I'm going to skip reading past the post I'm replying to because it holds a special place in my small, hard, dark heart. I officially feel trolled. *sniff* It's such a glorious day!
As far as who elses I've requested to see? Voting during an election is the only place I've had the opportunity to hire/fire someone, so only those running for presidency.
In my OPINION, I think that any requirements for elected PUBLIC office should be PUBLICLY available for scrutiny. Regardless if it's residency, citizenship, education, income or even who they had sex with last night. Anything that could be used to verify that those requirements have been met should also be available to the public.
I'm going to skip reading past the post I'm replying to because it holds a special place in my small, hard, dark heart. I officially feel trolled. *sniff* It's such a glorious day!
As far as who elses I've requested to see? Voting during an election is the only place I've had the opportunity to hire/fire someone, so only those running for presidency.
In my OPINION, I think that any requirements for elected PUBLIC office should be PUBLICLY available for scrutiny. Regardless if it's residency, citizenship, education, income or even who they had sex with last night. Anything that could be used to verify that those requirements have been met should also be available to the public.
Yet another one that needs to learn what a troll is. Lame.
I see you answered even though you misinterpreted it as trolling.
So how many times have you voted? Did you request to see every other Birth Certificate or just this one?
I'll make a deal with all those calling me a troll. Please prove it by the definition of what a "troll" is and I will never post in OT again.
That should be hard for the Conservatorium to resist.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 04-27-2011).]
IP: Logged
09:46 PM
Rallaster Member
Posts: 9105 From: Indy southside, IN Registered: Jul 2009
Yet another one that needs to learn what a troll is. Lame.
I see you answered even though you misinterpreted it as trolling.
So how many times have you voted? Did you request to see every other Birth Certificate or just this one?
You kinda come across like Pyrthian, playing devils advocate to try and get a rile out of someone, or maybe you're trying to get people to see the other(your) side?
Hmm... I haven't had to ask, others have done it for me and the candidates had complied. I've only had the privilege to vote in 2 presidential elections, and both times I voted Libertarian/Republican.
You kinda come across like Pyrthian, playing devils advocate to try and get a rile out of someone, or maybe you're trying to get people to see the other(your) side?
Hmm... I haven't had to ask, others have done it for me and the candidates had complied. I've only had the privilege to vote in 2 presidential elections, and both times I voted Libertarian/Republican.
He plays Devil's Advocate, but it's less of a "Look at my POV" and more of a "Quit blindly following what your peers say."
That is, if I understand it correctly.
Newf's philosophy, and again I hope I'm not speaking out of turn, is that it's okay to have views, even if they are very extreme.... as long as you've taken the time to step back and see all of the angles. You're fair in your approach, and not just one-sided.
So, he does play Devil's Advocate. He wants people to play it fair, so sometimes interjects some questions to hopefully make you think.
I think this is what he's about.
He's definitely no troll though.
IP: Logged
10:22 PM
Rallaster Member
Posts: 9105 From: Indy southside, IN Registered: Jul 2009
Oh great, now both him and Palin were born in the same little town. And just think, if Hawaii had never been given statehood, the word birther would never have been invented. Is birther even in the Funk & Wagnall yet?
BTW, if you download the East African Font from MS, it will match the one that was used on this release.
[This message has been edited by partfiero (edited 04-27-2011).]
You kinda come across like Pyrthian, playing devils advocate to try and get a rile out of someone, or maybe you're trying to get people to see the other(your) side?
Hmm... I haven't had to ask, others have done it for me and the candidates had complied. I've only had the privilege to vote in 2 presidential elections, and both times I voted Libertarian/Republican.
I'll accept Devils Advocate, I honestly don't question only to rile people, more to make themselves question or find out if they have thought it through or can back their opinions up. I find I've learned more when people have questioned why I have certain opinions or thoughts instead of just agreeing to agree. I think some people think that being challenged or questioned is an automatic attack or afront and maybe some do it or that reason by I don't, not that I can say I never have but for the most part I like to see what makes people tick.
IMO playing Devils Advocate at times does not equal trolling but I may be in the minority in that thought.
quote
Originally posted by Rallaster:
maybe you're trying to get people to see the other(your) side?
I think seeing the other side of any arguement is paramount even when you think the other side is wrong. Sometimes it's tough to do but most times you come away with more respect and a better understanding of your own and the other parties viewpoint.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 04-27-2011).]
He plays Devil's Advocate, but it's less of a "Look at my POV" and more of a "Quit blindly following what your peers say."
That is, if I understand it correctly.
Newf's philosophy, and again I hope I'm not speaking out of turn, is that it's okay to have views, even if they are very extreme.... as long as you've taken the time to step back and see all of the angles. You're fair in your approach, and not just one-sided.
So, he does play Devil's Advocate. He wants people to play it fair, so sometimes interjects some questions to hopefully make you think.
Well dag'um I reckon I earned two ratings from it! One neg and one +. I'll take it!
You're welcome.
I'm just looking out for myself though, ya know. If the left gains extra EXP points and levels up a few times when the right takes over, I need to make sure I ain't hated by all
IP: Logged
10:56 PM
PFF
System Bot
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
Was there any mention by the White House how this document was created? If we take it as a given that it's genuine, it's obviously a reproduction of the long form, not a scan of the long form itself. Was it made from a paper original? Microfiche? The video claiming it to be a fake points out some interesting things that could be explained by the reproduction method, genuine or not.
You wouldn't get the white shadows around the lettering on the original document. At best it appears to be a transparent background original that was over-layed on the green and white security background.
IP: Logged
11:04 PM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
No, but you might want to amend that to read the greatest day of your life in regards to politics. Surely, in 50 years you've had days a bit more satisfying than this one.
No, it has nothing at all to do with me being right or a "told ya' so" moment.
It is about the subjectivness of truth. Truth ain't as much about truth as it is about belief.
You & I have debated this many times. You believe truth is solid like a rock. I believe it is more like water.
A chance for that to prove itself out in the here & now with all these different particapants providing the variables right infront of my eyes makes it a great moment in my life. Ofcoarse, I don't get out much.......
[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 04-27-2011).]
Was there any mention by the White House how this document was created? If we take it as a given that it's genuine, it's obviously a reproduction of the long form, not a scan of the long form itself. Was it made from a paper original? Microfiche? The video claiming it to be a fake points out some interesting things that could be explained by the reproduction method, genuine or not.
You wouldn't get the white shadows around the lettering on the original document. At best it appears to be a transparent background original that was over-layed on the green and white security background.
My assumption was that they overlaid the document with the green and white lines for security purposes... after scanning. They went around the lettering on purpose. Is my assumption flawed? I really don't know how this kinda thing works.
IP: Logged
11:12 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
Notice how the guy in the video says "I'm not an expert". Take him at his word on that.
It's called OCR (optical character recognition). Acrobat and many scanners do this by default. It detects letters and words on the page and allows you to add selectable text to the document without having to type it in manually.
Notice how when you hide a layer, it's white behind it? If it was truly forged, you wouldn't see any of the background missing. It's white because it doesn't know what's behind the text BECAUSE THE TEXT WAS THERE WHEN IT WAS SCANNED.
bah I'm not sure why I even bothered with this post, some will believe whatever it is they want to and no amount of proof will satisfy them.
I keep forgetting how they explain away the newspaper announcement and the various Republicans that have agreed that Obama is a natural born citizen. Men on the moon....pfffft yeah right!
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 04-27-2011).]
IP: Logged
11:54 PM
IMSA GT Member
Posts: 10268 From: California Registered: Aug 2007
Notice how the guy in the video says "I'm not an expert". Take him at his word on that.
It's called OCR (optical character recognition). Acrobat and many scanners do this by default. It detects letters and words on the page and allows you to add selectable text to the document without having to type it in manually.
Notice how when you hide a layer, it's white behind it? If it was truly forged, you wouldn't see any of the background missing. It's white because it doesn't know what's behind the text BECAUSE THE TEXT WAS THERE WHEN IT WAS SCANNED.
Hmm, when I unmask the layers and ungroup everything, I am left with this which does show separate items:
Not only are there issues with a layered/altered image. But the number on the certificate has been proven to not be correct. They have a proven valid birth certificate from twins born a day or two after him and the number sequence doesn't correlate. It shows Obama as having been born after them, their #'s are lower than his... his should be lower than theirs.
IP: Logged
11:59 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
Notice how the guy in the video says "I'm not an expert". Take him at his word on that.
It's called OCR (optical character recognition). Acrobat and many scanners do this by default. It detects letters and words on the page and allows you to add selectable text to the document without having to type it in manually.
Notice how when you hide a layer, it's white behind it? If it was truly forged, you wouldn't see any of the background missing. It's white because it doesn't know what's behind the text BECAUSE THE TEXT WAS THERE WHEN IT WAS SCANNED.
That doesn't explain the white around the lettering when the layer is in place. Nor does it explain why OCR was even necessary. Not knowing how it was reproduced we can't tell, but if it was an original paper copy that was scanned, no OCR would be required - it would be a single flat image with no layers. Like you said, OCR allows text to be selected. Why would you need to do that?
Your points don't answer any questions, but they do pose new ones.
IP: Logged
11:59 PM
Apr 28th, 2011
kwagner Member
Posts: 4257 From: Pittsburgh, PA Registered: Apr 2005
OCR might do something like that, depending on scanner and software, but it would most likely be a logical block (eg the entire date, not the whole date minus one number off the end). Whether it's authentic or not is a question beyond my pay grade, so I'll just say it's definitely odd Interesting to follow. As for this tidbit from avengador's one post:
quote
What’s not plausible is that the government spent all this time manufacturing Obama’s birth certificate only to commit the laughably rookie mistake of exporting the layers from Photoshop, or whatever photo editing software they are meant to have used.
Does anyone else remember a few years back when all of those "blacked out" documents were released in pdf, until it was found out the blackout was just a layer and you could read the whole thing unedited? I wouldn't put rookie mistakes past anyone. I know I've had some forehead-slappers at times. Here's the same thing that just happened a week ago: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id...nd_science-security/ There was a whole string of them a few years ago: http://www.wired.com/threat...8/05/secret-data-in/
That doesn't explain the white around the lettering when the layer is in place. Nor does it explain why OCR was even necessary. Not knowing how it was reproduced we can't tell, but if it was an original paper copy that was scanned, no OCR would be required - it would be a single flat image with no layers. Like you said, OCR allows text to be selected. Why would you need to do that?
Your points don't answer any questions, but they do pose new ones.
Thanks for making my point that no amount of evidence is satisfactory to the conspiracy theorists.
Why would anyone have to publicly show such information when not required? .
Ask John Kerry. His lack of candor about his military records was a big part f the issues that cost him the election.
As I said many months ago, Obama had everything to gain (votes) and nothing to lose (credibility) by putting this to rest when it first came up. I suspect, that it had less to do with Trump and more to do with a new Chief of Staff (Daley) and David Axelrod, the newer powers that have the President's ear now that Rhamm is gone. Not to mention the very recent polls showing how many people had doubts about Obama's birth certificate, all coupled with falling poll #s, woke up some people in the WhiteHouse and in his reelection camp. What they and he were able to blow off as irrelevant early on, when his poll #s were good could no longer be ignored now that the campaign is in swing, as the nation's focus on the deficit has him in defense mode, as well as ongoing problems with budget matters. He's not in terribly serious trouble yet, but can ill afford to be sidetracked down the road and certainly can't just blow off several million votes in what is already shaping up to be a close election.
Interesting to see liberals here in this thread that we haven't seen for quite some time. Today, the pendulum swung back a bit. Welcome back.
And, evidently, more than one person in the White House inner circle believes showing these records was required. And, so much for all those who swore it was impossible for him to present one because it was impossible for anyone to get one..
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 04-28-2011).]
IP: Logged
12:10 AM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
One pill makes you larger And one pill makes you small And the ones that mother gives you Don't do anything at all Go ask Alice When she's ten feet tall
And if you go chasing rabbits And you know you're going to fall Tell 'em a hookah smoking caterpillar Has given you the call Call Alice When she was just small
When men on the chessboard Get up and tell you where to go And you've just had some kind of mushroom And your mind is moving low Go ask Alice I think she'll know
When logic and proportion Have fallen sloppy dead And the White Knight is talking backwards And the Red Queen's "off with her head!" Remember what the dormouse said: FEED YOUR HEAD!
[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 04-28-2011).]
Ask John Kerry. His lack of candor about his military records was a big part f the issues that cost him the election.
As I said many months ago, Obama had everything to gain (votes) and nothing to lose (credibility) by putting this to rest when it first came up. I suspect, that it had less to do with Trump and more to do with a new Chief of Staff (Daley) and David Axelrod, the newer powers that have the President's ear now that Rhamm is gone. Not to mention the very recent polls showing how many people had doubts about Obama's birth certificate, all coupled with falling poll #s, woke up some people in the WhiteHouse and in his reelection camp. What they and he were able to blow off as irrelevant early on, when his poll #s were good could no longer be ignored now that the campaign is in swing, as the nation's focus on the deficit has him in defense mode, as well as ongoing problems with budget matters. He's not in terribly serious trouble yet, but can ill afford to be sidetracked down the road and certainly can't just blow off several million votes in what is already shaping up to be a close election.
Interesting to see liberals here in this thread that we haven't seen for quite some time. Today, the pendulum swung back a bit. Welcome back.
And, evidently, more than one person in the White House inner circle believes showing these records was required. And, so much for all those who swore it was impossible for him to present one because it was impossible for anyone to get one..
WHAT!! There's liberals afoot??? No need to worry, they will be dealt with accordingly.
IP: Logged
12:31 AM
Uaana Member
Posts: 6570 From: Robbinsdale MN US Registered: Dec 1999
Still think this is just a political shot.. (Most of us rational types had written this off)
Doing this now just clears the deck of most conservatives/republicans.. makes anyone from the right look like a crazy, regardless of their stance on his birth.. ("all those righties are birthers")
It's a nice shot, well done O election machine.. but think he pulled it too early. The strong R candidates havent even show up yet, he wasted one of his best cards on c list candidates.
Hmm, when I unmask the layers and ungroup everything, I am left with this which does show separate items:
You need to go to your layers option and click on the little triangle, you will see all the layers are on Layer one, which AFAIK is what happens when you scan an item.
I assume the green and white background lines are something added by the State Registrars office.
Thanks for making my point that no amount of evidence is satisfactory to the conspiracy theorists.
I'm sorry man, but if doubting makes me a "conspiracy theorist" than hand me a foil hat. I don't buy a thing that comes out of any Government agency, from either side. I've learned from the past that any authority figure will lie to the people, and usually for no reason other than they could.
All information is suspect to me, all of it. There are valid questions being asked here, and yet you are the one that buys it all "hook line and sinker". Who really is the fool?
I've already said how I feel about President Obama being a natural born citizen, but I will not call the people I don't agree with in here names, and I certainly won't degrade them as you do to prove a point. Instead I keep an open mind, and pay attention. After all I'd rather be open to changing my opinion, and admitting I was wrong, but was able to learn something than have people consider me an idiot that only see's one side of everything and refuses to even consider anything else.
Was there any mention by the White House how this document was created? If we take it as a given that it's genuine, it's obviously a reproduction of the long form, not a scan of the long form itself. Was it made from a paper original? Microfiche? The video claiming it to be a fake points out some interesting things that could be explained by the reproduction method, genuine or not.
You wouldn't get the white shadows around the lettering on the original document. At best it appears to be a transparent background original that was over-layed on the green and white security background.
What I find strange (as a non-expert) is that the white is only around letters, not all of them, and not the lines. if the white was from copying, wouldn't the white be around everything?
Originally posted by twofatguys: but I will not call the people I don't agree with in here names, and I certainly won't degrade them as you do to prove a point. Instead I keep an open mind, and pay attention. After all I'd rather be open to changing my opinion, and admitting I was wrong, but was able to learn something than have people consider me an idiot that only see's one side of everything and refuses to even consider anything else.
And yes, I do see it as trolling. Brad
Let's see you won't degrade people with names??? Evidence proves otherwise.
I'm sorry man, but if doubting makes me a "conspiracy theorist" than hand me a foil hat. I don't buy a thing that comes out of any Government agency, from either side. I've learned from the past that any authority figure will lie to the people, and usually for no reason other than they could.
All information is suspect to me, all of it. There are valid questions being asked here, and yet you are the one that buys it all "hook line and sinker". Who really is the fool?
Brad
I'm buying it hool line and sinker, hey? Really?? I believe that the overwhelming evidence is that Obama was born in the U.S. and most of the public polled agrees (not that that really matters) .
I keep asking how people can disbelieve with such evidence as so many credible people stating he was in fact born in the U.S., the fact he was issued a Passport, the fact that his Birth announcement was in the local paper, the fact that he has released both forms of "Live Birth", the fact that every institution in charge of overseeing such things has OK'ed him as a being born in the U.S.
If that's buying something hook, line and sinker, then I guess you got me!
Just because I think the birthers are wrong doesn't mean I think any less of them as people I just think they have a wrong opinion and it's kind of silly how no amount of evidence is satisfactory but hell some people still believe the earth is flat. Keep on keepin on, I say.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 04-28-2011).]
Let's see you won't degrade people with names??? Evidence proves otherwise.
Who have I degraded? PROVE YOUR STATEMENTS!
You called people "conspiracy theorist" and "birthers". Both terms that have been called derogatory, and are meant to elicit a negative response from people that do not agree with you. Hence the "trolling" name, the official term for what you are doing.
I said I would not call people I don't agree with names to prove a point, where have I said that I don't agree with you? If you look back at my statements in other places you may be surprised to see that I am on the same side as you opinion-wise, just not attitude wise.
You called people "conspiracy theorist" and "birthers". Both terms that have been called derogatory, and are meant to elicit a negative response from people that do not agree with you. Hence the "trolling" name, the official term for what you are doing.
I said I would not call people I don't agree with names to prove a point, where have I said that I don't agree with you? If you look back at my statements in other places you may be surprised to see that I am on the same side as you opinion-wise, just not attitude wise.
Now, Prove your statements.
Brad
Conspiracy theorist and birthers are derogatory??? News to me, since when? Who has been offended by them? Please explain how such terms are derogatory in nature. Oh and then please explain how it is trolling by definition
I must have misread your statement, why is it you call people names then?
You said that I call people derogatory names to prove a point if you cannot prove how Conspiracy theorist and Birther are derogatory (Which you can't I suspect as they are accepted terms AFAIK) please make sure you show examples where I have.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 04-28-2011).]
I'm buying it hool line and sinker, hey? Really?? I believe that the overwhelming evidence is that Obama was born in the U.S. and most of the public polled agrees (not that that really matters) .
I keep asking how people can disbelieve with such evidence as so many credible people stating he was in fact born in the U.S., the fact he was issued a Passport, the fact that his Birth announcement was in the local paper, the fact that he has released both forms of "Live Birth", the fact that every institution in charge of overseeing such things has OK'ed him as a being born in the U.S.
If that's buying something hook, line and sinker, then I guess you got me!
The "hook line and sinker" statement describes you to a tee. Allow me to explain.
Someone could post something negative about President Obama, anything from "he is destroying the Country" to "he doens't eat enough vegetables" , and you will magically pop into the thread, vehemently defending President Obama with everything you are worth. It doesn't matter how much sense the other side makes, you call them "birthers", "Tea baggers", or any other offensive name you can to "prove your point", all the while preaching how great everything "Obama" really is.
And the item posted can be a proven fact, you will still defend President Obama, it's strange, like you will believe any talking point the left puts out there "hook line and sinker".
quote
COMMON FALLACIES IN REASONING
1. FAULTY CAUSE: (post hoc ergo propter hoc) mistakes correlation or association for causation, by assuming that because one thing follows another it was caused by the other.
example: A black cat crossed Babbs' path yesterday and, sure enough, she was involved in an automobile accident later that same afternoon.
example: The introduction of sex education courses at the high school level has resulted in increased promiscuity among teens. A recent study revealed that the number of reported cases of STDs (sexually transmitted diseases) was significantly higher for high schools that offered courses in sex education than for high schools that did not.
2. SWEEPING GENERALIZATION: (dicto simpliciter) assumes that what is true of the whole will also be true of the part, or that what is true in most instances will be true in all instances.
example: Muffin must be rich or have rich parents, because she belongs to ZXQ, and ZXQ is the richest sorority on campus.
example: I'd like to hire you, but you're an ex-felon and statistics show that 80% of ex-felons recidivate.
3. HASTY GENERALIZATION: bases an inference on too small a sample, or on an unrepresentative sample. Often, a single example or instance is used as the basis for a broader generalization.
example: All of those movie stars are really rude. I asked Kevin Costner for his autograph in a restaurant in Westwood the other evening, and he told me to get lost.
example: Pit Bulls are actually gentle, sweet dogs. My next door neighbor has one and his dog loves to romp and play with all the kids in the neighborhood!
4. FAULTY ANALOGY: (can be literal or figurative) assumes that because two things, events, or situations are alike in some known respects, that they are alike in other unknown respects.
example: What's the big deal about the early pioneers killing a few Indians in order to settle the West? After all, you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.
example: Banning "head" shops from selling drug paraphernalia in order to curb drug abuse makes about as much sense as banning bikinis to reduce promiscuity.
5. APPEAL TO IGNORANCE: (argumentum ad ignorantiam) attempts to use an opponent's inability to disprove a conclusion as proof of the validity of the conclusion, i.e. "You can't prove I'm wrong, so I must be right."
example: We can safely conclude that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy, because thus far no one has been able to prove that there is not.
example: The new form of experimental chemotherapy must be working; not a single patient has returned to complain.
6. BIFURCATION: (either-or, black or white, all or nothing fallacy) assumes that two categories are mutually exclusive and exhaustive, that is, something is either a member of one or the other, but not both or some third category.
example: Either you favor a strong national defense, or you favor allowing other nations to dictate our foreign policy.
example: It’s not TV. It’s HBO.
7. FALSE DILEMMA: (a form of bifurcation) implies that one of two outcomes is inevitable, and both have negative consequences.
example: Either you buy a large car and watch it guzzle away your paycheck, or you buy a small car and take a greater risk of being injured or killed in the event of an accident.
example: You can put your money in a savings account, in which case the IRS will tax you on the interest, and inflation will erode the value of your money, or you can avoid maintaining a savings account in which case you will have nothing to fall back on in a financial emergency.
8. FAULTY SIGN: (also includes argument from circumstance) wrongly assumes that one event or phenomenon is a reliable indicator or predictor of another event or phenomenon.
example: the cars driving in the opposite direction have their lights on; they must be part of a funeral procession.
example: That guy is wearing a Raiders jacket and baggy pants. I’ll bet he’s a gang member.
9. DAMNING THE SOURCE: (ad hominem, sometimes called the genetic fallacy) attempts to refute an argument by indicting the source of the argument, rather than the substance of the argument itself.
example: There is no reason to listen to the arguments of those who oppose school prayer, for they are the arguments of atheists!
example: The American Trial Lawyers Association favors of this piece of legislation, so you know it has to be bad for ordinary citizens.
10. TU QUOQUE: (look who's talking or two wrongs make a right) pointing to a similar wrong or error committed by another.
example: Gee, Mom and Dad, how can you tell me not to do drugs when you both smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol?
example: The United States has no business criticizing the human rights policies of the Third World nations, not as long as discrimination and segregation continue to exist in the United States.
11. EQUIVOCATION: allows a key word or term in an argument to shift its meaning during the course of the argument. The result is that the conclusion of the argument is not concerned with the same thing as the premise(s).
example: Only man is rational. No woman is a man. Therefore, no woman is rational.
example: No one who has the slightest acquaintance with science can reasonably doubt that the miracles in the Bible actually took place. Every year we witness countless new miracles in the form recombinant DNA, micro-chips, organ transplants, and the like. (the word "miracle" does not have the same meaning in each case)
12. BEGGING THE QUESTION: (petitio principii) entails making an argument, the conclusion of which is based on an unstated or unproven assumption. In question form, this fallacy is known as a COMPLEX QUESTION.
example: Abortion is murder, since killing a baby is an act of murder.
example: Have you stopped beating your wife?
13. TAUTOLOGY: (a sub-category of circular argument) defining terms or qualifying an argument in such a way that it would be impossible to disprove the argument. Often, the rationale for the argument is merely a restatement of the conclusion in different words.
example: The Bible is the word of God. We know this because the Bible itself tells us so.
example: You are a disagreeable person and, if you disagree with me on this, it will only further prove what a disagreeable person you are.
14. APPEAL TO AUTHORITY: (ipse dixit also called ad verecundiam sometimes) attempts to justify an argument by citing a highly admired or well-known (but not necessarily qualified) figure who supports the conclusion being offered.
example: If it's good enough for (insert celebrity's name here), it's good enough for me.
example: Laws against marijuana are plain silly. Why, Thomas Jefferson is known to have raised hemp on his own plantation.
15. APPEAL TO TRADITION: (don't rock the boat or ad verecundiam) based on the principle of "letting sleeping dogs lie". We should continue to do things as they have been done in the past. We shouldn't challenge time-honored customs or traditions.
example: Of course we have to play "pomp and circumstance" at graduation, because that's always been the song that is played.
example: Why do I make wine this way? Because my father made wine this way, and his father made wine this way.
16. APPEAL TO THE CROWD: (ad populum or playing to the gallery) refers to popular opinion or majority sentiment in order to provide support for a claim. Often the "common man" or "common sense" provides the basis for the claim.
example: all I can say is that if living together is immoral, then I have plenty of company.
example: Professor Windplenty's test was extremely unfair. Just ask anyone who took it.
17. STRAW MAN: stating an opponent's argument in an extreme or exaggerated form, or attacking a weaker, irrelevant portion of an opponent's argument.
example: A mandatory seat belt law could never be enforced. You can't issue citations to dead people.
example: What woman in her right mind could truly desire total equality with men? No woman wants the right to be shot at in times of war, the right to have to pay alimony, or the right to have to use the same restrooms as men.
18. SLIPPERY SLOPE: (sometimes called a snowball argument or domino theory) suggests that if one step or action is taken it will invariably lead to similar steps or actions, the end results of which are negative or undesirable. A slippery slope always assume a chain reaction of cause-effect events which result in some eventual dire outcome.
example: If the Supreme Court allows abortion, next think you know they'll allow euthanasia, and it won't be long before society disposes of all those persons whom it deems unwanted or undesirable.
example: If I let one student interrupt my lecture with a question, then I'll have to let others and, before long, there won't be any time left for my lecture.
19. APPEALING TO EXTREMES: A fallacy very similar to slippery slope, which involves taking an argumentative claim or assertion to its extreme, even though the arguer does not advocate the extreme interpretation. The difference between the two fallacies is that appealing to extremes does not necessarily involve a sequence of causal connections.
example: Husband to ex-wife: Well, if you want to be completely fair about dividing everything up, you should get one of my testicles and I should get one of your breasts!
example: Debtor to creditor: Hey, you've already repossessed my car and my television. Why don't you just draw a quart of blood or carve a pound of flesh from my heart too?
20. HYPOTHESIS CONTRARY TO FACT: This fallacy consists of offering a poorly supported claim about what might have happened in the past or future if circumstances or conditions were other than they actually were or are. The fallacy also involves treating hypothetical situations as if they were fact.
example: If you had only tasted the stewed snails, I'm sure you would have liked them.
example: If Hitler had not invaded Russia and opened up two military fronts, the Nazis would surely have won the war.
21. NON SEQUITAR: (literally means "does not follow") in a general sense any argument which fails to establish a connection between the premises and the conclusion may be called a non-sequitar. In practice, however, the label non-sequitar tends to be reserved for arguments in which irrelevant reasons are offered to support a claim.
example: I wore a red shirt when I took the test, so that is probably why I did so well on the test.
example: Mr Boswell couldn't be the person who poisoned our cat, Truffles, because when I used to take Truffles for walks he always smiled and said "Hello" when we walked by.
22. RED HERRING: attempting to hide a weakness in an argument by drawing attention away from the real issue. A red herring fallacy is thus a diversionary tactic or an attempt to confuse or fog the issue being debated. The name of the fallacy comes from the days of fox hunting, when a herring was dragged across the trail of a fox in order to throw the dogs off the scent.
example: accused by his wife of cheating at cards, Ned replies "Nothing I do ever pleases you. I spent all last week repainting the bathroom, and then you said you didn't like the color."
example: There's too much fuss and concern about saving the environment. We can't create an Eden on earth. And even if we could, remember Adam and Eve got bored in the Garden of Eden anyway!
23. INCONSISTENCY: advancing an argument that is self-contradictory, or that is based on mutually inconsistent premises.
Example: A used car salespersons says, "Hey, you can’t trust those other car salesman. They’ll say anything to gt you to buy a car from them."
Example: A parent has just read a child the story of Cinderella. The child asks, "If the coach, and the footmen, and the beautiful clothes all turned back into the pumpkin, the mice, and the rags, then how come the glass slipper didn’t change back too?"
Conspiracy theorist and birthers are derogatory??? News to me, since when? Who has been offended by them? Please explain how such terms are derogatory in nature. Oh and then please explain how it is trolling by definition
I must have misread your statement, why is it you call people names then?
You said that I call people derogatory names to prove a point if you cannot prove how Conspiracy theorist and Birther are derogatory (Which you can't I suspect as they are accepted terms AFAIK) please make sure you show examples where I have.
Originally posted by twofatguys: The "hook line and sinker" statement describes you to a tee. Allow me to explain.
Someone could post something negative about President Obama, anything from "he is destroying the Country" to "he doens't eat enough vegetables" , and you will magically pop into the thread, vehemently defending President Obama with everything you are worth. It doesn't matter how much sense the other side makes, you call them "birthers", "Tea baggers", or any other offensive name you can to "prove your point", all the while preaching how great everything "Obama" really is.
And the item posted can be a proven fact, you will still defend President Obama, it's strange, like you will believe any talking point the left puts out there "hook line and sinker".
Brad
1. Show me where I have ever used the term Tea Bagger.
2. Again who and since when has the term Birther been derogatory??
3. Show anywhere when I have proclaimed Obama to be great in any way.
4. Proven facts? You mean like "Obama is destroying the country" or "Obama doesn't eat enough vegetables"?
5. Any talking point the left puts out there? Do you have any evidence of that? Is it just because I don't believe some of the hate and fear that gets posted? Is that upsetting to you?
I like to make up my own mind and challenge others on theirs, I'm sorry that you can't seem to accept that and see it as trolling.
IP: Logged
01:24 AM
Khw Member
Posts: 11139 From: South Weber, UT. U.S.A. Registered: Jun 2008
