HAHAHHA McCAIN Is an Idiot Options

[Tung]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080821/ap_on_...r/mccain_houses


Obama raps McCain for ignorance of his own houses

WASHINGTON - John McCain may have created his own housing crisis. Hours after a report that the Republican nominee didn't know exactly how many homes he and his multimillionaire wife own, Democratic rival Barack Obama launched a national TV ad and a series of campaign stops aimed at portraying McCain as wealthy and out of touch.

wow ....

[Reidar]

Ah, but you didn't quote my comment about elitism; you quoted my comment about trust.

Correct. As a logical human being, I would assume that you intend for your points to at least have some cohesion. Your rebuttal is that contrasting their exclusivity in social status doesn't affiliate with the degree that one can place their reliance on the integrity and surety of a person when those naturally go hand in hand. I can sum that up: "Aha! But I technically didn't say he's the opposite of the party that I contrasted him with on another wholly related component."

In fact, you specifically mentioned trust, because you were trying to twist my words around. In doing so, you made a fallacious straw man argument

This wording is redundant. A straw man is fallacious by definition.

in which you attempted to assert that I said that Obama was more trustworthy than McCain. I didn't; I said that Obama was no more of an elitist than McCain.

An assertion is a positive statement. I asked rhetorically, and then pressed on with the premise that you responded with. If your rhetoric is so easily overwhelmed that merely doing that is enough to assert over it, then the problem goes far beyond anything I can do.

I also notice that you've changed your statement from "I didn't mention any candidate but McCain" to "I didn't mention any candidate but McCain when I made the comment about trust", which really doesn't assure me of the difference that you're trying to put forth. If trust and elitism are so obviously incompatible in your objective here, why did you have to add it in after my post pointed out the comparison? Surely you didn't think that I would read, "I never contrasted them", look at the part where you did exactly that, and go, "Oh, but he specifically doesn't mean this instance of contrasting. I won't contradict him by citing this." It had to be unintentional, which says to me that you didn't have this in mind as the foundation for what you're trying to debate.

Moreover, reposting the exchange is basically filibustering when it's no more than several posts up.

[mipadi]

<snip>

Sigh... This is a big reason I shy away from any sort of debate on the Internet. On the Internet, there seem to be two kinds of people: those who actually take a position and discuss the issue, and those who, having nothing useful to say, try to demonstrate their "superior intellect" by finding tiny holes in the logic of others -- sometimes even inventing holes so they can demonstrate their knowledge of logic.

Judging by most of your posts on CreateBlog, Reidar, you fall into the second group. Take this post, for example: the most interesting thing you've said about politics is "all politicians are the same," a statement that lacks no originality or depth whatsoever. Of course, instead of having to put yourself in a position in which you might actually have to defend an argument, you just waited for someone else to "screw up", then attacked their argument in the hopes that in the end, you'd look really, really smart.

But then you screwed up. I made a statement about the untrustworthiness of McCain. Thinking you could seize on a hole in my argument and appear much more brilliant, you made a straw man argument: you attributed the argument "Obama is trustworthy" to me, and rebutted that statement. But, oops, guess what: I never made that statement! So now you have to backpedal, and attribute even more statements to me that I never made, in an attempt to save face.

Too bad. You screwed up. You're wrong.

Moreover, I'm not really impressed by a person who can throw about logic jargon. What I am impressed by is a person who can make a solid argument and actually add do a discussion.

Back in my day, people on CreateBlog used to actually discuss and debate issues. The Debate forum used to be thriving. Then it got infested by a few people who "argue" the way you argue: by pouncing on the perceived "holes" in the arguments of others. It makes them look smart, and the best thing is, they don't have to actually defend their own position! It's easy and it's brilliant! Thing is, it's not much fun for anyone else.

So I'm done with this discussion.

And before you can throw out more logic jargon, don't worry: I know this argument has ad hominem coming out the ass. I know I might even seem whiny. And I honestly don't really care.

[Reidar]

Sigh... This is a big reason I shy away from any sort of debate on the Internet. On the Internet, there seem to be two kinds of people: those who actually take a position and discuss the issue, and those who, having nothing useful to say, try to demonstrate their "superior intellect" by finding tiny holes in the logic of others -- sometimes even inventing holes so they can demonstrate their knowledge of logic.

If these contrarieties are so trivial, then it should be a simple matter of clearing them up, not going off on a tangent about the days of yore. I'm guessing, for instance, that you think of it as no more than a semantic quibble when I point out how "fallacious straw man" is redundant. Sorry, but if criticism is going to be leveled at me, then the distributor had better ensure that their rhetoric is free of whatever it is they're trying to accuse - especially in the very phrase that's making the denunciation.

Judging by most of your posts on CreateBlog, Reidar, you fall into the second group. Take this post, for example: the most interesting thing you've said about politics is "all politicians are the same," a statement that lacks no originality or depth whatsoever.

If it lacked no originality or depth, that would mean it's original and deep. In formalities, double negatives combine to form an affirmative.

But I know what you meant to say, and it's a non sequitur. In order to prove how I pick at inconsequential areas, you cite an example that, to you, is obvious and lacking in depth. Those don't cohere.

By the way, I can easily apply this to you. Take this statement, for example: "But...we're talking about houses, not, like...t-shirts or something." It's both lacking in originality (you're comparing two variables to contrast the severity of one) and depth (it is obvious that a house isn't a t-shirt). See how silly it is to do that?

It also seems contradictory of you to object to a sentence's abbreviation in light of your spiel on pedantic wording.

Of course, instead of having to put yourself in a position in which you might actually have to defend an argument, you just waited for someone else to "screw up", then attacked their argument in the hopes that in the end, you'd look really, really smart.

I can only defend what you provide. But please, don't level the charge of attacking your argument at me! I don't want it to look like I'm actually attacking arguments in a debate!

But then you screwed up. I made a statement about the untrustworthiness of McCain. Thinking you could seize on a hole in my argument

So I "attacked" your argument, but I didn't "seize its hole"?

you made a straw man argument: you attributed the argument "Obama is trustworthy" to me, and rebutted that statement. But, oops, guess what: I never made that statement! So now you have to backpedal, and attribute even more statements to me that I never made, in an attempt to save face.

Too bad. You screwed up. You're wrong.

The backpedaling accusation is made moot by the fact that you changed your statement from "I didn't mention any candidate but McCain" to "I didn't mention any candidate but McCain when I made the comment about trust" once you saw that you had done just that. Pot, meet kettle.

Again, this rebuttal is essentially, "I technically didn't say he's the opposite of the party that I contrasted him with on another wholly related component."

And before you can throw out more logic jargon, don't worry: I know this argument has ad hominem coming out the ass. I know I might even seem whiny. And I honestly don't really care.

I have no interest in the emotional aspect of debates, so any personal imputation is ignored.