Who's embarrassed by Joe Biden?

[DavidJames]

See the post up above? Where you say "maybe you missed all of the posts in regards to the creepy and stupid stuff Chaney (sic) has done."

This thread is not about Cheney and even if Cheney did creepy and stupid stuff, that does not at all mean that Biden (the actual subject of the thread) did not do creepy and stupid stuff.

You are guilty of fallacious arguments, in this case what is known as a tu quoque fallacy, otherwise known as appeal to hypocrisy or YOU TOO!

As always, delighted to be of service.

I fully admit introducing Lord Cheney was fallacious. I just wanted, not to excuse Biden in the process, but to point out the hilarity and absurdity of what Republicans find outrageous. Watching them go on and defend Cheney's "public service" record as VP, was a bonus belly buster.

 

[eeyore1954]

It's great to see what Conservatives get offended by. Government forcing Christianity? Denying evolution? Denying AGW? Accusing the president of not loving his country?

Nah, that's nothing. What's really important is Biden's hands.

Government forcing Christianity (if it is happening) is something people should get upset about. Denying evolution or AGW is not in my opinion. Unless it would be not allowing schools to teach evolution.
Accusing the president of not loving his country? I don't agree with this opinion but why should someone get upset because a politician voiced this opinion.

Biden's actions are also not worthy of getting upset but he is a good source of humor.

 

[plague311]

See the post up above? Where you say "maybe you missed all of the posts in regards to the creepy and stupid stuff Chaney (sic) has done."

Ah, so despite me explaining this before you just didn't understand it. I guess that happens when you reply to people that are not addressing you at all.

This thread is not about Cheney and even if Cheney did creepy and stupid stuff, that does not at all mean that Biden (the actual subject of the thread) did not do creepy and stupid stuff.

Nor did I imply Biden didn't do creepy stuff, good work on the cherry-picking though. For the thousandth time, I commented on Biden's behavior in my ETA. You couldn't even be bothered to put my whole quote up there. You're taking that statement out of context to create a strawman. As I previously stated, specifically to you, is that theprestige cherry-picked one post in regards to Cheney and compared it to Biden being handsy (again, see the quoted part), but left out ALL of the other stuff stated about Cheney. That made it an invalid comparison and the comparison wasn't mine, it was theprestiges. The rest of that cherry-picked quote:

or is it now a requirement that if someone makes a post they have to include everything up to and including that post?

I was commenting that this forum has now become a spot where you have to include everything from the thread in an individual post or else people will try to pick it apart. I wasn't using Cheney's behavior to rationalize Biden's, I stated the comparison between the two was ludicrous.

You are guilty of fallacious arguments, in this case what is known as a tu quoque fallacy, otherwise known as appeal to hypocrisy or YOU TOO!

As always, delighted to be of service.

Good work at strawmanning an argument. Again, anything some members will do to try and get a 'gotcha' moment continues to bog down conversation.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

The entire reason for post #2 to bring the tu quoque into play. Annoyingly, I had to beat someone with a clue-by-four, but at least someone might have learned a new word.

Political ideologues (from both sides) on the forum are always whanging together fallacious arguments based on nothing more than the Tu Quoque and are seldom called on it. In this case we had an OP about a subjective opionion about the behavior of a politician. My immediate counter, while fallacious, was also intended to introduce objective analysis of Vice Presidents. Uncle Joe is indeed slightly creepy with his habit of "close talking" to women. This is hardly the most embarrassing thing a politician has done just in the last year, much less over the record of the US presidential office, and any objective study of veeps puts this into a much larger set of events. Is it always a tu Quoque to use comparison/contrast in discussion?

Anyway, thanks for playing, 16.5. You volleyed the ball I served just fine.

 

[The Big Dog]

Ok

 

[The Big Dog]

The entire reason for post #2 to bring the tu quoque into play. Annoyingly, I had to beat someone with a clue-by-four, but at least someone might have learned a new word.

Political ideologues (from both sides) on the forum are always whanging together fallacious arguments based on nothing more than the Tu Quoque and are seldom called on it. In this case we had an OP about a subjective opionion about the behavior of a politician. My immediate counter, while fallacious, was also intended to introduce objective analysis of Vice Presidents. Uncle Joe is indeed slightly creepy with his habit of "close talking" to women. This is hardly the most embarrassing thing a politician has done just in the last year, much less over the record of the US presidential office, and any objective study of veeps puts this into a much larger set of events. Is it always a tu Quoque to use comparison/contrast in discussion?

Anyway, thanks for playing, 16.5. You volleyed the ball I served just fine.

One's comparison becomes anothers thread jack, such as above.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

So comparison/contrast of the thread subject with other related persons/events/phenomena is a threadjack now? I'll keep that in mind.

 

[The Big Dog]

So comparison/contrast of the thread subject with other related persons/events/phenomena is a threadjack now? I'll keep that in mind.

The rule of "so": this dictates that where a response starts with the word "so" and purports to characterize another's argument, the likelihood that the response contains a strawman approaches 100 percent.

Gentle reader: note that while you insist you are comparing and contrasting, others have done away with that and spend entire posts doing nothing but slamming Bush et al.

By the way, while comparing contrasting can be helpful in explaining an argument, it should not be the argument itself.

 

[TragicMonkey]

From the tone and vitriol I have to assume several posters here have been bad touched by Grabby Joe! I don't suspect anybody's been bad touched by Cheney, though, as his touch instantly kills humans so he can feed on them.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

The rule of "so": this dictates that where a response starts with the word "so" and purports to characterize another's argument, the likelihood that the response contains a strawman approaches 100 percent.

Gentle reader: note that while you insist you are comparing and contrasting, others have done away with that and spend entire posts doing nothing but slamming Bush et al.

By the way, while comparing contrasting can be helpful in explaining an argument, it should not be the argument itself.

Oh! You know the Rule of So now! Good for you, that's TWO gold stars on your chart. One more and you get to pick a prize from the box under teacher's desk! Well done. I'll try to set up an ad hom for you to volley later.

 

[The Big Dog]

Oh! You know the Rule of So now! Good for you, that's TWO gold stars on your chart. One more and you get to pick a prize from the box under teacher's desk! Well done. I'll try to set up an ad hom for you to volley later.

now you are just being silly! a tu quoque is an ad hom! (although not all ad homs are tu quoque)

 

[Tony Stark]

This person almost became the vice president instead of Biden.



Talk about embarrassing.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

now you are just being silly! a tu quoque is an ad hom! (although not all ad homs are tu quoque)

People are so cute when they first learn about fallacies.

 

[boooeee]

My memory might be a little fuzy, but I'm pretty sure Biden rubbed her shoulders while Palin read all the newspapers.

Which were painstakingly transcribed onto her hand.

 

[Steve]

From the tone and vitriol I have to assume several posters here have been bad touched by Grabby Joe! I don't suspect anybody's been bad touched by Cheney, though, as his touch instantly kills humans so he can feed on them.

TM - your efforts to bring some sanity and realism back into this thread are appreciated, but futile. I suggest you just sit back and enjoy the hyperbole like I am.

 

[kmortis]

keep to the topic, and the topic is not the other posters. Keep it civil. Don't make me pull this thread over to the side of the forum.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis

 

[ehcks]

You mean the media was aghast the US was committing war crimes (torture) and isn't aghast when it isn't (drone strikes)?

Killing people in a war is the essentially all a war is for. Torturing people in a war is horrifically evil and completely ineffective.

Now we can complain about why we're still there at all, but that wouldn't move this conversation anywhere. Especially since we know the Republicans would also still have us over there killing people.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

keep to the topic, and the topic is not the other posters. Keep it civil. Don't make me pull this thread over to the side of the forum.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis

Perhaps OP could chime in and clarify what the topic is, then. Are we only allowed to talk about this one incident and nothing else? Then /thread.

Or are we talking about any of various Venn diagram overlap topics such as Vice Presidents, creepy white guys or political misdeeds?

Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Perhaps OP could chime in and clarify what the topic is, then. Are we only allowed to talk about this one incident and nothing else? Then /thread.

Or are we talking about any of various Venn diagram overlap topics such as Vice Presidents, creepy white guys or political misdeeds?

Inquiring minds want to know.

I think all that overlap is legitimate thread drift. The 50% posting rate on whether one person's drift was a derail or a tu quoque as much as the other person's has been the problem.

I'd say creepiness in politicos is a fair topic. I listed both Dems and Repubs who were embarrassing in their Veep roles. And as I said above, if we try to make it less partisan, some people can admit that people they might cheer for because of the banner they're running under may just have an "ick factor" that embarrasses you or makes you uncomfortable.

 

[LorenzoValla]

You mean the media was aghast the US was committing war crimes (torture) and isn't aghast when it isn't (drone strikes)?

It's not a war crime to kill innocent civilians outside of a declared war zone, repeatedly???

Of course you don't think so, which is why the entire notion of a 'war crime' is a farce.