GOP to ban divorce (so much for small government)

[Stubby]

Did I hear something? Or was that the wind blowing through an empty container?

That would be the container that normally would hold your moral compass.

[Diogenes]

Did I hear something? Or was that the wind blowing through an empty container?

That would be the container that normally would hold your moral compass.

One thing about liberals, They certainly want to impose a universal moral compass on everyone.


Funny how people are AGAINST the idea of imposing "Morality" unless it happens to be morality with which they agree.


You listening Simon? Like I've said a million times, " All laws are imposed morality. The question is never "whether" but whose? "

[GIThruster]

It's not liberals so much as progressives and it's not limited to morality. Left unchecked, progressives are the ones who endanger most freedoms. They are the ones responsible for eugenics and the Holocaust. If they had their way, there would be no talk radio, no Fox News, no choice but to absorb the world view they promote, and they often hate anyone who doesn't hold that view for no reason but that they disagree. It doesn't matter if you have a carefully reasoned view of why gay marriage is a bad idea. Most progressives will hate you for holding that opinion and there's nothing to be done about it. This is again an example of the polarization we have in society today. Progressives habitually make traditionalists out to be evil incarnate, and that's how they fuel their fires. Stubby needs to paint Dio as evil, because that's required by his world view--that traditionalists are evil. The really sad thing though, is that Stubby can't see he's failing to think like an adult. He's not even functioning on the level one would expect from a twelve year-old. And yet, one supposes he's graduated high school by now. That school though, did it provide education or indoctrination? Stubby has been made to think like the masses, the products of the system, but can he do long division? Surely he's shown us he can't think like an adult for he has no critical thinking skills. That's the main reason that when pressed in discussion, Stubby routinely falls back on lying. Any adult would have figured out if you need to lie, there's no reason to go on the internet and share your opinions. That's all vanity.

[Stubby]

ahh the GiT we all know and love. The ad hominem king.

Please show where you think I have lied?

[GIThruster]

An ad hominem is the latin name for a logical fallacy, that replaces a rational argument with a personal attack. We're not having a rational argument, Stubby, so there is no replacement and the unflattering observations I've made are not fallacies. They are illustrations of your childish behavior. In the very short time since you've joined this blog, I have on 3 occasions clearly demonstrated you were lying, and everyone who reads this blog knows this. I'm not going to go back looking for those examples. I don't need to. It is clear to everyone here, that what I am saying is completely true. You are a childish and immoral person who reasons at the level of a Cocker Spaniel, and that is being unkind to the Spaniels.

[Diogenes]

ahh the GiT we all know and love. The ad hominem king.

Please show where you think I have lied?

How about the title to this thread? Any objective person, after looking at how you introduced the topic, would conclude you are out and out lying. Your "evidence" doesn't support your premise.

[Stubby]

GiT:

You accuse me of lying and yet you give an erroneous definition for the ad hominem fallacy to further attack me. No where can I find a definition that specifies ad hominem as relating only to a 'rational' argument thus your argument is invalid. I gave you the benefit of doubt and searched a definition that includes 'rational' but have not found one.

You are right though, it is not a rational argument. You, in particular, I view to be exactly like parallel in his blind acceptance of Rossi's unproven claims and ideas. Despite a serious lack evidence for the E-Cat and some damning evidence to the contrary he continues to believe Rossi. You behave the same way in regards to religion.
Neither of you is very rational in a specific area.

Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive and circumstantial): the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument. Often the argument is characterized simply as a personal attack.

a. The personal attack is also often termed an "ad personem argument": the statement or argument at issue is dropped from consideration or is ignored, and the locutor's character or circumstances are used to influence opinion.

b. The fallacy draws its appeal from the technique of "getting personal." The assumption is that what the locutor is saying is entirely or partially dictated by his character or special circumstances and so should be disregarded.

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made)

Ad hominem is Latin for "to the man." The ad hominem fallacy occurs when one asserts that somebody's claim is wrong because of something about the person making the claim. The ad hominem fallacy is often confused with the legitimate provision of evidence that a person is not to be trusted. Calling into question the reliability of a witness is relevant when the issue is whether to trust the witness. It is irrelevant, however, to call into question the reliability or morality or anything else about a person when the issue is whether that person's reasons for making a claim are good enough reasons to support the claim.

So nice ad hominem x2, GiT. Shall you make it thrice in a row?

================================================================================================================================================<Editors comment - don't do long lines it messes up the formatting> ========================================================

As for the title of thread, digot, you are delusional. Editors of newspapers use story titles to entice readers all the time. It is unreasonable to expect a summary of the thread in a title that is a maximum of 60 characters long. At best you could claim that I intended it to mean the federal GOP party but the fourth word in the quoted story is 'Iowa'. The GOP of Iowa does want to ban some types divorce. The quoted story itself uses the word 'ban.' There is more than one source for the story.

On a side note:
I don't think we should refer to them as GOP anymore. The GOP died with Reagan. The FOP party (Fundamentalist Old Party) appropriated the corpse 3 days later and is now the far right wing party in US politics. This will allow the Dems to a be more centrist party thus more appealing to a majority.

The FOP of Virginia candidate for governor (Cuccinelli) wants to re-criminalize fellatio and cunnilingus along with anything anal-related. He is appealing the recent decision that the sodomy law is unconstitutional. He might have a chance. In a previous ruling in favor of the law (1975), the court opinion goes on to quote Biblical passages as justification for the law.

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
(Leviticus 18:22)

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
(Leviticus 20:13)

No violation of the 1st amendment there!

Forcible sodomy is a felony punishable by confinement in a state correctional facility for life or for any term not less than five years.

The FOP of N.C. wants to establish a state religion. It thankfully got dropped. Although it would have been fun watching them trying decide whose version of religion to use and whether they would allow future changes to the state religion as the religious make up of the state changed especially since 'non-affiliated' is the fastest growing segment.

[MSimon]

I don't think we should refer to them as GOP anymore.

The GOP of 1900 would be called libertarian today. When the vote came up to Federally ban opiates in 1914 the GOP declined - claimed the Federal Government didn't have the power.

In fact if you look at the Progressive politics of the 1900 era you will see that what was progressive back then and united has split into two wings. The Progressive Left and the Progressive Right. The Progressive Right basing their attitude on Religion and the left claiming Reason. The left got the better end of the deal because when they determine they are in error they can claim evidence and reason for the need to change. The Progressive Right gets stuck in error because it bases its positions in unchanging faith. It would be a blow to that faith if change was required. Who would believe if faith was in error? Well fewer all the time my friends.

In fact the union of Religion and government is what killed faith in Europe. The faithful in America are repeating the error.

[GIThruster]

No where can I find a definition that specifies ad hominem as relating only to a 'rational' argument thus your argument is invalid.

Well that's because you're an unusually stupid person. Anyone can find the definition of the ad hominem fallacy with just a few keystrokes:

"argumentum ad hominem, is an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

The problem is, you've never had any training in critical thinking. You're a moron.

I'm sure it's obvious to everyone here.

Worse is, the proof of what I say is in your own post above. Once again, you clearly demonstrate you are completely untrustworthy and deceitful.

You're morally bankrupt. Why should anyone listen to anything you have to say?

[MSimon]

No where can I find a definition that specifies ad hominem as relating only to a 'rational' argument thus your argument is invalid.

Well that's because you're an unusually stupid person. Anyone can find the definition of the ad hominem fallacy with just a few keystrokes:

"argumentum ad hominem, is an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

The problem is, you've never had any training in critical thinking. You're a moron.

I'm sure it's obvious to everyone here.

Some how you missed the "rational" part of the argument. In any case you presented essentially the same definition. So where is your difference that is worth the "moron" ad hom? Of course I'm late to the discussion so there are likely parts I have missed. Just as well.

http://www.nih.gov/

[GIThruster]

So where is your difference. . .

Pay attention class. I won't be stating these Freshman things again.

"argumentum ad hominem, is an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument."

If you need further remedial instruction, please contact the nearest middle school.

[Stubby]

Dude

Since you just can't get it, I increased text size and and bold to hopefully enhance your comprehension.

Where is the word 'rational'? You must have pulled your original ad hominem definition out of your rectum.

In the definition YOU provide for ad hominem, and the 3 I provided there is no mention that ad hominem attacks are only applicable to "rational arguments".

Therefore your claim :

An ad hominem is the latin name for a logical fallacy, that replaces a rational argument with a personal attack. We're not having a rational argument, Stubby, so there is no replacement and the unflattering observations I've made are not fallacies.

is invalid. Your observations are ad hominem attacks, plain and simple.

Your ad hominems are bordering on malicious (I believe some would say you crossed the line long ago) and this latest attack is patently dishonest since I can't believe you, with your claims to classes in critical thinking, would make such a basic error. Perhaps you hoped that your definition of ad hominem would be accepted without a second thought by the community and thus make your claim valid.

Fortunately I gave you enough rope.

[MSimon]

GIT,

Having been the subject of your attacks more than once (I didn't object - you did), I'd have to say stubby has a point.

Here in the colonies is this lawyerly saying “If you have the law, hammer the law. If you have the facts, hammer the facts. If you have neither the law nor the facts, hammer the table”.

http://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/07/04/legal-adage/

I was in a discussion of a technical matter here a few years back - I was convinced I was right and I was determined - but I was not ungracious. And when convinced I was wrong I made a public fool of myself apologizing (I ate crow). It comes from a basic respect for myself. And that respect allows that I might be wrong from time to time.

Everyone tells me I'm obnoxious. And it is true. In fact I warn prospective employers that I can be very abrasive. But GIT you take that to a level far beyond anything I could contemplate. Your fundamental error is in not even having the smallest bit of doubt about yourself.

I slept with faith and found a corpse in my arms on awakening; I drank and danced all night with doubt and found her a virgin in the morning. - AC

Doubt allows you to correct errors. Faith makes you rigid - a corpse.

[Diogenes]

I have to agree with GIThruster on the salient point. Stubby is indeed one of the dumbest people accessing this board. He is like an intellectual communist. He knows nothing, and he wants to share it with you.


I generally consider it pointless to attempt any sort of discussion with him. He is like one of those crazy bag-ladies that you would really prefer to avoid.

[Diogenes]

I don't think we should refer to them as GOP anymore. The GOP died with Reagan. The FOP party (Fundamentalist Old Party) appropriated the corpse 3 days later and is now the far right wing party in US politics. This will allow the Dems to a be more centrist party thus more appealing to a majority.

I do not give a flying f**k what a Canadian (Especially a Quebecois) thinks regarding this nation, of which he is not a part. I would welcome the opportunity to get close enough to you to explain my position in a more appropriate manner.


You are ignorant, and determined to remain so, and you can best serve humankind by depriving it of what passes for your thinking.