You link to a site called RIGHT WING NEWS and yet you somehow think you have any credibility whatsoever. Interesting.
Mark, if you knew what you were talking about, you’d realize why you’re wasting your time with accusations of absence of credibility.
Mark is stupid enough to think that ad hominem attacks aren’t logical fallacies.
I’m disappointed he didn’t include Harry Reid’s remark about the great unwashed:
“In the summer because of the heat and high humidity, you could literally smell the tourists coming into the Capitol.”
“I won.”
“He’s a jackass.”
“my accomplishments are slight.”
Number 6 is hilarious
6) From my own experience visiting the troops in the Middle East, I can tell you this, though: despite how the conflict has been portrayed by our glorious media, if you gave any U.S. soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Osama bin Laden, there’s a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice, and Harry Reid and bin Laden would be strangled to death. — CBS Sports commentator David Feherty
How about one more? This is the Education Intelligence Agency Education Quote of the Decade:
“The struggle in which we are engaged is as vital to our future today as was the outcome of the Civil War to our nation in 1860 (sic). The goal of these locusts is to impose their will on state after state until they have completely demolished government as we know it. There is a time for every generation to rise to the call – when the very existence of our nation, our state, our values, our culture and our public schools are threatened with extinction.” – Nebraska State Education Association Executive Director Jim Griess on Initiative 423, a ballot measure that would have limited state government spending to previous years’ amounts, with allowed increases for inflation and population growth. (October 2006 The NSEA Voice)
“Mark is stupid enough to think that ad hominem attacks aren’t logical fallacies.”
Hm… let’s check this out!
“An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “argument toward the person” or “argument against the person”) is an argument which links the validity of a premise to an irrelevant characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.”
My comment: “You link to a site called RIGHT WING NEWS and yet you somehow think you have any credibility whatsoever. Interesting.”
Argument: Rand Simberg offers opinions on political topics. Rand Simberg links to websites that proclaim their bias in the site’s very name to uphold his opinions. Rand Simberg lacks an objective perspective and hence credibility.
Rand’s comment: “Mark is stupid enough to think that ad hominem attacks aren’t logical fallacies.”
Argument: Mark is wrong because he is stupid.
Ad hominem, anyone?
Mark thinks your credibility would be greatly improved if you linked to a his website, THE STATE FELLATOR.
Hell yes. It’s my pride and joy. I’m sure Rand would approve of its content as well.
(FYI I don’t think FELLATOR is a real word)
Argument: Mark is wrong because he deepthroats Florida.
(FYI I don’t think FELLATOR is a real word)
I was being polite, but what would be the noun to describe one who fellates? In MIGHTY APHRODITE Woody Allen described the Mira Sorvino character as a “fellatrix,” a word I liked, but the “ix” seems to apply to females (as in “aviatrix”).
(As in “Nancy Pelosi is a State-fellatrix.”) That would seem to imply there is a male version of the term.
“That would seem to imply there is a male version of the term.”
I’m not sure – but I’d have to think that you of all people would be able to come up with it.
“That would seem to imply there is a male version of the term.”
Barney Frank!
Yeah, let’s take a cheap shot at him ’cause he’s gay. Keep it classy, darkstar!
Ethan, this blog is the last refuge for classy. I’m surprised you didn’t know that.
Mark, do you regularly complain about an “objective perspective” in someone’s opinion, at that same person’s blog? Put another way, when a host expresses an opinion in their own home, do you as a guest immediately denounce them as wrong?
Opinion is by definition non-objective, a factoid that was taught to me in the third grade (Thank you, Miss Haas!). Bitching at someone that their opinion is wrong, on what amounts to their own private property though – now that’s a special kind of rudeness.
This is the last time I expect to feed this particular troll. If you can’t even tell the difference between opinion and fact, I see no reason to respect, nor even to read, your blather.
I agree with Mike Puckett.
Barney Frank’s oral proclivities don’t bother me. It’s his wanting rape the taxpayer (figuratively speaking) that bothers me.
Mark, a site that proclaims its bias openly is a damn sight more credible than one that tries to conceal it, but injects it into its treatment of facts and arguments anyway.
Oh, and if you really want people to read your blog, Mark, you might consider entering its URL into the comment form.
Like I do.
Argument: Mark is wrong because he is stupid.
Thank you for once again demonstrating your inability to understand logic. You are confusing cause and effect.
The argument isn’t “Mark is wrong because he is stupid.” The argument is “Mark is stupid (or at least ignorant, and has never had a class in logic) because he is wrong.”
Mark, you seem to have a problem with understanding how reality works. Do you believe that a fact communicated by someone you don’t like is somehow less true because of the messenger? Do you claim that any one of the forty quotes is false, when sourcing is provided for all of them?
Perhaps the selection of accurate quotes is biased. Tough shit — that doesn’t make the quotations any less accurate. Feel free to come up with your own biased list.
Someone can be smart and wrong. Someone can be stupid and right. You seem to be both stupid and wrong in your comments here. In your case, perhaps the two characteristics are inextricably paired, perhaps not — but the evidence is not favorable to you.
(Alternate hypothesis: The “Mark” persona is a moby, created by a right-winger to make left-wingers look ridiculous. If so, it’s working.)
By the way, how can someone posting a comment via Web browser claim to doubt the existence of a word when Google can prove him wrong with fewer keystrokes than are required to post his inane opinion?
By letting this little drama play out Rand, you compromise the innouclation effect and some of the deterrence of the Banhammer. He is a vandal. You can take away his crayons now or later on after he has defaced more of your private property.
Seriously, what are the odds he is gonna not push this to the ultimate conclusion. He is just here to be the Joker. He has not brought one redeeming thing in any of his posts.
Mark, Ethan.
Why don’t you just go somwhere else and get a room?
Argument: Rand Simberg offers opinions on political topics. Rand Simberg links to websites that proclaim their bias in the site’s very name to uphold his opinions. Rand Simberg lacks an objective perspective and hence credibility.
Mark, do you notice that one of these words is not like the others? Or do you believe in such things as “objective opinions?” I’m curious. I guess it would explain a belief in other oxymorons like “scientific consensus” or Joe Biden’s “spend our way out of debt.”
I’m also struck by your naivete in thinking that the title of a news site is a good guide to its reliability, honesty, objectivity, and so forth. May I presume that you believed everything in the old Soviet state newspaper, because the newspaper was titled Pravda (“Truth” in Russian)?
Also, just by the way, quoting the dictionary as an argument is a little high-school Word of Warcrafty. If you’re not careful, you’ll soon be reduced to criticizing the grammar and spelling of your oppnents. Ha! You misspelled douchebag! I win!
McG, what’s the AK for in your call sign? Alaska? I believe I understand the MC.
However, treating the other guests the way we treat each other is also often rude. People routinely write things in blog comments that they would not say in person.
Let’s try to avoid that.
Thanks, R.
Yours,
Tom
“People routinely write things in blog comments that they would not say in person. Let’s try to avoid that.”
Well, okay, Captain Bringdown, but (except to my boss, a Mafia don or an IRS agent), there’s very little I wouldn’t say to someone’s face. especially to statists. I feel that if someone gets off on looting and otherwise coercing me, an insult or two is the price they pay.
Bilwick1,
Well the analogy here is what you would say to another guest in someone else’s home, not at say, a Walmart shareholder meeting. The analogy is a little strained, but a blog this size is alot like an open house in a modest size home.
Yours,
Tom
Well then I for one would like to know where the beer is.
You link to a site called RIGHT WING NEWS and yet you somehow think you have any credibility whatsoever. Interesting.
Mark, if you knew what you were talking about, you’d realize why you’re wasting your time with accusations of absence of credibility.
Mark is stupid enough to think that ad hominem attacks aren’t logical fallacies.
I’m disappointed he didn’t include Harry Reid’s remark about the great unwashed:
“In the summer because of the heat and high humidity, you could literally smell the tourists coming into the Capitol.”
“I won.”
“He’s a jackass.”
“my accomplishments are slight.”
Number 6 is hilarious
6) From my own experience visiting the troops in the Middle East, I can tell you this, though: despite how the conflict has been portrayed by our glorious media, if you gave any U.S. soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Osama bin Laden, there’s a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice, and Harry Reid and bin Laden would be strangled to death. — CBS Sports commentator David Feherty
How about one more? This is the Education Intelligence Agency Education Quote of the Decade:
“The struggle in which we are engaged is as vital to our future today as was the outcome of the Civil War to our nation in 1860 (sic). The goal of these locusts is to impose their will on state after state until they have completely demolished government as we know it. There is a time for every generation to rise to the call – when the very existence of our nation, our state, our values, our culture and our public schools are threatened with extinction.” – Nebraska State Education Association Executive Director Jim Griess on Initiative 423, a ballot measure that would have limited state government spending to previous years’ amounts, with allowed increases for inflation and population growth. (October 2006 The NSEA Voice)
http://www.eiaonline.com/archives/20100104.htm
“Mark is stupid enough to think that ad hominem attacks aren’t logical fallacies.”
Hm… let’s check this out!
“An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “argument toward the person” or “argument against the person”) is an argument which links the validity of a premise to an irrelevant characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.”
My comment: “You link to a site called RIGHT WING NEWS and yet you somehow think you have any credibility whatsoever. Interesting.”
Argument: Rand Simberg offers opinions on political topics. Rand Simberg links to websites that proclaim their bias in the site’s very name to uphold his opinions. Rand Simberg lacks an objective perspective and hence credibility.
Rand’s comment: “Mark is stupid enough to think that ad hominem attacks aren’t logical fallacies.”
Argument: Mark is wrong because he is stupid.
Ad hominem, anyone?
Mark thinks your credibility would be greatly improved if you linked to a his website, THE STATE FELLATOR.
Hell yes. It’s my pride and joy. I’m sure Rand would approve of its content as well.
(FYI I don’t think FELLATOR is a real word)
Argument: Mark is wrong because he deepthroats Florida.
(FYI I don’t think FELLATOR is a real word)
I was being polite, but what would be the noun to describe one who fellates? In MIGHTY APHRODITE Woody Allen described the Mira Sorvino character as a “fellatrix,” a word I liked, but the “ix” seems to apply to females (as in “aviatrix”).
(As in “Nancy Pelosi is a State-fellatrix.”) That would seem to imply there is a male version of the term.
“That would seem to imply there is a male version of the term.”
I’m not sure – but I’d have to think that you of all people would be able to come up with it.
“That would seem to imply there is a male version of the term.”
Barney Frank!
Yeah, let’s take a cheap shot at him ’cause he’s gay. Keep it classy, darkstar!
Ethan, this blog is the last refuge for classy. I’m surprised you didn’t know that.
Mark, do you regularly complain about an “objective perspective” in someone’s opinion, at that same person’s blog? Put another way, when a host expresses an opinion in their own home, do you as a guest immediately denounce them as wrong?
Opinion is by definition non-objective, a factoid that was taught to me in the third grade (Thank you, Miss Haas!). Bitching at someone that their opinion is wrong, on what amounts to their own private property though – now that’s a special kind of rudeness.
This is the last time I expect to feed this particular troll. If you can’t even tell the difference between opinion and fact, I see no reason to respect, nor even to read, your blather.
I agree with Mike Puckett.
Barney Frank’s oral proclivities don’t bother me. It’s his wanting rape the taxpayer (figuratively speaking) that bothers me.
Mark, a site that proclaims its bias openly is a damn sight more credible than one that tries to conceal it, but injects it into its treatment of facts and arguments anyway.
Oh, and if you really want people to read your blog, Mark, you might consider entering its URL into the comment form.
Like I do.
Argument: Mark is wrong because he is stupid.
Thank you for once again demonstrating your inability to understand logic. You are confusing cause and effect.
The argument isn’t “Mark is wrong because he is stupid.” The argument is “Mark is stupid (or at least ignorant, and has never had a class in logic) because he is wrong.”
Mark, you seem to have a problem with understanding how reality works. Do you believe that a fact communicated by someone you don’t like is somehow less true because of the messenger? Do you claim that any one of the forty quotes is false, when sourcing is provided for all of them?
Perhaps the selection of accurate quotes is biased. Tough shit — that doesn’t make the quotations any less accurate. Feel free to come up with your own biased list.
Someone can be smart and wrong. Someone can be stupid and right. You seem to be both stupid and wrong in your comments here. In your case, perhaps the two characteristics are inextricably paired, perhaps not — but the evidence is not favorable to you.
(Alternate hypothesis: The “Mark” persona is a moby, created by a right-winger to make left-wingers look ridiculous. If so, it’s working.)
By the way, how can someone posting a comment via Web browser claim to doubt the existence of a word when Google can prove him wrong with fewer keystrokes than are required to post his inane opinion?
By letting this little drama play out Rand, you compromise the innouclation effect and some of the deterrence of the Banhammer. He is a vandal. You can take away his crayons now or later on after he has defaced more of your private property.
Seriously, what are the odds he is gonna not push this to the ultimate conclusion. He is just here to be the Joker. He has not brought one redeeming thing in any of his posts.
Mark, Ethan.
Why don’t you just go somwhere else and get a room?
Argument: Rand Simberg offers opinions on political topics. Rand Simberg links to websites that proclaim their bias in the site’s very name to uphold his opinions. Rand Simberg lacks an objective perspective and hence credibility.
Mark, do you notice that one of these words is not like the others? Or do you believe in such things as “objective opinions?” I’m curious. I guess it would explain a belief in other oxymorons like “scientific consensus” or Joe Biden’s “spend our way out of debt.”
I’m also struck by your naivete in thinking that the title of a news site is a good guide to its reliability, honesty, objectivity, and so forth. May I presume that you believed everything in the old Soviet state newspaper, because the newspaper was titled Pravda (“Truth” in Russian)?
Also, just by the way, quoting the dictionary as an argument is a little high-school Word of Warcrafty. If you’re not careful, you’ll soon be reduced to criticizing the grammar and spelling of your oppnents. Ha! You misspelled douchebag! I win!
McG, what’s the AK for in your call sign? Alaska? I believe I understand the MC.
R Anderson has the thread winner – a classy way of saying that treating the host of the blog the way Mark does is just plain rude.
However, treating the other guests the way we treat each other is also often rude. People routinely write things in blog comments that they would not say in person.
Let’s try to avoid that.
Thanks, R.
Yours,
Tom
“People routinely write things in blog comments that they would not say in person. Let’s try to avoid that.”
Well, okay, Captain Bringdown, but (except to my boss, a Mafia don or an IRS agent), there’s very little I wouldn’t say to someone’s face. especially to statists. I feel that if someone gets off on looting and otherwise coercing me, an insult or two is the price they pay.
Bilwick1,
Well the analogy here is what you would say to another guest in someone else’s home, not at say, a Walmart shareholder meeting. The analogy is a little strained, but a blog this size is alot like an open house in a modest size home.
Yours,
Tom
Well then I for one would like to know where the beer is.
Carl,
It’s BYOB. Look in your fridge.
Yours,
Tom