Implications of th Secession of Texas

1234568»

Comments

  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,250member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


    Why would you assume 'involuntary_serf' is a Republican? I can't say with any authority, but his arguments sound pretty libertarian to me.



    He would like to assume that because ad-hom reasoning wants to attack who the person is instead of what they present.
  • jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    He would like to assume that because ad-hom reasoning wants to attack who the person is instead of what they present.



    So now you're saying that implying someone is a republican or has a similar ideology is an insult?
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,250member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jimmac View Post


    So now you're saying that implying someone is a republican or has a similar ideology is an insult?



    I'm saying what many have failed to grasp despite being told by numerous sources, addressing what the poster IS or what you think their intent happens to be INSTEAD of addressing their argument or point is an ad-hom.



    Ad hominem argument is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or attacking the person who proposed the argument (personal attack) in an attempt to discredit the argument. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it.



    There is no reason to even wonder about his political affiliation. It brings nothing to the argument. It is no different then saying you probably think this because you are black or a woman.



    A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form:



    Source A makes claim X

    There is something objectionable about Source A

    Therefore claim X is false




    Something objectionable includes... he's a Republican, he's not a Democrat, we all know he's not really __________, we all know he really is ______________, you lost an election, I don't like your tone, etc, etc.



    The only reason to ask or focus on the traits of a person making is argument is to gather or present evidence for claimed ad-homs.



    So when you say something is wrong because someone is a Republican or better still when you go to ad hominem circumstantial and say it is wrong because an election was lost, it does not address or refute evidence, but addresses the person.



    It may not be the type of personal attack that gets people reported or banned, but it is very bad debate form.
  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    I'm saying what many have failed to grasp despite being told by numerous sources, addressing what the poster IS or what you think their intent happens to be INSTEAD of addressing their argument or point is an ad-hom.



    Ad hominem argument is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or attacking the person who proposed the argument (personal attack) in an attempt to discredit the argument. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it.



    There is no reason to even wonder about his political affiliation. It brings nothing to the argument. It is no different then saying you probably think this because you are black or a woman.



    A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form:



    Source A makes claim X

    There is something objectionable about Source A

    Therefore claim X is false




    Something objectionable includes... he's a Republican, he's not a Democrat, we all know he's not really __________, we all know he really is ______________, you lost an election, I don't like your tone, etc, etc.



    The only reason to ask or focus on the traits of a person making is argument is to gather or present evidence for claimed ad-homs.



    So when you say something is wrong because someone is a Republican or better still when you go to ad hominem circumstantial and say it is wrong because an election was lost, it does not address or refute evidence, but addresses the person.



    It may not be the type of personal attack that gets people reported or banned, but it is very bad debate form.



    Bravo. You knocked it out of the park.
  • jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    I'm saying what many have failed to grasp despite being told by numerous sources, addressing what the poster IS or what you think their intent happens to be INSTEAD of addressing their argument or point is an ad-hom.



    Ad hominem argument is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or attacking the person who proposed the argument (personal attack) in an attempt to discredit the argument. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it.



    There is no reason to even wonder about his political affiliation. It brings nothing to the argument. It is no different then saying you probably think this because you are black or a woman.



    A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form:



    Source A makes claim X

    There is something objectionable about Source A

    Therefore claim X is false




    Something objectionable includes... he's a Republican, he's not a Democrat, we all know he's not really __________, we all know he really is ______________, you lost an election, I don't like your tone, etc, etc.



    The only reason to ask or focus on the traits of a person making is argument is to gather or present evidence for claimed ad-homs.



    So when you say something is wrong because someone is a Republican or better still when you go to ad hominem circumstantial and say it is wrong because an election was lost, it does not address or refute evidence, but addresses the person.



    It may not be the type of personal attack that gets people reported or banned, but it is very bad debate form.



    Quote:

    It may not be the type of personal attack that gets people reported or banned, but it is very bad debate form



    To ask a question?
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,250member
    Five-thirty eight has an interesting bit noting that while the Fed could intervene in a secession, that Texas was given the right to sub-divide into smaller states when it was admitted into the union.



    Snopes



    Messing with Texas



    This is the sort of stuff that I really enjoy from 538.com
  • franksargentfranksargent Posts: 4,694member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    Five-thirty eight has an interesting bit noting that while the Fed could intervene in a secession, that Texas was given the right to sub-divide into smaller states when it was admitted into the union.



    Snopes



    Messing with Texas



    This is the sort of stuff that I really enjoy from 538.com



    Fuck, TX 66666



    Let then secede.



    Let them have their five-way.



    Who in their right mind gives a shit.



    Oh I forgot, The Hammer gives a big old stinking shit-bomb.



    2003 Texas redistricting



    Guaranteed all R's and a crazy patchwork quilt of new states to boot.
Sign In or Register to comment.