Ed Griffin and Truthers Supporting Convicted Terrorist

[JihadJane]

Care to post a brief history of the tu quoque fallacy while you're at it?

Dave

So, if, for example, you abuse children and then foam at the mouth about child abusers it doesn't matter because of the "tu quoque fallacy"?

Is that how it works?

 

[twinstead]

And second, there is not a shred of evidence that his friends, Mohammed Atta and Co. participated in the attacks of 9/11

Yes. This statement is all one needs to know that Griffen is full of crap. Case closed.

 

[Dave Rogers]

So, if, for example, you abuse children and then foam at the mouth about child abusers it doesn't matter because of the "tu quoque fallacy"?

I'm going to pretend you were asking that question honestly, even though we both know you were being deliberately disingenuous.

Let's suppose you abuse children, and at the same time demand tougher sentences for child abusers. The tu quoque fallacy would be for me to say "But you abuse children yourself, so child abusers should actually be let off." A more defensible response would be "I agree, and you should suffer the same penalties."

Now, let's say a group of Islamic Jihadists are terrorists, and the United States claims that they should be punished for their actions. If you were to say, "But the United States carries out acts of terrorism too, so the Jihadists shouldn't be punished," that would be the tu quoque fallacy.

That's how it works. And what's interesting is that, in framing your incorrect example of the tu quoque fallacy, you are actually committing a tu quoque fallacy.

Dave

 

[JihadJane]

I'm going to pretend you were asking that question honestly, even though we both know you were being deliberately disingenuous.

Wrong.

Let's suppose you abuse children, and at the same time demand tougher sentences for child abusers. The tu quoque fallacy would be for me to say "But you abuse children yourself, so child abusers should actually be let off." A more defensible response would be "I agree, and you should suffer the same penalties."

Now, let's say a group of Islamic Jihadists are terrorists, and the United States claims that they should be punished for their actions. If you were to say, "But the United States carries out acts of terrorism too, so the Jihadists shouldn't be punished," that would be the tu quoque fallacy.

That's how it works. And what's interesting is that, in framing your incorrect example of the tu quoque fallacy, you are actually committing a tu quoque fallacy.

Dave

So why doesn't orphia nay foam indignantly at the mouth about US terrorism and US support for terrorists?

 

[twinstead]

So why isn't orphia nay foaming at the mouth about US terrorism and US support for terrorists?

Uh, because the thread isn't about that?

 

[funk de fino]

This is worth posting again.

That's how it works. And what's interesting is that, in framing your incorrect example of the tu quoque fallacy, you are actually committing a tu quoque fallacy.

Dave

Too funny

 

[funk de fino]

Uh, because the thread isn't about that?

Or even this sub forum.

 

[Dave Rogers]

So why doesn't orphia nay foam indignantly at the mouth about US terrorism and US support for terrorists?

Because you're here to do enough of it for all of us.

Dave

 

[JihadJane]

Because you're here to do enough of it for all of us.

Dave

Rubbish.

Please answer my question.

 

[The Big Dog]

Wrong.

So why doesn't orphia nay foam indignantly at the mouth about US terrorism and US support for terrorists?

Well, I see that the fact that you totally butchered the concept of a tu quoque fallacy has been adequately pointed out.

More to the point, why don't YOU foam indignantly at the mouth about the Atta and the fanatic Muslim terrorism and Gage's and DRG's support for terrorists, JihadJane?

Please feel free to comment about your own feeling for the jihadists, Jane. This is the thread for that!

 

[funk de fino]

Rubbish.

Please answer my question.

Another attempt to derail?

 

[JihadJane]

Well, I see that the fact that you totally butchered the concept of a tu quoque fallacy has been adequately pointed out.

More to the point, why don't YOU foam indignantly at the mouth about the Atta and the fanatic Muslim terrorism and Gage's and DRG's support for terrorists, JihadJane?

Why's that more to the point? And what would be the point of me foaming at the mouth?


I'm not sure that the "tu quoque" fallacy is even relevant. Orphia nay's exclusive focus on one particular variety of terrorism suggests she isn't really bothered about the morality of terrorism at all, but is simply using faux outrage as a character assassination ruse and and as excuse to indulge in some propagandistic gossip.

Please feel free to comment about your own feeling for the jihadists, Jane. This is the thread for that!

Thanks for making it explicit that this thread is about emotions rather than critical thinking.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Rubbish.

Please answer my question.

OK. I'm not Orphia Nay, so I don't know what is the basis for Orphia Nay's choice of topics to comment on.

Does that prove 9/11 was an inside job?

Dave

 

[JihadJane]

OK. I'm not Orphia Nay, so I don't know what is the basis for Orphia Nay's choice of topics to comment on.

Does that prove 9/11 was an inside job?

Dave

 

[The Big Dog]

Why's that more to the point? And what would be the point of me foaming at the mouth?

I'm not sure that the "tu quoque" fallacy is even relevant. Orphia nay's exclusive focus on one particular variety of terrorism suggests she isn't really bothered about the morality of terrorism at all, but is simply using faux outrage as a character assassination ruse and and as excuse to indulge in some propagandistic gossip.

Thanks for making it explicit that this thread is about emotions rather than critical thinking.

May I print this post up and put in a frame, with pretty bows and pastel colors spelling out the words:

HYPOCRISY?

Because it is ever such a fine example of that, JihadJane. I particularly enjoyed the fact that you took umbrage at my use of your words “foaming at the mouth” when those are the exact same freaking words that you used in your own post.

I am also considering framing it with the caption:

OBVIOUS DUCKING OF THE QUESTION.

But to be honest, my walls are covered with thousands of Truther quotes already where they do so.

Anyhow, anytime you want to address the question, that would be fine with me, or just duck the question, you are real good at that.

 

[Dave Rogers]

In case you need a reminder, the question you specifically demanded I answer was:

So why doesn't orphia nay foam indignantly at the mouth about US terrorism and US support for terrorists?

And the only serious, rational answer I could possibly give was:

I'm not Orphia Nay, so I don't know what is the basis for Orphia Nay's choice of topics to comment on.

Since this forum is for the discussion of alternative theories concerning the 9/11 attacks, it seems reasonable to call into question the relevance of the question by asking,

Does that prove 9/11 was an inside job?

If you can't even follow this conversation, is it possible that your understanding of world affairs is similarly deficient?

Dave

 

[NoZed Avenger]

I'm not sure that the "tu quoque" fallacy is even relevant. Orphia nay's exclusive focus on one particular variety of terrorism suggests she isn't really bothered about the morality of terrorism at all, but is simply using faux outrage as a character assassination ruse and and as excuse to indulge in some propagandistic gossip.

Which would, regardless of the truth or falsity of your elaborate house of cards, in no way:

(1) show Atta was not guilty;
(2) show Mounir el Motassadeq is not guilty;
(3) show Griffin is right about anything;
(4) show that anyone was wrong when they posit he is lying about a "shred" of evidence; or
(5) have anything to do with the topic of the thread.

So it is merely off-topic trolling and an attempt at a derail. If you really want to discuss the myriad topics brought up in your derail, please start a thread. Or three.

 

[JihadJane]

May I print this post up and put in a frame, with pretty bows and pastel colors spelling out the words:

HYPOCRISY?

Because it is ever such a fine example of that, JihadJane. I particularly enjoyed the fact that you took umbrage at my use of your words “foaming at the mouth” when those are the exact same freaking words that you used in your own post.

No umbrage. They were straight questions. Can you answer them?

I am also considering framing it with the caption:

OBVIOUS DUCKING OF THE QUESTION.

But to be honest, my walls are covered with thousands of Truther quotes already where they do so.

Anyhow, anytime you want to address the question, that would be fine with me, or just duck the question, you are real good at that.

I answered your question with two questions:

"Why's that more to the point? And what would be the point of me foaming at the mouth?"

They were rhetorical ones, related to the OP.

 

[funk de fino]

I'm not sure that the "tu quoque" fallacy is even relevant. Orphia nay's exclusive focus on one particular variety of terrorism suggests she isn't really bothered about the morality of terrorism at all, but is simply using faux outrage as a character assassination ruse and and as excuse to indulge in some propagandistic gossip.

Or maybe the fact this is the 911 CT sub forum would explain it. A thread about what you spammed about, would be OT in here.

 

[The Big Dog]

I answered your question with two questions:

Giggle! That is borderline stundilicious, JJ!

Next time just cut and paste the following:

I JIHADJANE AM OBVIOUSLY DUCKING A STRAIGHT AND INCONVIENIENT QUESTION REGARDING MY OBVIOUS TERRORIST SYMPATHIES​

It is more subtle that way.