Iraq, post-Saddam

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anything said by Thomas Friedman on the subject of Iraq is automatically worthless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, he's a clown. But even Bozo stumbles on to something apt every once in awhile.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those quotes are hilarious, definitely emailing that around. I suppose Dionne Warwick randomly predicts some events correctly by a combination of volume and luck; but I'm still not taking it seriously if someone believes she stumbled onto something.

[/ QUOTE ]

then you dont understand the essence of the ad hominen fallacy

[/ QUOTE ]
Since he's not claiming the argument is false based on who is saying them, and recognizes that perhaps she may have got some things right by luck, I think he understands it just fine.

[/ QUOTE ]

"I'm still not taking it seriously if someone believes she stumbled onto something. " what part of that makes you think hes not claiming her arguments are false because DW said them?"

Try again, stalker

[/ QUOTE ]

The key is to cut off the needed attention. It will work.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anything said by Thomas Friedman on the subject of Iraq is automatically worthless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, he's a clown. But even Bozo stumbles on to something apt every once in awhile.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those quotes are hilarious, definitely emailing that around. I suppose Dionne Warwick randomly predicts some events correctly by a combination of volume and luck; but I'm still not taking it seriously if someone believes she stumbled onto something.

[/ QUOTE ]

then you dont understand the essence of the ad hominen fallacy

[/ QUOTE ]
Since he's not claiming the argument is false based on who is saying them, and recognizes that perhaps she may have got some things right by luck, I think he understands it just fine.

[/ QUOTE ]

"I'm still not taking it seriously if someone believes she stumbled onto something. " what part of that makes you think hes not claiming her arguments are false because DW said them?"

Try again, stalker

[/ QUOTE ]

The key is to cut off the needed attention. It will work.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I often reminisce about those days when he pretended to have me on ignore.

[Poofler]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anything said by Thomas Friedman on the subject of Iraq is automatically worthless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, he's a clown. But even Bozo stumbles on to something apt every once in awhile.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those quotes are hilarious, definitely emailing that around. I suppose Dionne Warwick randomly predicts some events correctly by a combination of volume and luck; but I'm still not taking it seriously if someone believes she stumbled onto something.

[/ QUOTE ]

then you dont understand the essence of the ad hominen fallacy

[/ QUOTE ]
Since he's not claiming the argument is false based on who is saying them, and recognizes that perhaps she may have got some things right by luck, I think he understands it just fine.

[/ QUOTE ]

"I'm still not taking it seriously if someone believes she stumbled onto something. " what part of that makes you think hes not claiming her arguments are false because DW said them?"

[/ QUOTE ]

How about, all of it? I think you are a little too eager to paint me into a corner for the sake of arguing. Her predictions could very well be true, but because of her track record, I take any *specific* prediction lightly as an authority in and of itself. There is a difference between "not take seriously" (probable) and "false" (absolute), isn't there?

[ShakeZula06]

What part of this:
[ QUOTE ]
I suppose Dionne Warwick randomly predicts some events correctly by a combination of volume and luck

[/ QUOTE ]
Don't you understand you troll?

Also to heavilyArmed/FlFishOn:

You don't reply to me because you'd rather be intellectually dishonest and just ignore the rebuttal of your positions. I suppose that's probably part of the reason your first account was banned.
[ QUOTE ]
stalker

[/ QUOTE ]
lol, this is a pretty funny claim. I don't know if you know this, but this is a pretty small forum. I read all the posts in the threads I post in, so naturally I'm going to be reading a lot of your posts. As I said in the other thread, don't flatter yourself. If you simply didn't post so bad I wouldn't have to rebutt everything you posted.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
There is a difference between "not take seriously" (probable) and "false" (absolute), isn't there?


[/ QUOTE ]
There is, but I don't think he understands the essence of the ad hominem fallacy.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is a difference between "not take seriously" (probable) and "false" (absolute), isn't there?


[/ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]

No, there isnt. In both you dismiss them as being untrue and dont give due consideration to the content because of the speaker/author.

Not even a good try.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is a difference between "not take seriously" (probable) and "false" (absolute), isn't there?


[/ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]

No, there isnt. In both you dismiss them as being untrue and dont give due consideration to the content because of the speaker/author.

Not even a good try.

[/ QUOTE ]
First off, why did you erase my reply when you quoted me?

It's so funny to see you argue this. He is not dismissing claims as untrue, in fact e admitted that some might be true. Quit arguing just fort the hell of it, it tends to make you look like a fool.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is a difference between "not take seriously" (probable) and "false" (absolute), isn't there?


[/ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]

No, there isnt. In both you dismiss them as being untrue and dont give due consideration to the content because of the speaker/author.

Not even a good try.

[/ QUOTE ]
First off, why did you erase my reply when you quoted me?

It's so funny to see you argue this. He is not dismissing claims as untrue, in fact e admitted that some might be true. Quit arguing just fort the hell of it, it tends to make you look like a fool.

[/ QUOTE ]

He was dismissing DW's claims as unworthy of further consideration. If you want to distinguish that with "untrue" then you can play semantics all you want. Ad hominen is dismissal of an authors' position without further consideration. You are the one arguing for arguments sake, or dont understand logical fallacies, just as you dont understand "correlation != causation" but play that card whenever you dont have a real argument, because you learned it in this forum and it sounds catchy.

[Poofler]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is a difference between "not take seriously" (probable) and "false" (absolute), isn't there?


[/ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]

No, there isnt. In both you dismiss them as being untrue and dont give due consideration to the content because of the speaker/author.

Not even a good try.

[/ QUOTE ]
First off, why did you erase my reply when you quoted me?

It's so funny to see you argue this. He is not dismissing claims as untrue, in fact e admitted that some might be true. Quit arguing just fort the hell of it, it tends to make you look like a fool.

[/ QUOTE ]

He was dismissing DW's claims as unworthy of further consideration. If you want to distinguish that with "untrue" then you can play semantics all you want. Ad hominen is dismissal of an authors' position without further consideration.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are absolutely ridiculous. You've managed to wiggle your way through your own semantics minefield in a mere three posts. But you hit a couple on the way. The crux of this is that you apparently know what I meant better than myself. We here appreciate the service of clarifying our opinions for us. In fact, you should post for me, I'll just end up mistating my intended position, and you won't. Insert your "You're right. I should." comment here.

"Untrue" is your own semantic invention. You just backpedelled from that a little bit, while still firing "semantics" shots. Can I hold you to "dismiss opinion without further consideration"? Is that the door you'll finally stand behind? Good.

"Not take seriously" != "dismiss without further consideration". If that is what you intepreted it to mean, that is not what I intended it to mean. But, thank you for clarifying my opinion for me, you're golden. I can tell you that I said it to imply a heavy skepticism of the initial assertion because of the author, not to mean any backing argument should be "dismissed" because of the author, or that his claims are unworthy of being heard. Replace "not take seriously" with "skeptical" if you'd like, as that's much closer to what I meant than what you have said. If you don't think you approach pure assertion with skepticism, based on the author, you're dellusional. My 7 year old says you can prove the theorem using this ___ approach. Rosie O'Donnell says this ____ is the best way forward for the Middle East. This guy with just a PhD in English says this ____ is the best technique for getting into orbit around Mars in a spacecraft. All of those assertions are not backed with arguments, and require even further clarification of what the conclusion means. What does "best" mean, for whom? TF's quoted claim is a vague assertion, without backing argument in the post. I'm not taking the above assertions "seriously" if their qualifications are all that is given in place of an actual argument. I begin skeptical that the missing supporting argument is correct, but when it arises, I'll refute the argument, not the person. That is not an ad hominem.

But, please feel free to ignore most of the above, reassert yourself with different words, and lastly don't forget to tell me what I meant. And, if you want to cry ad hominem, look at the guy who said "Anything said by Thomas Friedman on the subject of Iraq is automatically worthless." He explicitly dismissed any argument, given or not, because of the author. But keep trying to fit a square peg into a round hole when square hole was a couple posts up.