Gillard labels Abbott a misogynist

[Akhenaten]

Now all that's needed is a case to show Abbott guilty under the new definition.

Needed why? The Prime Minister has already made such a case quite effectively under whatever definition you care to use.

You really should watch the video in the OP.

What were they? Hate, extreme distrust or dislike.

Yes.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Needed why? The Prime Minister has already made such a case quite effectively under whatever definition you care to use.

You really should watch the video in the OP.

Oh I forgot.... 'because she said so', is the reason you want to rest on. And here I am thinking this is a forum promoting critical thinking. Silly me.

 

[Akhenaten]

Oh I forgot.... 'because she said so', is the reason you want to rest on.

You can't have forgotten it because it was never said.

You are arguing, as usual, against a strawman of your own fabrication.

And here I am thinking this is a forum promoting critical thinking. Silly me.

Apparently not and apparently so.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

You can't have forgotten it because it was never said.

In the absence of anything actually tangible except her words..... well what else could one surmise?

I await (hope for) actual evidence from you. I will expect none.

 

[Akhenaten]

In the absence of anything actually tangible except her words..... well what else could one surmise?

There's no point, A.A. Alfie, in snipping out the parts of posts you find too difficult to answer and pretending that they weren't there.

Everyone else can still see them.

As I said:

You are arguing, as usual, against a strawman of your own fabrication.

If you wish your strawman to answer then you have to make up its answers yourself.

I await (hope for) actual evidence from you. I will expect none.

Evidence of what? That Abbott is a misogynist? I've already pointed out that I have no desire to gainsay the Prime Minister's eloquent presentation of that evidence.

Since you seem to be having trouble finding it, here's a convenient link for you:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8679342#post8679342​

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Ah yes. The 'because she said so' evidence again.

How about
His actual quotes (and)
Links to same (and)
Context (and)
An actual argument supporting your claims?

That's not too much to ask for on a forum dedicated to critical thinking.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Akhenaten]

Ah yes. The 'because she said so' evidence again.

No, you have it backwards. It's a case of 'she said it because it's so.'

How about
His actual quotes (and)
Links to same (and)
Context (and)
An actual argument supporting your claims?

Again?

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Hansard

That's not too much to ask for on a forum dedicated to critical thinking.

After the fifteenth time of asking the same question and then ignoring the answers, I'd say it's too much to ask on any sort of Forum.

Thanks in advance.

You're welcome.

 

[Wildy]

After the fifteeth time of asking the same question and then ignoring the answers, I'd say it's too much to ask on any sort of Forum.

I wonder if it becomes spamming at some point?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

No, you have it backwards. It's a case of 'she said it because it's so.'

Maybe. So prove it.

btw. That's some quality critical thinking you've got going there.

 

[Akhenaten]

That's not too much to ask for on a forum dedicated to critical thinking.

I might just revisit this for the sake of completeness.

There are a couple of points you seem to be overlooking:

1. You are correct to a large extent that this is a forum dedicated to critical thinking, but you seem to ignore the consequences of what that actually means.
   
   The idea of a discussion forum such as this is that one puts forward one's ideas and arguments and they are judged, critically, by the rest of the participants. The whole aim of any proponent in such a situation is therefore to have his or her point of view accepted by as many people as possible, preferably a majority, and in the best case scenario, unanimously.
   
   Now, keeping the above in mind, how would you rate the performance of your ideas and arguments? From where I sit it seems that they've not only failed to establish themselves in their own right, but they've actually garnered support for the point of view opposing your own.
   
   
   
2. Attempting to equivocate a refusal to acceed to your incessant and repetitive demands with a lack of critical thinking is a transparently futile device which has a tendency to insult the intelligence of those against whom it's employed.
   
   This further jeopardises the likelihood of your arguments succeeding, even if they'd had some merit to begin with.

 

[Akhenaten]

Maybe. So prove it.

Proofs are for mathematics and Rum.

I believe the word you're after is evidence, although for what I'm not entirely sure. What is it exactly that you believe I've claimed?

Don't forget a link to the post(s) in which any such claim was made.

btw. That's some quality critical thinking you've got going there.

As I've already mentioned, a refusal to respond to your demands for answers does not indicate a lack of critical thinking.

 

[bit_pattern]

I wonder if it becomes spamming at some point?

Schopenhauer would be proud

http://logicien.fr/victory-schopenh...9f3a4a4b3f50=cdacf11c9a7b718861a37f8f362465cb

 

[MG1962]

Maybe. So prove it.

btw. That's some quality critical thinking you've got going there.

Split the hair any finer and Higgs Bosons are going to look like beach balls

 

[Hallo Alfie]

So no evidence? Not anywhere?

I think we can safely assume again that Gillard has told a lie - or simply a disgusting and unsupportable accusation, and Abbott is innocent of the charge of misogyny.

In the absence of any evidence, what else other conclusions could be drawn?

 

[bit_pattern]

So no evidence? Not anywhere?

"Water, water everywhere but not a drop to drink"

 

[arthwollipot]

So no evidence? Not anywhere?

I think we can safely assume again that Gillard has told a lie - or simply a disgusting and unsupportable accusation, and Abbott is innocent of the charge of misogyny.

In the absence of any evidence, what else other conclusions could be drawn?

(edited - attacking the arguer. Again.)

 

[Shiner]

Gillard has told a lie

Abbott is innocent of the charge of misogyny.

.....(these are) unsupportable accusation(s)......

.... What other conclusion could be drawn?

ftfy.

Tia.

 

[Akhenaten]

So no evidence? Not anywhere?

Not if you shut your eyes really, really tight and stick your fingers in your ears there's not.

Funny way to go through life though.

I think we can safely assume again that Gillard has told a lie - or simply a disgusting and unsupportable accusation, and Abbott is innocent of the charge of misogyny.

We?

In the absence of any evidence, what else other conclusions could be drawn?

That haters gotta hate, no matter what the facts of the matter are.

 

[Morrigan]

So no evidence? Not anywhere?

Only if you wilfully ignore it. Evidence has been posted aplenty, you just chose to disregard and ignore it.

 

[Wildy]

I found this article on Crikey if anyone is interested in the whole "Macquarie's changing their definition of 'misogyny'" thing.