Mueller Investigation pt4

[Cabbage]

Oh dear, I thought you were just ignoring this part:

"Next, it is not fallacious to attack the bias/lack of knowledge/idiocy of someone purporting to provide an opinion about an article."

You did not comprehend it? Remedial class in understanding critical thinking coming up hot and ready:

It is not fallacious to attack the credibility, bias or credentials of someone offering an opinion of a subject. Indeed, it might be an ad hominem, but it is not fallacious. Indeed, what we see all too often is people inflicting appeals to false experts in lieu of actual analysis. And pointing that out is, as we already covered, not fallacious!

Remedial critical thinking 202.

Your faithfully Professor TBD

Well, it looks like we're in agreement, you just wanted to whine and bitch about me being correct.

Fine by me!

 

[The Big Dog]

I'd say an ad hominem argument might be a formal or informal fallacy depending on how it's used -- specifically, what conclusion it draws -- but you're dodging the fact that informal "arguments" also consist of premises and conclusions. If you could please identify the "reasoning error" you see in that post, we can argue about how to categorize it.

You'd say... rolls eyes...

I am not dodging anything, you used the definition of a formal fallacy to describe an informal fallacy, that is what you did, not The Big Dog.

let me help:

Attorneys general can order investigations
Bob ordered an investigation
Bob is the attorney general.

Formal fallacy or informal fallacy?

Attorneys general can order an investigation.
Whitaker is the attorney general
Whitaker can order an investigation

response: Whitaker was appointed by orange man and orangeman bad!

Formal fallacy or informal fallacy?

 

[The Big Dog]

Oh look, it's 90% wasted bandwidth and eye strain day again today.

How are this many of us so helplessly reflexive?

amen, sometimes i don't know why i bother, but i hold out hope that people can read my astute analysis and actually learn.

The Parable of the Sower is my guidestone, i guess.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Oh look, it's 90% wasted bandwidth and eye strain day again today.

How are this many of us so helplessly reflexive?

I think you must have meant:

So, how are this many of us so helplessly reflexive?

 

[WilliamSeger]

You'd say... rolls eyes...

I am not dodging anything...

Then why didn't you do what I asked? Here's the post in question; can you please state the syllogism you're claiming is fallacious:

It's probably worth pointing out that Big League Politics was founded by people who left Breitbart and the Daily Caller because those outlets were too liberal.

 

[abaddon]

amen, sometimes i don't know why i bother,

Bother with what? Posting "K" and pointless smilies? How hard is that?

but i hold out hope that people can read my astute analysis and actually learn.

Learn what? That your opinions are invariable wrong?

The Parable of the Sower is my guidestone, i guess.

Surely you must be aware of the opinion of most here and of your holy book. If one were to apply such superstitious nonsense, Trump would be burned at the stake.

 

[The Big Dog]

Then why didn't you do what I asked? Here's the post in question; can you please state the syllogism you're claiming is fallacious:

oopsie daisy! You 'accidentally' cut off the key part of my post. here it is:

"I am not dodging anything, you used the definition of a formal fallacy to describe an informal fallacy, that is what you did, not The Big Dog."

You do recognize that fallacious statements can be fallacious without being a syllogism, right?

Indeed I just gave you an example of one in the post which you just incredibly deleted!

Attorneys general can order an investigation.
Whitaker is the attorney general
Whitaker can order an investigation

response: Whitaker was appointed by orange man and orangeman bad!

Never thought I would have to give rudimentary logic lessons

 

[WilliamSeger]

oopsie daisy! You 'accidentally' cut off the key part of my post. here it is:

"I am not dodging anything, you used the definition of a formal fallacy to describe an informal fallacy, that is what you did, not The Big Dog."

You do recognize that fallacious statements can be fallacious without being a syllogism, right?

Indeed I just gave you an example of one in the post which you just incredibly deleted!



Never thought I would have to give rudimentary logic lessons

Your example "fallacious statement" is just an insulting subjective opinion, completely irrelevant to the argument presented. But I'd accept that that as an informal fallacy if it was really intended as a rebuttal to the stated argument, in which case there would be an implicit syllogism that's fallacious because it's simply irrelevant.

You still haven't explained what that has to do with this case. Your first "expert analysis" of the post in question was that "none of those organizations existed when he was in medical school and therefore it seems very fallacious." When pressed to make sense of that, you claimed that the fallacy was "attacking the messenger" but you still haven't explained why pointing out the history of the site owners is any kind of "attack." Where is the "reasoning error" you're claiming?

 

[Belz...]

oopsie daisy! You 'accidentally' cut off the key part of my post.

That is an oxymoron. There's no such thing as a key part of your posts.

 

[The Big Dog]

You still haven't explained what that has to do with this case.

Because the example you are bringing up indeed has literally nothing at all to do with the Mueller investigation.

/by the way, ad hominem falls under the general heading of informal fallacies of relevance

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Isn't arguing about arguments kinda like planning to make plans?
Chris B.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Because the example you are bringing up indeed has literally nothing at all to do with the Mueller investigation.

Correct: It came up in the thread about the mess in Virginia -- you brought it up here.

/by the way, ad hominem falls under the general heading of informal fallacies of relevance

And again, that depends on how it's used, and you're still dodging. I'm asking you to demonstrate the "reasoning error" in the post you claimed was "fallacious." That post does not appear to be either an argument or a rebuttal to an argument, but an assertion of historical fact. If you think it was irrelevant, that's your opinion, not a "fallacy." I think you hit the nail on the head when you said you weren't talking about "logical" argument.

 

[Belz...]

Isn't arguing about arguments kinda like planning to make plans?
Chris B.

Yeah but that's our main exports, on this forum.

 

[smartcooky]

You are aware that there are certain people who are in certain positions of power whereby their opinions become actions right?

Its a pity you don't understand this principle as regards your Dear Leader.

 

[smartcooky]

People do that to your arguments all of the time. Your ******** article you linked to the other day has been proven to be nothing other than dumbass conspiracy theory nonsense that you defended with rigor. Now it's being completely ignored because you couldn't find any credible evidence. Whenever you're confronted with facts you go into this tap dance of addressing an "audience" followed by 2-3 snide comments, that are all substance free. If that fails you project the fallacies you don't understand (tu quoque and ad hominem) on others to try and disregard the factual representation. While entertaining to point out the flaws, the conversation itself is garbage.

B b b b but.... the metadata!!

 

[smartcooky]

Remember the other day I posted a link to a letter Stomne's counsel sent to Congress?

Yeah, **** just got real:



You are welcome.

Wait... you're quoting Roger Stone and Matthew Whitaker to support your BS claim?

Oh puh-lease! Bring me a laughing dog....

 

[I Am The Scum]

Attorneys general can order investigations
Bob ordered an investigation
Bob is the attorney general.

Formal fallacy or informal fallacy?

Attorneys general can order an investigation.
Whitaker is the attorney general
Whitaker can order an investigation

response: Whitaker was appointed by orange man and orangeman bad!

Formal fallacy or informal fallacy?

Neither of these are arguments. None of the statements contain an informal fallacy.

Happy to help!

 

[a_unique_person]

As for The Big Dog's spin, I can only suggest that those who are so inclined read the thread for themselves to understand the context that he is either missing or trying to distract from and make up their own minds.

I was going to but decided it was time to clean my navel.

 

[PhantomWolf]

You kidding right? You do know he is the acting ATTORNEY GENERAL of the United States of America right???

He is literally the single person in the entire world that is best placed to order an investigation of this right? If he is concerned about it, that is literally the only thing that freaking matters at this point.

He is also literally the single person in the entire world that is best placed to order an investigation of Government wrong doing in 9/11 too, does that mean that if he got concerned over it being an inside job that such an investigation or belief would have any validity?

I swear sometimes... posts here make me laugh out loud....

Yes, your posts are often hilarious, though I doubt you meant them to be.

 

[Travis]

Ahh, Mensch. With that said... you really, really don't have to fall for believing something like this to be true just because you want it to be true. I would recommend making a note of the claim and just... letting it lie, for now, unless you want to seriously investigate it. Don't depend on it without further evidence, in other words.

I am content to just say that I'll believe it when other people verify it.



I wasn't familiar with any of the players in that thread and, man, it was quite the twitter rabbit hole that got me there.