• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories VI: Lyndon Johnson's Revenge

Status
Not open for further replies.
manifesto said:
...is not ad hominem.
Click to expand...

It is exactly ad hominem because it ignores the merits of the argument and focuses on supposed characteristics of the person making it. "That's exactly the kind of argument the CIA would use," could be a textbook example of the Ad Hominem fallacy. It doesn't discuss whether the argument has merit, regardless of what you might think morally of the person or group making it.

It is informative.
Click to expand...

Only to people who focus on the persons of their opponents and not the arguments.

That said, I fully understand why you are whining about it.
Click to expand...

Your hyperbole is irrelevant. He's focusing on it because it's a dishonest debate tactic and logical fallacy.
 
Last edited:
manifesto said:
To point out similarities between some of the participants in this thread, their arguments, methods and obvious MO, with that of one of the main suspects in the assassination of JFK, the terror organization CIA, is not ad hominem.
Click to expand...

So you don't know the difference between argumentum ad hominem and poisoning the well either. Interesting, given how hard you find it to refrain from the latter.

Dave
 
manifesto said:
I fully understand the whole content of the speech, yes. I do NOT understand why you are whining about it being ”out of context” and therefore convey something else when ”in context”.

I have asked a multiple of times if the ”context” says that JFK was NOT of the opinion that ”the very word ’secrecy’ is repugnant in a free and open society”, but are still waiting for an answer.
Click to expand...

You were answered multiple times, by at least two different posters.


manifesto said:
Yes, I know that the speech was about journalists and their responsibility towards the public good and the security of their country, to act with caution and restraint when these factors were in jeopardy. To shoulder their responsibilty as journalists and newsmen towards the public good, as responsible citizens.

Does this in any way mitigate the essence of the quote I have in my signature?

How?
Click to expand...

Asked and answered. It's out of context.

Hank
 
Last edited:
manifesto said:
I have asked a multiple of times if the ”context” says that JFK was NOT of the opinion that ”the very word ’secrecy’ is repugnant in a free and open society”, but are still waiting for an answer.
Click to expand...

Your opponents have offered you a nuanced interpretation of the first sentence based on the subsequent statements in the speech. That interpretation differs from what might be understood if one simply reproduced the first sentence and paid no attention to Kennedy's further remarks. In the guise of "asking a question," you are simply trying to foist once again the false dichotomy that Kennedy must have meant his statement in the absolutist terms you're insinuation, or else somehow exactly the opposite. Neither is true, yet you insist your critics give you only a yes-or-no answer. Since the argument your critics are positing is exactly whether that question can be answered accurately yes or no, they are not obliged to give you any sort of answer until you engage with their actual argument instead of trying to talk over or around it. You're shifting over now into the "complex question" fallacy.

Perhaps if you were to explain "false dichotomy" in your own words, it would help us determine whether you understand our argument.
 
RoboTimbo said:
Who are the other assassins that you ;) are protecting by keeping their names secret? Why do you ;) hate free and open society?
Click to expand...
I have named the chief orchestrators of the cover up = at least accessories after the fact = guilty in the conspiracy behind the assassination. I’ll do it again:

Lyndon Baines Johnson - The White house

J. Edgar Hoover - FBI

Allen Dulles - CIA
 
Dave Rogers said:
So you don't know the difference between argumentum ad hominem and poisoning the well either. Interesting, given how hard you find it to refrain from the latter.

Dave
Click to expand...
Description: To commit a preemptive ad hominem attack against an opponent. That is, to prime the audience with adverse information about the opponent from the start, in an attempt to make your claim more acceptable or discount the credibility of your opponent’s claim.​
 
manifesto said:
That is, to prime the audience with adverse information about the opponent from the start, in an attempt to make your claim more acceptable or discount the credibility of your opponent’s claim.
Click to expand...

And comparing your opponents to those whom you accuse of committing a heinous crime is not priming an audience with adverse information in an attempt to make your claim more acceptable or discount your opponents' credibility?
 
manifesto said:
Description: To commit a preemptive ad hominem attack against an opponent. That is, to prime the audience with adverse information about the opponent from the start, in an attempt to make your claim more acceptable or discount the credibility of your opponent’s claim.​
Click to expand...

Wrong.

Poisoning the well may be an ad hominem argument if it is directed at a person. However, it can also be directed at an organisation (for example, "the terror organization CIA"), in which case it is not. Argumentum ad hominem and poisoning the well intersect, but neither is solely a special case of the other.

But clearly you're capable of understanding what argumentum ad hominem is (unless it's perpetrated by someone you agree with, in which case your comprehension level conveniently collapses).

Dave
 
manifesto said:
I have named the chief orchestrators of the cover up = at least accessories after the fact = guilty in the conspiracy behind the assassination. I’ll do it again:

Lyndon Baines Johnson - The White house

J. Edgar Hoover - FBI

Allen Dulles - CIA
Click to expand...

And you ;) as a typical CT are ok with your obvious hypocrisy?
 
manifesto, were you ;) lying or mistaken when you ;) hypocritically said "innocent until proven guilty"?

manifesto said:
Innocent until proven guilty.
Click to expand...
HSienzant said:
For Oswald apparently. But not for anyone else, right?

Clay Shaw innocent until proven guilty?

Mrs. Ruth Paine?

J.Edgar Hoover?

Presidents Johnson and Nixon?

The Sixth Floor Museum?

etc.?

Hank
Click to expand...
manifesto said:
For everyone. Even you, Hank.
Click to expand...

Because now you ;) have condemned three innocent men out of the other side of your mouth.
 
Originally Posted by bknight
Are your reading skills so poor you can't understand the following sentences of the speech?
Click to expand...

manifesto said:
I fully understand the whole content of the speech, yes. I do NOT understand why you are whining about it being ”out of context” and therefore convey something else when ”in context”.

I have asked a multiple of times if the ”context” says that JFK was NOT of the opinion that ”the very word ’secrecy’ is repugnant in a free and open society”, but are still waiting for an answer.

Yes, I know that the speech was about journalists and their responsibility towards the public good and the security of their country, to act with caution and restraint when these factors were in jeopardy. To shoulder their responsibilty as journalists and newsmen towards the public good, as responsible citizens.

Does this in any way mitigate the essence of the quote I have in my signature?

How?
Click to expand...

If you do understand the rest of the speech, why is it that you continue to ignore those following lines. Seems to me that JFK is saying in certain circumstances the word "secrecy" is repugnant, but not all cases and circumstances That is why he added the rest of the speech. If you don't understand that he did not have an absolute about it, or he would never have added the rest of the speech. That is why your taking the first sustenance as an absolute is taking it out of context. Now concerning your use of the term "whining", this a form of ad hominems and I resent the use. I'm not "whining", I merely asked a question, if you can't handle questions, then I suggest finding a new place to spout your CT theories. Continued use of ad hominems was one of the reasons you were suspended, don't you remember?
 
Continuing to obfuscate about his Sig line is very effective in his ongoing quest to not answer questions and prolong the thread.
 
Last edited:
...how about 'meaninglessly arguing trivia in the time of Cholera'?
 
RoboTimbo said:
Why did Oswald murder Officer Tippitt and then attempt to murder more officers in the theater with the same gun when they had him cornered?
Click to expand...

Could Oswald have created a small wound next to the EOP without a blow-out in the face?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom