You Wonder Why Obama Was the Trojan Horse President

Walt said:
He quoted the link you cited. No cherry picking there.
Click to expand...
In Terry's world him quoting parts he thinks make Obama look bad while ignoring the stuff Dutch posted is not cherry picking.

It is only the person who goes into the articles Terry cites and shows there is relevant info contradicting Terry that he left out, that he calls that cherry picking fallacy.

That is because almost all Terry cited articles contradict his point and he has no rebuttal so he wants to hand wave it away and not answer it by just saying, cherry picking fallacy.

It is stupid to say, but then Terry is stupid, because if he cites an article but leaves out anything against his point the appropriate reply is to quote those parts
 
QP! said:
So did you.

You posted the data you felt supported you while not posting any of the data Dutch did, which does not support you.

That is cherry picking
Click to expand...
Wrong. All Duck's Dork has posted is an isolated quote from the site I posted. That's it. He's posted no original material in this thread that contradicts what I posted, nor has he tried to actually make a rebuttal of my material. Instead, he posted that single, isolated bit. That is the epitome of cherry picking.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Wrong. All Duck's Dork has posted is an isolated quote from the site I posted. That's it. He's posted no original material in this thread that contradicts what I posted, nor has he tried to actually make a rebuttal of my material. Instead, he posted that single, isolated bit. That is the epitome of cherry picking.
Click to expand...
You do not have to post original material when someone does what you did and cherry picks from his own article only the material that supports what he wants to say while ignoring the information that refutes it. Something you do consistently.

Soley posting what you left out that refutes you and not distracting from that is EXACTLY what should be done.
 
QP! said:
You do not have to post original material when someone does what you did and cherry picks from his own article only the material that supports what he wants to say while ignoring the information that refutes it. Something you do consistently.

Soley posting what you left out that refutes you and not distracting from that is EXACTLY what should be done.
Click to expand...
I posted the link without comment.
 
@FastLane does the same thing constantly.

Last time I called him on it he was arguing that legalizing Marijuana has lead to more Intoxicated Driving.

I read the study and it's conclusion said 'there has been no increase in Intoxicated Driving incidents' since the legislation changed.

I cherry picked the conclusion out and cited it and that was the proper reply.

No need to add anything else doing so could serve as a distraction.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
I posted the link without comment.
Click to expand...
To support your prior posts.

If there is information in the citation that refutes what you are saying quoting it is absolutely appropriate.

In fact anything he takes from the article, if he does not repost the whole thing is him selecting or cherry picking what he chooses to post.
 
Walt said:
He put the entire first two paragraphs with the entire synopsis.
Click to expand...
Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, cherry picks from articles what they think supports their view. The only way to not cherry pick is to quote the entire article otherwise you are selecting out a portion, or cherry picking what you want to post and say.

The only time it is wrong is the way @FastLane did it where there is a clear conclusion directly refuting what you say and you ignore that while cherry picking points you feel help your point
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top