Maybe There Isn't Going to be an Iraqistan

Southern Man said:
Kindly provide a link where I have said this, or I will have to claim another victory over you due to your logical fallacy: a Straw man argument.
Click to expand...

In the thread entitled "LMAO, Now the righties are complaining that no bible was used at 2nd swearing in"

In post #77 you said "A Christian would be pro-life, and since he ain't, he obviously lied about being a Christian. *shrug*"

And then in post #79 you said "Nothing un-Christian about supporting wars or capital punishment."
 
Solitary said:
In the thread entitled "LMAO, Now the righties are complaining that no bible was used at 2nd swearing in"

In post #77 you said "A Christian would be pro-life, and since he ain't, he obviously lied about being a Christian. *shrug*"

And then in post #79 you said "Nothing un-Christian about supporting wars or capital punishment."
Click to expand...

Solitary said:
....

And the fact that you think that christian morality is fine with bombing innocent civilians and executing innocent people who have been wrongly convicted, but is adamantly against removing an unformed lump of flesh from a rape victim shows your ability to twist your beliefs......
Click to expand...

This is about as fine an example of Straw Man as one could find:
This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made.
Click to expand...

I therefore claim victory over you again. :)
 
Southern Man said:
This is about as fine an example of Straw Man as one could find:

I therefore claim victory over you again. :)
Click to expand...

What?

In one post you say that unless you are pro-life you are not christian. And then in the same post (on the same page) you say there is nothing unchristian about supporting war or capital punishment.

And you don't see anything wrong there??
 
Solitary said:
What?

In one post you say that unless you are pro-life you are not christian. And then in the same post (on the same page) you say there is nothing unchristian about supporting war or capital punishment.

And you don't see anything wrong there??
Click to expand...
It has become painfully apparent that you lack the ability of comprehension beyond a level that is required to understand my simple argument. That does not mean that you have won the argument, in fact, it means something approaching the exact opposite.

Am I the only one hearing the echo? :)
 
Solitary said:
What?

In one post you say that unless you are pro-life you are not christian. And then in the same post (on the same page) you say there is nothing unchristian about supporting war or capital punishment.

And you don't see anything wrong there??
Click to expand...

Of course he doesn't. He's not here to make sense, he's here to score points in a game he's playing all by himself.
 
Southern Man said:
I have yet to lose an argument here. You yourself have made many accusations, asked to prove it, and have run away. Prove this, your latest one.
Click to expand...

You lose an argument everytime you post ..such as your mindlessly ridiculous and discredited claim that Saddam and bin laden worked together .. which I immediately slapped the fuck down with evidence from the Pentagon, CIA, and the 9/11 Commission.

You're full of discredited argument.

The problem is that it takes a bit of intellectual honesty to recognize when you've lost an argument.

I have serious doubt that you are as "educated" as you pretend.
 
Last edited:
blackascoal said:
You lose an argument everytime you post ..such as your mindlessly ridiculous and discredited claim that Saddam and bin laden worked together .. which I immediately slapped the fuck down with evidence from the Pentagon, CIA, and the 9/11 Commission.

You're full of discredited argument.

The problem is that it takes a bit of intellectual honesty to recognize when you've lost an argument.

I have serious doubt that you are as "educated" as you pretend.
Click to expand...
Actually. I wait patiently for you to respond to my 126 references that prove that Saddam supported bin-Laden. [ame="http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=395362&postcount=46"]Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - Maybe There Isn't Going to be an Iraqistan[/ame]
 
blackascoal said:
I'll repeat dummy.

PENTAGON, CIA, 9/11 COMMISSION

I'm not here to convince a dummy of a widely known fact that most 6th graders already know.

You lose the argument.
Click to expand...
Since you can't dispute the 126 references that I presented, then tack on an argumentum ad hominem, I'll have to assume the opposite conclusion.
 
Southern Man said:
Since you can't dispute the 126 references that I presented, then tack on an argumentum ad hominem, I'll have to assume the opposite conclusion.
Click to expand...

Here's the reality, it's possible that Saddam supported bin laden AND That the CIA orchestrated 9/11. Can you dig it? It's true.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Here's the reality, it's possible that Saddam supported bin laden AND That the CIA orchestrated 9/11. Can you dig it? It's true.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I can't. I can support the theory that the 9-11 report was written for partisan interests rather that straight fact though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top