January Stundie Nominations

Sabretooth said:
I think we have a winner! :D

The month is only 1/3rd the way through, and already we have 3 quality Stundies entries from Tempesta. Rookie of the Year honors perhaps?

:bigclap
Click to expand...

I'm not sure which is funnier, the fact that he posted such a great Stundie to start with, or the defence of the post he puts up when his ridiculousness is pointed out to him.
 
Sabretooth said:
I think we have a winner! :D

The month is only 1/3rd the way through, and already we have 3 quality Stundies entries from Tempesta. Rookie of the Year honors perhaps?

:bigclap
Click to expand...

Not so fast! ergo is hard on the chase!
Plus, I foresee a wealth of fine Rookies in feb, mar, apr, jun.... I agree however that tempesta is Rookie of the First Third of January :D
 
Oystein said:
I agree however that tempesta is Rookie of the First Third of January :D
Click to expand...

And he's raising his game.

tempesta29 said:
Yet despite your theory, acceleration remains constant. If momentum were increasing exponentially then so would measurable acceleration.
Click to expand...

Yes, folks, as the accumulated debris gets heavier, its acceleration increases. Apparently Galileo was wrong.

Dave
 
Oystein said:
The problem is, such prediction come true so fast, we never get the chance to contact Randi and work out the details of the challenge. :(
Click to expand...



So you're saying we're too psychic to win the prize? I have to admit, that's an excuse I don't think I've seen before! :D
 
DavidJames said:
From the politics forum:The most recent Republican VP candidate. One of the leading candidates for the next presidential election. One of the main voices of the Tea Party who has personally taken credit for must of the recent success of Tea Party supported candidates in the last election is the same, in your mind, as an actor, based on what he said 12 years ago.
Click to expand...

I second this nomination. I support every Stundie nomination I get (though the last one I got was from a truther for not knowing 9/11 was an inside job).

However, I would appreciate it if the eminent psychiatrist, Dr. James here would show me where "the voices of the Sponge Demons that live in my walls" appear on the top 100 most influential politicians list and why a mentally ill person would choose to open fire on a crowd of civilians based on where the voices place on that list.
 
Oystein said:
Not so fast! ergo is hard on the chase!
Plus, I foresee a wealth of fine Rookies in feb, mar, apr, jun.... I agree however that tempesta is Rookie of the First Third of January :D
Click to expand...

Indeed...we have 2 performing mental backflips to wiggle around all sorts of nonsense to avoid their own stupidity.
 
has anybody else noticed that the truthers are getting more and more cartoonish in the last couple years? It's as if everybody even half rational among them has realized that even if they hate the government and would never trust them, 9-11 was most probably not an inside job.

All that's left are the hard-core deniers.
 
Oystein said:
Not so fast! ergo is hard on the chase!
Plus, I foresee a wealth of fine Rookies in feb, mar, apr, jun.... I agree however that tempesta is Rookie of the First Third of January :D
Click to expand...

Agreed! :D

I want to put both of them on ignore...but man, the funnies just may force me to keep them around.

It's almost as if they are Jammy alter-egos...but with the same dispostion. :D


January is shaping up to be a great month for Stundies. ;)
 
Horatius said:
And while we're at it, let's nominate this one from mfrey0118:
I can't help but wonder how many of these government-supporters would still be such if they knew most of those in alleged "authority" over us are crazy Luciferians who partake in bizarre and unconscionable rituals to maintain their power?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Oh come on.

Who doesn't know that?
 
grandmastershek said:
""If animal rights groups were consistent--they would be...conducting a 'protect the polio virus' campaign" (Ken Ham, Creationist Museum Director.)
http://www.facebook.com/aigkenham?v=wall
Click to expand...

Well, if right-to-life was consistent they would all be anti-death penalty.

I also wonder which of the two geneologies of Jesus contained in the New Testament Mr. Ham considers correct. (fundementalists maintain that one is through Mary , the other through Joseph, but Joe ain't the Dad and besides, they BOTH read as through Mary)


Humans are nothing if not inconsistent.
 
jaydeehess said:
Well, if right-to-life was consistent they would all be anti-death penalty.
Click to expand...

The first is a slippery slope argument, ie if any nonhumans have rights, then all nonhumans have rights, and the same rights. That is in general fallacious but not necessarily so (though it is here).

Yours though is just plain wrong, being that death penalty advocates are for allowing execution of the convicted guilty while pro-lifers are against ending the life of beings that, by definition, cannot be guilty of anything. Notice that pro-lifers that reach their convictions from a literal unrestricted "right to life," like the Catholic Church, are anti-death penalty.

I'm not a pro-lifer, but mischaracterizing their position to score cheap political points is pretty low.
 
Shangrila said:
The first is a slippery slope argument, ie if any nonhumans have rights, then all nonhumans have rights, and the same rights. That is in general fallacious but not necessarily so (though it is here).

Yours though is just plain wrong, being that death penalty advocates are for allowing execution of the convicted guilty while pro-lifers are against ending the life of beings that, by definition, cannot be guilty of anything. Notice that pro-lifers that reach their convictions from a literal unrestricted "right to life," like the Catholic Church, are anti-death penalty.

I'm not a pro-lifer, but mischaracterizing their position to score cheap political points is pretty low.
Click to expand...

I see no distinction between your characterization of the animal rights issue being a slippery slope , allow rights to one non-human you must allow rights to all non-humans, and the idea that allow rights to a living fetus and you must allow right to life to all living humans.


If you are to say that animal rights have a dividing line dependant on the level of self awareness of the organism then that is equivalent to the assigning a dividing line on the right to life of a human based upon guilt of specified crimes.

100 years ago the death penalty was assigned to those found guilty of horse theft in some jurisdictions. Its been a while but if I checked Leviticus what crimes would I see there with the DP as punishment? The debate still rages where that line should be drawn, rape, premeditated murder, serial murder.
It seems that slope is sliding towards no DP.

I was not attempting to chalk up political points. I was pointing to the absurdity of Ham's position by highlighting a similar divison.
That you saw this as an 'fallacious' is somewhat astounding to me.

You began by explaining the dividing line for animal rights that could be moved, and then defended death penalty by outlining a dividing line that can be demonstrated to have moved.

In the case of guilt or non-guilt you are making a distinction between the future value to society of a human, another dividing line. However there is one other person involved in the issue of a fetus, the mother. I am personally against abortion except in the case of rape, incest and demonstrated danger to the physical health of the mother. That's MY dividing line.
I also favour the DP, in the case of proven serial murder. My other dividing line.

In the case of a virus though it would be debatable that a strand of RNA is actually 'alive'.
 
Last edited:
jaydeehess said:
I see no distinction between your characterization of the animal rights issue being a slippery slope , allow rights to one non-human you must allow rights to all non-humans, and the idea that allow rights to a living fetus and you must allow right to life to all living humans.
Click to expand...

What in the world are you trying to say? The rights of a fetus, if it has any, derive from the rights of humans, not the other way around.

And my entire point was that pro-lifers do not necessarily need to argue for fetuses to have a unrestricted right to life. (or rather that humans have an unrestricted right to life, and so fetuses being human do as well) The Roman Catholic Church does, and they do oppose the Death Penalty. Other pro-lifers are free to derive fetuses' right to life from a human right to life when not guilty.

Now from your post, I don't find it clear if you are using a fallacy to point out another fallacy, or if you actually think it to be sound, but if you are, you are using a particularly poor example, as it is a strawman, not any sort of logical fallacy.
 
A political stundie from Representiative Steve King

"As I deliberate and I listen to the gentleman from Tennessee, I have to make the point that when you challenge the mendacity of the leader or another member, there is an opportunity to rise to a point of order, there is an opportunity to make a motion to take the gentleman's words down, however many of the members are off on other endeavors and I would make the point that the leader and the speaker have established their integrity and their mendacity for years in this Congress and I don't believe it can be effectively challenged and those who do so actually cast aspersions on themselves by making wild accusations," King said.
Click to expand...

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/rep-steve-king-accuses-gop-leaders-of-mendacity.php

You keep using that word, but i don't think it means what you think it means.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom