence – where the consequence of the phenomenon is claimed to be its root cause.
  • Continuum fallacy (fallacy of the beard, line-drawing fallacy, sorites fallacy, fallacy of the heap, bald man fallacy) – improperly rejecting a claim for being imprecise.[28]
  • Equivocation – the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time).[32]
    • Ambiguous middle term – a common ambiguity in syllogisms in which the middle term is equivocated.[33]
    • Definitional retreat – changing the meaning of a word to deal with an objection raised against the original wording.[1]
  • False attribution – an advocate appeals to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or fabricated source in support of an argument.
  • False authority (single authority) – using an expert of dubious credentials or using only one opinion to sell a product or idea. Related to the appeal to authority fallacy.
  • False dilemma (false dichotomy, fallacy of bifurcation, black-or-white fallacy) – two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are more.[39]
  • False equivalence – describing a situation of logical and apparent equivalence, when in fact there is none.
  • Fallacy of many questions (complex question, fallacy of presupposition, loaded question, plurium interrogationum) – someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved. This fallacy is often used rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to those that serve the questioner's agenda.
  • Fallacy of the single cause (causal oversimplification[40]) – it is assumed that there is one, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.
  • Furtive fallacy – outcomes are asserted to have been caused by the malfeasance of decision makers.
  • Inflation of conflict – The experts of a field of knowledge disagree on a certain point, so the scholars must know nothing, and therefore the legitimacy of their entire field is put to question.[45]
  • Incomplete comparison – in which insufficient information is provided to make a complete comparison.
  • Inconsistent comparison – where different methods of comparison are used, leaving one with a false impression of the whole comparison.
  • Kettle logic – using multiple, jointly inconsistent arguments to defend a position.[dubious  discuss]
  • Moving the goalposts (raising the bar) – argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded.
  • Nirvana fallacy (perfect solution fallacy) – when solutions to problems are rejected because they are not perfect.
  • Onus probandi – from Latin "onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat" the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies (or questions the claim). It is a particular case of the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, here the burden is shifted on the person defending against the assertion.
  • Proof by assertion – a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction; sometimes confused with argument from repetition (argumentum ad infinitum, argumentum ad nauseam)
  • Psychologist's fallacy – an observer presupposes the objectivity of his own perspective when analyzing a behavioral event.
  • Red herring – a speaker attempts to distract an audience by deviating from the topic at hand by introducing a separate argument the speaker believes is easier to speak to.[53]
  • Shotgun argumentation – the arguer offers such a large number of arguments for a position that the opponent can't possibly respond to all of them. (See "Argument by verbosity" and "Gish Gallop", above.)

Faulty generalizations

Faulty generalizations – reach a conclusion from weak premises. Unlike fallacies of relevance, in fallacies of defective induction, the premises are related to the conclusions yet only weakly buttress the conclusions. A faulty generalization is thus produced.

  • No true Scotsman – makes a generalization true by changing the generalization to exclude a counterexample.[57]
  • Cherry picking (suppressed evidence, incomplete evidence) – act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.[58]
  • Hasty generalization (fallacy of insufficient statistics, fallacy of insufficient sample, fallacy of the lonely fact, leaping to a conclusion, hasty induction, secundum quid, converse accident) – basing a broad conclusion on a small sample.[60]
  • Inductive fallacy – A more general name to some fallacies, such as hasty generalization. It happens when a conclusion is made of premises that lightly support it.
  • Misleading vividness – involves describing an occurrence in vivid detail, even if it is an exceptional occurrence, to convince someone that it is a problem.

Red herring fallacies

A red herring fallacy, one of the main subtypes of fallacies of relevance, is an error in logic where a proposition is, or is intended to be, misleading in order to make irrelevant or false inferences. In the general case any logical inference based on fake arguments, intended to replace the lack of real arguments or to replace implicitly the subject of the discussion.[62][63][64]

Red herring – argument given in response to another argument, which is irrelevant and draws attention away from the subject of argument. See also irrelevant conclusion.

  • Ad hominem – attacking the arguer instead of the argument.
    • Poisoning the well – a subtype of ad hominem presenting adverse information about a target person with the intention of discrediting everything that the target person says.[65]
    • Abusive fallacy – a subtype of ad hominem that verbally abuses the opponent rather than arguing about the originally proposed argument.[66]
    • Appeal to motive – a subtype of ad hominem that dismisses an idea by questioning the motives of its proposer.
  • Appeal to authority (argumentum ad verecundiam) – where an assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it.[67][68]
  • Appeal to emotion – where an argument is made due to the manipulation of emotions, rather than the use of valid reasoning.[71]
    • Appeal to fear – a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made by increasing fear and prejudice towards the opposing side[72][73]
    • Appeal to ridicule – an argument is made by presenting the opponent's argument in a way that makes it appear ridiculous.[76][77]
    • Appeal to spite – a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made through exploiting people's bitterness or spite towards an opposing party.[78]
    • Wishful thinking – a specific type of appeal to emotion where a decision is made according to what might be pleasing to imagine, rather than according to evidence or reason.[79]
  • Argumentum ad baculum (appeal to the stick, appeal to force, appeal to threat) – an argument made through coercion or threats of force to support position.[85]
  • Association fallacy (guilt by association and honor by association) – arguing that because two things share (or are implied to share) some property, they are the same.[87]
  • Judgmental language – insulting or pejorative language to influence the recipient's judgment.
  • Moralistic fallacy (the inverse of naturalistic fallacy) – statements about what is on the basis of claims about what ought to be.
  • Motte-and-bailey fallacy: The arguer conflates two similar positions, one modest and easy to defend (the "motte") and one much more controversial (the "bailey"). The arguer advances the controversial position, but when challenged, they insist that they are only advancing the more modest position.[91]
  • Pooh-pooh – dismissing an argument perceived unworthy of serious consideration.[94]
  • Straw man fallacy – an argument based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[95]
  • Tu quoque ("you too", appeal to hypocrisy, I'm rubber and you're glue) – the argument states that a certain position is false or wrong or should be disregarded because its proponent fails to act consistently in accordance with that position.[97]
  • Two wrongs make a right – occurs when it is assumed that if one wrong is committed, an "equal but opposite" wrong will cancel it out.[98]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thor   
13 hours ago, reo said:

1) she didn't win 

2) it was an aid with no known connection to Hillary 

3) Hillary doesn't have a shit ton of proRussian or proPutin policies 

4) it's Ukraine, not Russia 

You're one dumb ass

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Face   

I think it's a fair question. The OP isn't asking why Trump isn't investigating Hillary, he's specifically asking why those so outraged at Trump possibly being assisted by a foreign nation aren't just as angry at his opponent for doing the same. The responses so far are underwhelming. Because she didn't win? Ukraine isn't as strong a nation as Russia? Seriously? 

I think his point is pretty obvious. If Hillary had won & information came out about her colluding with the Ukraine, no matter how viable that info may be, the reaction on this board would be the complete opposite of what it has been to Trump & Russia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mythos27   
8 minutes ago, Face said:

I think it's a fair question. The OP isn't asking why Trump isn't investigating Hillary, he's specifically asking why those so outraged at Trump possibly being assisted by a foreign nation aren't just as angry at his opponent for doing the same. The responses so far are underwhelming. Because she didn't win? Ukraine isn't as strong a nation as Russia? Seriously? 

I think his point is pretty obvious. If Hillary had won & information came out about her colluding with the Ukraine, no matter how viable that info may be, the reaction on this board would be the complete opposite of what it has been to Trump & Russia.

I'll agree that we likely wouldn't be as passionate but I can definitively tell you that we wouldn't be engaging in the mental gymnastics Trump supporters are to brush it all off as a nothing-burger. These allegations are serious and should be investigated.

Doing forget that the majority of the board is perfectly fine with investigating the Clinton campaign but after we take care of Trump. Trump supporters would fight a Trump investigation to the death even if Hillary got locked up for something they perceive as similar. That's the difference between the two sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OzTitan   

The fact she isn't important anymore absolutely matters, in a scenario where the POTUS is also implicated in his own version. If it were just her then fine, but even then it's of course not going to be the same level of story. I highly doubt there would be Tux spam-bots on the other side if this were the case, for instance.

The reaction on the board is more about the lying, downplaying, and general amateurishness from Trump's camp. Not all of it, but a large portion of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...