Cont: Breaking: Mueller Grand Jury charges filed, arrests as soon as Monday pt 2

[The Big Dog]

Was Trumps affair with Stormy disgraceful?

Just setting the parameters here:

You do agree with me that the Peter/Page affair was a disgrace?

Yes or no?

 

[The Big Dog]

You changed the subject from that one claim.

no, I discuss multiple subjects with multiple people.

 

[dmaker]

I do not believe adultery to be disgraceful. Another persons marriage or relationship is none of my business.

 

[The Big Dog]

I do not believe adultery to be disgraceful. Another persons marriage or relationship is none of my business.

how about if they are taking your government's assets to cover it up?

 

[dmaker]

Taking what assets? If you mean texting on a government device, I could not care less.

 

[Cabbage]

Oh man, the tu quoque personal attack.

No. A Tu quoque is an argument of the form

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are relevant to the general truth of claim X.
3. Therefore X is false.

What we have in your case, however, is you (person A) condemning of Strozk for an extramarital affair (claim X).

What ensues is the relevant issue that you apply this morality selectively. Person B points out that Trump is also guilty of claim X, yet you do not condemn him. At no point is this rebuttal used to imply that claim X is false, which is how Tu quoque works.

In the future, please learn the definitions of logical fallacies before trying to employ them erroneously, embarrassing yourself.

What we have hear does not illustrate a Tu quoque.

It illustrates Hypocrisy.

LOL

 

[The Big Dog]

Taking what assets? If you mean texting on a government device, I could not care less.

cool

as such I conclude you don't give a damn about Trump/Stormy either.

Cool!

 

[Cabbage]

And for the record, I've yet to engage (or witness an engagement) with a Trump supporter who knew the first thing about logic.

Stay with what (little) you know, Big Dog.

 

[The Big Dog]

What we have hear does not illustrate a Tu quoque.

It illustrates Hypocrisy.

LOL

'k.

tee hee.

Tu quoque (/tjuːˈkwoʊkwi, tuːˈkwoʊkweɪ/;[1] Latin for "you also") or the appeal to hypocrisy is an informal fallacy that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s)

Bwhahahaha!!

Dream Thread

 

[NoahFence]

Just setting the parameters here:

You do agree with me that the Peter/Page affair was a disgrace?

Yes or no?

No.
But I do find it curious that you put morality issues above everything else, but didn't see fit to vote for the candidate that didn't cheat on their spouse(s).

 

[dmaker]

I don't actually care about Trumps extramarital affairs. My question was do you?

Your turn to answer now.

 

[acbytesla]

At this rate, Trump will be cheating on his future wife any day now.

I bet Trump cheats on the women he's cheating with.

I though Strzok did very well. The House Republicans that questioned him were a joke. That hearing was more an embarrassment to for the Republican party than it was for Strzok.

I never saw a collection of sleazy windbags in all my life.

 

[The Big Dog]

I don't actually care about Trumps extramarital affairs. My question was do you?

Your turn to answer now.

Cool! Why did you ask then? Because what little I know about Trump's so called affairs none of them occurred while he was abusing his governmental position like these two scumbags.

Seriously, I might be all wet about this, talk me through what this has to do with this investigation.

Thanks a bunch!

 

[Cabbage]

'k.

tee hee.



Bwhahahaha!!

Dream Thread

And your own link indicates the form a true Tu quoque actually takes:

Tu quoque "argument" follows the pattern:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are relevant to the general truth of claim X.
Therefore X is false.

....which is absent here. That argument FORM is an appeal to hypocrisy. Here, the form itself is absent.

...and we are simply left with simple hypocrisy.

Try reading the whole link next time, not just one key word.


tee hee indeed!

 

[Cabbage]

And with that exchange, I'm beginning to question whether I've engaged (or witnessed an engagement) with a Trump supporter who is FUNCTIONALLY literate.

Meaning, for example, being able to read an ENTIRE Wikipedia page for comprehension.


tee hee hee!

 

[The Big Dog]

And your own link indicates the form a true Tu quoque actually takes:

Tu quoque "argument" follows the pattern:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are relevant to the general truth of claim X.
Therefore X is false.

....which is absent here. That argument FORM is an appeal to hypocrisy. Here, the form itself is absent.

...and we are simply left with simple hypocrisy.

Try reading the whole link next time, not just one key word.


tee hee indeed!

Oh I see, you mean I was wrong for actually giving our correspondent credit for making an argument? Instead it did not even rise to the level of an argument? It was just pure name calling insults?

Damn

Well don't I look like a fool, giving someone for making an argument, fallacious though it may be, when instead you see folks, we are actually below that level just schoolyard insults and Level Zero name calling.

Pretty harsh but Cabbage has to call them like he sees them.

 

[dmaker]

Cool! Why did you ask then? Because what little I know about Trump's so called affairs none of them occurred while he was abusing his governmental position like these two scumbags.

Seriously, I might be all wet about this, talk me through what this has to do with this investigation.

Thanks a bunch!

You call one affair disgraceful and not the other.

How were they abusing their governmental positions to conduct their affair? The fact that they had an affair while government employees is irrelevant.

 

[acbytesla]

Cool! Why did you ask then? Because what little I know about Trump's so called affairs none of them occurred while he was abusing his governmental position like these two scumbags.

Seriously, I might be all wet about this, talk me through what this has to do with this investigation.

Thanks a bunch!

There is NO EVIDENCE, ABSOLUTELY NONE that Stzok or Page were abusing their governmental positions. But nice try.

All you can point to has two people who happened to be FBI agents who made negative comments about Trump. Nothing more.

Again, a whole lot of nothing. And it matters little how many times you say otherwise.

 

[acbytesla]

You call one affair disgraceful and not the other.

How were they abusing their governmental positions to conduct their affair? The fact that they had an affair while government employees is irrelevant.

Exactly!

TBD's posts on this reek of hypocrisy.

 

[Cabbage]

Oh I see, you mean I was wrong for actually giving our correspondent credit for making an argument? Instead it did not even rise to the level of an argument? It was just pure name calling insults?

Damn

Well don't I look like a fool, giving someone for making an argument, fallacious though it may be, when instead you see folks, we are actually below that level just schoolyard insults and Level Zero name calling.

Pretty harsh but Cabbage has to call them like he sees them.

No (and there's that functional illiteracy again. "Why even bother with someone lacking reading comprehension?" I often ask myself).

What I am saying is there are two domains under discussion:

1. Appeal to Hypocrisy, and

2. Plain and Simple Hypocrisy.

No one here is saying that your claims are false because you have selective moral outrage (ie, "Hypocrisy") regarding Strozk versus Trump.

We're simply amused to point out the blatant hypocrisy and partisanship you display, a sign of an inferior mind overly prone to emotional inferences.

Did I dumb it down enough for you this time?

tee hee!