Politics And Current Events

[CBear3]

The reason this keeps happening is because he appeals to Nazi's, not that he is one.
How much that distinction matters to you is your own personal evaluation

[MalkinIsMyHomeboy]

the fact that he/they would post something (anything, really) that they didn’t produce themselves is…not surprising but still a “what the **** are you doing” moment

also, people defending him on here is certainly something. Trump has done nothing but worsen and splinter the country in the last 8 years. Biden isn’t great but Trump is actively horrible

[nocera]

And yet as we get closer to the election, I'm believing more and more that Trump will win.

[AuthorTony]

And yet as we get closer to the election, I'm believing more and more that Trump will win.

Same. Two years ago I thought Trump had zero chance. But now, with Biden getting 100% of the blame for everything from groceries to electric bills and the war in Palestine, I'm expecting enough D voters to stay home and not vote. If that happens, the orange chimp coasts to victory.

[RonnieFranchise]

Alice for President

[faftorial]

[MalkinIsMyHomeboy]

really not helping the “republicans are in cahoots with the Russians” narrative

[Kaiser]

Putin still trying to reach the antiwoke alpha male 2A freedom fighter. Guy loves building his foundations on dry sand.

[King Colby]

the fact that he/they would post something (anything, really) that they didn’t produce themselves is…not surprising but still a “what the **** are you doing” moment

also, people defending him on here is certainly something. Trump has done nothing but worsen and splinter the country in the last 8 years. Biden isn’t great but Trump is actively horrible

What people

[Shyster]

Come on man. I know you understand what a good source is. From the first line of what the Cato Institute describes itself as being it makes it plain as day that there is a strong bias towards a certain way of approaching things. Add in that the Koch brothers helped found and back it and you have something even a freshman in college wouldn’t use as a source.

You need the logic book much more than you need the prices book.

[count2infinity]

Debate lords love logical fallacies...

[NTP66]

*chef’s kiss*

[crusherstasiak]

what's the name of the logical fallacy for someone for whom citing logical fallacy is their primary method of arguing?

[Pavel Bure]

Come on man. I know you understand what a good source is. From the first line of what the Cato Institute describes itself as being it makes it plain as day that there is a strong bias towards a certain way of approaching things. Add in that the Koch brothers helped found and back it and you have something even a freshman in college wouldn’t use as a source.

You need the logic book much more than you need the prices book.

Is this where I say I’m rubber and you’re glue? Because you’re using the same terrible arguing you dismissed me for.

[Shyster]

Is this where I say I’m rubber and you’re glue? Because you’re using the same terrible arguing you dismissed me for.

How so?

You dismissed a book out of hand because it was published by an organization that you assert is biased (genetic fallacy) and was co-founded by one of the Koch brothers (association fallacy). Neither of those necessarily means that anything in the book is incorrect or invalid, which is why both of those are informal logical fallacies. I just pointed that out.

And for those of you who might be unfamiliar, the fact that an argument is fallacious means that it's a bad argument that does not prove whatever point one is tying to make. You might as well crap in your hand and throw it, because fallacious arguments and poop-flinging are equally ineffective at proving a point. Sure, people make fallacious arguments all of the time. Look around and you'll see ad hominem attacks, guilt by association, and tu quoque arguments all over the place, because most people don't know better, or don't care. Still doesn't make any of those good arguments.

[tifosi77]

[NTP66]

Love that skit.

[Shyster]

If any of you are wondering if I do this in real life, I've cited Logic for Lawyers : A Guide to Clear Legal Thinking by the late Hon. Ruggero J. Aldisert in more than half a dozen cases, and there have been several cases where I filed briefs where I set out categorical syllogisms to show the argument. Or, in one case, used a categorical syllogism to show that the plaintiff's argument suffered from the formal fallacy of the undistributed middle. Won that case.

[tifosi77]

I do not think anyone was wondering that, no.

[count2infinity]

I suggest touching grass every so often. It’s nice.

[Pavel Bure]

If any of you are wondering if I do this in real life, I've cited Logic for Lawyers : A Guide to Clear Legal Thinking by the late Hon. Ruggero J. Aldisert in more than half a dozen cases, and there have been several cases where I filed briefs where I set out categorical syllogisms to show the argument. Or, in one case, used a categorical syllogism to show that the plaintiff's argument suffered from the formal fallacy of the undistributed middle. Won that case.

I would just expect more from a great legal mind that has argued in front of the PA Supreme Court on more than one occasion, than to throw out a biased Think Tank piece and act like we should learn something from it.

[Shyster]

I suggest touching grass every so often. It’s nice.

Telling someone to "touch grass" is also a fallacy in that it does not respond to the merits of what someone is saying.

[Troy Loney]

I don't get it, is the premise here that we're not supposed to dismiss arguments/viewpoints from biased sources?

[dodint]

If you spend enough time on semantics we never have to worry about the substance.

[count2infinity]

I suggest touching grass every so often. It’s nice.

Telling someone to "touch grass" is also a fallacy in that it does not respond to the merits of what someone is saying.

Oh… don’t you worry your sweet little heart. I had no plans of responding to any merits (or lack thereof) of what you’re saying.