Total posts: 2,186
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
>@<<<TWS1405_2>>>Goes both ways. obviously.Not really, there isn't an army looking for black cops shooting white people ready to take that alone as proof of racism.
Yeah, cause no one cares when a blacks person kills a whites person…despite the fact they kill whites at a rate 2x that of whites killing blacks. Ans despite that fact, white cops pull more on other whites and Hispanics more than blacks…resulting in more whites and Hispanics being killed than blacks. FACT!
So this non-point you’re making serves what purpose, exactly!?!Sleep on it.
So no point. Got it.
(Just as I thought)
Created:
The 🖕🏿🖕🏿🖕🏿 was in response to Sidewalker, by the way.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
What does that superfluous word salad of a post have to do with the shooting of Michael Brown?
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
“I mean that is quite a fact in itself: In a country of 350 million they (the race baiters) can't find a single instance of a racist black cop murdering somebody?I'm surprised at that, either they're terrible at looking or it just doesn't happen which is an amazing achievement.”
Goes both ways. obviously. So this non-point you’re making serves what purpose, exactly!?!
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
You’re wrong though. Whites and Hispanics are shot far more than blacks.
And studies replicated have proven for a fact cops are less likely to pull on black suspects.
Created:
Shouldn’t surprise anyone the leftist lies and continued race hoaxes on firmly established facts involving cases like Michael Brown being proven that the entirety of the blame/fault rests with thugs like Michael Brown and the police did absolutely nothing wrong (ie - legally justified shooting).
Thoughts on the democrats proliferating the race baiting and hoaxes to further widen the divide in America based on race?
Created:
I am what you and other intellectual cowards made me.
Things could have been different but for the toxic behavior that was already here before I arrived.
Created:
[RationalMadman,] Dead site, toxic membership, nothing to show off at all.
Oh, the irony...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
The question is no longer "IS IT RACIST" The question is what isn't and/or cant be made racist. Everything by default is racist or will be made racist. The word has no meaning anymore.Agreed anything and everything can be portrayed as racist. There is no end to it and never will be. Every single person on earth and everything in it is racist. All one has to do is call it racist and it is. That's how fucking stupid as a collective humanity is.
I wholeheartedly agree with both statements above.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Again, there was no legal rebuttal in post forty discrediting the sound legal analysis of Shapiro. None.
No one needs experience n subject A if they are well educated in subject A in order to be an authority on Subject A. I gave you two clear examples of that incontestable fact.
Your inability to accept the truth here is all on your and your narcissistic tendencies and intellectual cowardice denialism .
Here endeth the lesson.
Created:
$1 trillion - Total credit card debt held by American families, a historic first
36% - The percentage increase in people compared to last year who drained their 401(K) to make ends meet
67% - The percentage of BIDEN VOTERS who say the economy is WORSE or "about the same" as it was in 2020 (Rueters/Ipsos)
37% - Americans who approve of Biden's handling of the economy (CNN)
US Debt was downgraded due to expected "fiscal deterioration over the next three years" by credit rating agency Fitch
Clarence Thomas may have received a few favors, but he isn’t corrupt. Not like Joe Biden and his family are.
Created:
Bidenomics is a disaster. Consider the following:
3.2% - Core inflation rose in July despite Fed's already sky high interest rates
$33,000 - The amount in real wealth the average middle-class household has lost over the past year
$862 billion - The amount of personal savings held by Americans, down from $2.3 trillion when Trump left office
46% - Americans who could cover an unexpected $400 bill without taking on debt
53% - middle-income Americans who live paycheck-to-paycheck
Biden is corrupt. The entire family is corrupt.
As each day passes, more corruption is exposed.
Even Fauci is a liar and corrupt too.
Go figure.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
You’re a dead horse.
There is nothing in post forty to dismantle. No legal argument rebutting the legal analysis given.
I’m tired of beating the shit out of the dead horse.
You’re a waste of time. And my time is more valuable than your intellectual cowardice denialism.
Go stare at yourself in the mirror whilst listening to “The Best” in the background. 🤡
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Psychological projection. You made that wish. Not I.
Created:
Posted in:
Spamming threads with nothing more than a link I see...go figure.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
>@Double_R-->@<<<TWS1405_2>>>What part of the cited quote did you obviously fail to comprehend!?! -- the authority must be qualified to speak on the subject being discussed...The part where you assert that someone who's never practiced criminal law a day in their life should be accepted as an authority on a federal criminal indictment.Are you being consistently obtuse on purpose or are you truly that fucking dense!!!!!!!!![TWS] FFS, DR, I mean really. No one needs to go to trial to become an authority let alone an expert in the law.
I used to live in a HOA. I was the only educated person with balls big enough to stand up against not only the big-headed asshole neighbors on the Board of Directors, but also against the most premiere Real Estate Law firm in Portland, Oregon hired to defend the HOA. Want to know what happened?
I forced the law firm to change out the attorneys assigned to our HOA five times over 20 years before the HOA finally fired the firm when I filed a lawsuit against them for their illegal activities, just before I moved to another state (due to my mother being diagnosed with cancer and having to move to care for her). My academic focus/expertise was NOT in real estate. Regardless, the mere fact that I had a degree in the legal arena provided me with the requisite knowledge to read, correctly interpret and apply the Planned Communities Act of Oregon against them. HOAs and the firms that represent them survive because they depend on the homeowners being stupid, uneducated in the law, and cowards to stand up for themselves. Not me. I stood up. Pissed them off to no end. Got five attorneys fired, as well as the firm in the end.
So no, one does not need a "trial," civil or criminal, to be an "authority" on the law.
I've also successfully advocated for veterans against the Department of Veterans Affairs Compensation and Pensions division with about, um, a 90% success rate for those who served in the Korean War forward. My academic legal background and own personal experience over 10 years fighting that division equipped me to succeed for others where actual veteran service organizations had failed.
I even filed my own case to the Board of Veterans of Appeals in the early 2000s without asking for a hearing, and based on the written arguments given, I won my case in a record breaking three months when it usually takes years to get a result.
So, I know what I am talking about, and you CLEARLY do not.
You're just an intellectual coward denialist who cannot handle the act that I am right, and you are wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
-->@<<<TWS1405_2>>>What part of the cited quote did you obviously fail to comprehend!?! -- the authority must be qualified to speak on the subject being discussed...The part where you assert that someone who's never practiced criminal law a day in their life should be accepted as an authority on a federal criminal indictment.
Are you being consistently obtuse on purpose or are you truly that fucking dense!!!!!!!!!
FFS, DR, I mean really. No one needs to go to trial to become an authority let alone an expert in the law.
The education is what matters, not the fucking experience. Many who graduate law school turn right around and become law professors. Explain that one, DR!
If they are good enough to teach new students the law, legal analysis, etc. without any courtroom experience...well shit, then Shapiro has the exact same qualifications to speak on a federal bullshit indictment dreamed up through asinine novel legal theories just to go after Biden's political opponent.
He does not need to have a trial under his belt, let alone a criminal trial, in order to read, interpret, understand and correctly apply legal analysis debunking the novel legal theories within it.Correct, and neither does anyone else. The question in dispute here is not whether he is correct, it's whether he is an authority on the subject.
He is an authority. He has a fucking law degree from Harvard ya daft intellectual coward denialist!!!!
To be an authority on a subject you need to have expertise on that subject. Expertise comes from experience.
WRONG! Expertise comes from education FIRST AND FOREMOST!!! It is precisely when whenI was getting my degrees, students I was with already had the experience but their attorneys and/or employers DEMANDED they get the degree...or else (get let go).
Applicable experience is earned by applying the education learned.
If actual experience is required to be an authority, then absolutely no law school would hire a graduate to become a professor to teach that which they already learnt.
He has zero experience with criminal indictments...
He doesn't need to. He has a law degree that equips him with the requisite knowledge to read, interpret, understand and provide a legal analysis thereof.
Your intellectual cowardice denialism of this IN-YOUR-FACE fucking FACT knows no bounds.
Do you understand that there are different types of lawyers? Would you go to a criminal defense attorney to represent you in a real estate deal?Out comes the narcissistic obnoxious ad hominem...It's not an ad hominem,
YES, it is. Denialist.
This topic is about a legal analysis of the novel legal theories in a flawed indictment by one attorney of that criticizing another attorney.No, that's what I tried to make it about in post 40 where I explained why his analysis was flawed. You responded without a single word of critique of the actual argument I made and instead just called it a dumb analogy and then touted Ben Shapiro as an authority on the subject.
You explained nothing in post #40. Your Cracker Jack Box Ticketmaster analogy is so far off base it was shot towards the Milky Way. You're a Bonafide ignoramus when it comes to the subject of law. And an intellectual coward Dunning-Kruger Effect poster child.
If I agree with his analysis, that translates to his analysis being my analysis since I agree with it in its entirety.Then respond to my critique of it by offering something better than "duh that was a dumb analogy"
You provided no critique of it on legal grounds. You provided a childish irrelevant ignoratio elenchi fallacy.
Great argument.Yup. And you just dropped rebutting it. I'll accept that as your concession.Concession of what? You didn't offer a damn thing but assertions that my analogy fails along with insults.
Concession that you are just too chicken shit, or flagrantly ignorant of the law, in order to provide an actual legal rebuttal against Shapiro's (and by extension, mine) legal analysis of the spurious legal theories of the J6 indictment.
Do you know what an argument is? Can you provide one?
FUCK YOU! Intellectual coward denialist.
You know damn well I do, and have, and you're just too fucking ignorant to rebut it.
and has argued many times that he doesn't believe presidents should be prosecuted. His biases would be towards Trump.And there is the concession right there. Thank you. You finally admit it. He is biased against (towards) Trump.It wasn't a concession genius. Being biased towards Trump is the opposite of being biased against Trump. Inserting parenthesis with your own words saying the opposite of what I just said doesn't change my argument.
Oh yes it was, dumbass.
Towards = directed against, "genius"!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
->@<<<TWS1405_2>>>"Legitimate appeals to authority
As we mentioned earlier, there are some instances where supporting a claim with an expert’s insight is logically sound. For an appeal to authority to be legitimate, the authority must be qualified to speak on the subject being discussed, and their statement must be directly relevant to that subject."Ben Shapiro is qualified to speak on the subject being discussedAgain, you are appealing to someone who has never tried a criminal case in his life as an authority on a criminal indictment. If you can't see the issue with that I cannot help you.
Psychological projection and intellectual cowardice denialism, still.
What part of the cited quote did you obviously fail to comprehend!?! -- the authority must be qualified to speak on the subject being discussed, and their statement must be directly relevant to that subject."
Shapiro graduated law school. He passed the bar. He is a licensed attorney.
He does not need to have a trial under his belt, let alone a criminal trial, in order to read, interpret, understand and correctly apply legal analysis debunking the novel legal theories within it. You doubling down on that irrelevant point is nothing short of an ignoratio elecnhi fallacy.
He has the academic and professional credentials in the legal arena, having graduated from Harvard Law School and worked for one of the largest law firms in the world. One doesn't need to practice criminal law in order to read, interpret, understand and accurately analyze the law and apply said understanding based on their academic and professional experience equipping him with the requisite knowledge to do so.Do you understand that there are different types of lawyers? Would you go to a criminal defense attorney to represent you in a real estate deal?
Out comes the narcissistic obnoxious ad hominem... This topic is about a legal analysis of the novel legal theories in a flawed indictment by one attorney of that criticizing another attorney. This discussion has nothing to do with seeking legal counsel on a real estate deal from a criminal attorney. Strawman and red herring fallacy right there.
His legal analysis was spot on.Then you are relying on your understanding of the subject, not his. Why then, are you so determined to hide behind him? Why not present your own arguments and defend them against rational scrutiny? Are you afraid of that?
If I agree with his analysis, that translates to his analysis being my analysis since I agree with it in its entirety. I am not going to parrot what he said when you can listen to what he said for yourself. So, fuck off on this stupid irrelevant red herring fallacy of yours. In order to prove me wrong, you need to prove him wrong.
Post #40. Learn to read.BWAAAHAAAHAAAA!!! That is not a refutation. That's a subjective - non-legal - opinion based on a stupid irrelevant baseball ticket analogy asserted in a failed attempt to discredit 3 different legal analysis on 3 different charges within the J6 indictment. I have made this observation each time you keep doubling down on it, it is to YOU who needs to learn to read.Great argument.
Yup. And you just dropped rebutting it. I'll accept that as your concession.
Barr's biases discredit himBarr is an extreme right wing legal expert
His political leaning is completely irrelevant!!!
who was handpicked by Trump to be his attorney general
Irrelevant.
and has argued many times that he doesn't believe presidents should be prosecuted. His biases would be towards Trump.
And there is the concession right there. Thank you. You finally admit it. He is biased against (towards) Trump. He doesn't like Trump. So much so he is just waiting by the phone for the call to come testify against him in the J6 trial.
You are very clearly just disqualifying anyone who disagrees with you. From the same person who accuses me of denialism, the projection is astounding.
No. You disqualify yourself in your utter ignorant failure to rebut the legal analysis heaped upon each novel legal theory (charges) in the J6 indictment. That's ALL on YOU!
I've denied nothing since you've provided no legal analysis on point that would debunk the legal analysis provided by Shapiro (and by extension, mine as well since I agree with them 100%, word for word).
Epic fail on your part...20x over, comment after comment exhibiting your intellectual cowardice denialism.
Created:
Posted in:
[IWantRoseveltAgain] The TWS Greatest Hits! So banal
IWRA's ignorant hits, so childish.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
>@<<<TWS1405_2>>>Does nasa support AGW theory?Don't answer
Classic intellectual cowardice deflection.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
You still didn’t provide a link in direct response to my posts. AND you didn’t answer the obvious point I made.
NASA refuting NASA, how rich!! Proves biased agendas.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
-->@<<<TWS1405_2>>>You didn't check my links
You provided NO LINKS in response to my post. My post with 3 clear cut links to NASA.
A post in which you claimed NASA refuted my claims.
NASA refuting NASA!!!???!!!!
Oh, that's rich.
LOL!!!!
Created:
Says the clown who posts links onky with stupid commentary that has nothing to do with the link given.
AND a stupid link to boot.
Says the clown who posts stupid TDS links all the damn fucking time with zero context.
Either way, classic genetic fallacy. The title of the link speaks for itself within the context of this stupid TDS thread.
Created:
Genetic fallacy laced TSD thread spamming DART, yet again!!!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
-->@<<<TWS1405_2>>>Reported.
Oh Boo Hoo
And nasa has an entire website where they disagree with your assessment
Clearly you didn't check any of the links I gave.
3 of the 4 were NASA links, and the 4th (weather channel) cited one of the cited NASA links.
So, either NASA lied then, or they are lying now in order to toe the line (status quo on leftist unscientific climate change arguments) regarding the earth's axis.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
-->@<<<TWS1405_2>>>In no way shape or form have I cited Shapiro in a way that was unsound. His legal analysis is on point. Therefore, my appeal to his authority is proper and NOT a fallacy.The appeal to authority fallacy is when you cite someone to advance your argument who is not an authority.
LOL!!!! What part of the cited source defining what an appeal to authority fallacy is - and is NOT!?!
"Legitimate appeals to authority
As we mentioned earlier, there are some instances where supporting a claim with an expert’s insight is logically sound. For an appeal to authority to be legitimate, the authority must be qualified to speak on the subject being discussed, and their statement must be directly relevant to that subject."
As we mentioned earlier, there are some instances where supporting a claim with an expert’s insight is logically sound. For an appeal to authority to be legitimate, the authority must be qualified to speak on the subject being discussed, and their statement must be directly relevant to that subject."
Ben Shapiro is qualified to speak on the subject being discussed, and their statement is directly relevant to that subject being discussed.
Ben Shapiro is not an authority. He's a political commentator who spent about 10 months practicing law which was not even criminal law.
Yes, he is. He has the academic and professional credentials in the legal arena, having graduated from Harvard Law School and worked for one of the largest law firms in the world. One doesn't need to practice criminal law in order to read, interpret, understand and accurately analyze the law and apply said understanding based on their academic and professional experience equipping him with the requisite knowledge to do so. He is also an author of 11 books, and given his business experience, makes him an excellent researcher as well. Ben Shapiro is an authority on this subject, you are not. That is a fact. Period. Fact. Period. You have ZERO CREDIBILITY here. No academic and/or professional experience in the legal arena on par or better than Shapiro. His legal analysis was spot on. Your stupid baseball ticket analogy is way off and completely irrelevant to this discussion.
If you want to argue his analysis is sound, you are free to do so, Shapiro at that point would be irrelevant.
No, it would not make Shapiro irrelevant, for it is his legal analysis, not mine. He is the source of the legal analysis, not I. I do not plagiarize. I give credit where credit is due.
I, unlike you, do have a legal background (academic, professional and personal experience) and reviewed his analysis. There was nothing factually inaccurate about his analysis.
I am not a parrot, as such I do not merely repeat what another says when you (and anyone else) can hear it for yourself (themselves).
You have not even attempted to do so, and when I explained in a few simple sentences why his analysis fails all you have in response is to tell me about my denialism. You should really spend some time reflecting on why you are so averse to making your own arguments.
Your few idiotic sentences were irrelevant to the topic under discussion premised on the three charges in the J6 indictment. Your refusal to address the legal analysis provided by Shapiro with a legal argument of your own in rebuttal, in addition to your stupid irrelevant analogy, and your continued narcissistic back and forth claiming you right, me wrong.
Shapiro's analysis IS my argument, you daft or what!?!
I agree with him. Therefore, you (and the others) need to discredit that analysis with a better legal rebuttal, thereby discrediting both Shapiro and I in the process.
On the other hand, if you find one or two other attorneys (clearly a leftist progressive democrat who hates Trump) that will support your stupid Ticketmaster baseball dugout analogy, that, by definition, would in fact be a logical fallacySo far Bill Barr, Micheal Cohen, and Ty Cobb have all publicly talked about how the indictment is sound and Trump's defense is laughable.
Ah yes, all going on CNN, MSNBC, and every other leftist legacy media source to exhibit their Trump Derangement Syndrome with patently obvious personal biases. Their analysis is not impartial, focusing on the law and the history of Smith's novel legal theories trying to go after public figures. Being a mouth piece without a full legal analysis of how and why Smith's novel legal theories are sound legal arguments doesn't discredit the legal analysis Shapiro provided. In other words, just saying so without providing factually accurate legal arguments to substantiate the claim = appeal to authority fallacy.
To date you have NOT refuted any single aspect of Shapiro's legal analysis of the J6 indictment. FACT!Post #40. Learn to read.
BWAAAHAAAHAAAA!!! That is not a refutation. That's a subjective - non-legal - opinion based on a stupid irrelevant baseball ticket analogy asserted in a failed attempt to discredit 3 different legal analysis on 3 different charges within the J6 indictment. I have made this observation each time you keep doubling down on it, it is to YOU who needs to learn to read.
There is no irony at my end, just yours.I have committed no fallacy, but you would be if you cited Bill Barr.Right, a right wing (sic) commentator who makes millions feeding the MAGA base what it wants to hear who has never practiced criminal law is an authority on Trump's indictment. But Trump's own hand picked (sic) attorney general is not.
Genetic fallacy x3.
And no. Barr's biases discredit him, and in all his appearances he gave no legal argument that would discredit Shapiro's analysis, which remains sound and factually accurate to date.
I would ask if you're serious (sic) but you've made that clear.
Absolutely serious. And you've STILL failed, and epically so, from discredit Shapiro's legal analysis on the 3 charges in the J6 indictment.
You need help.
Ad hominem. Typical of one exhibiting intellectual cowardice denialism and narcissism via the Dunning-Kruger Effect whereas this topic of discussion is concerned.
Created:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Advocating violence towards another member…you’re cool (NOT)!
Created:
Posted in:
The kind of comment that comes from someone who wears a ball cap every day.
Yup. Just like Ne-Yo. Dare ya to criticize him for wearing a ball cap to his face. He’d put you in your place, white boy!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
You're dismissed. Never to be taken seriously ever again on this site.lol literally all your opinions have been from some right wing grifter.
GENETIC FALLACY !!!!
INTELLECTUAL COWARDICE DENIALISM!!!!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
>@<<<TWS1405_2>>>Nasa disagrees with your last paragraph
Whatever you say, Vagina.
After all, more than one link I cited invovled....NASA.
Created:
How would I know?The same way you claim to know this:“Facial hair is common on male intellectuals, actually”
Childish retort.
Get educated.
Created:
I don’t agree with the “it makes them look cool,” because it doesn’t.Trucks are practical, more so than cars or SUVs. I own a truck. Never did own one until I moved further north. Need it due to amount of snowfall, pulling a 29’ RV, taking crap to the dump, hauling shit bought at Lowe’s or Home Depot, so on and so forth. Can’t do any of that with a 2 or 4door sedan or small SUV (I did own a Jeep Cherokee once).Your focus on certain material things and clothing accessories is pathetically absurd and childishly nonsensical.
Nowhere in the above comment did I say anything about wearing a ballcap.
Your purchase of a pick up (sic) truck and habit of wearing a ball cap is pathetically absurd and childishly nonsensical.
Living in a geographical area that gets a shitload of snow and buying a truck to get around in it is..."childishly nonsensical."
I'll let the stupidity of that statement speak for itself.
And again, nowhere did I say I wear a ballcap. Your retort is immature, desperate, and narcissistic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
I watched the clip
Fucking hypocrite. You will watch this clip but won't watch the clips I cite.
You're dismissed. Never to be taken seriously ever again on this site.
Created:
Posted in:
the redistribution of mass on and within Earth -- like changes to land, ice sheets, oceans and mantle flow -- affects the planet's rotation.
Scientists have linked climate change to a shift in Earth’s axis that could lead to more lost drivers.
For example, Earth's mantle is still readjusting to the loss of ice on North America after the last ice age, and the reduced mass beneath that continent pulls the spin axis toward Canada at the rate of a few inches each year. But some motions are still puzzling.
Because of Earth’s dynamic climate, winds and atmospheric pressure systems experience constant change. These fluctuations may affect how our planet rotates on its axis, according to NASA-funded research that used wind and satellite data.
Earth, it's normal function in and of itself and its place in the universe where gravity and its orbit is concerned (which includes the Moon), is the case of the shift in the axis that results in what the leftist lunatics call "climate change"!!
Created:
"Now here we are, $535 billion in wasted taxpayer dollars later, and it seems that the administration is intent on going full speed ahead. In fact, the president recently said in an interview that the Solyndra deal was 'a good bet.' Talk about a disconnect."
Enrollment figures are far less than anticipated and the costs are going to be far more than anticipated from the Congressional Budget Office’s original $938 billion to more than $1.3 trillion.
Biden's regular trips to his home state of Delaware have cost taxpayers at least $11 million. Biden has made close to 57 visits over the last 185 days.
So much for that! Yellen is going to bat for the Democrats’ $3.5 trillion (and probably much more) spending plan, even after trillions in stimulus. The eminent economist now seems to think that, despite all evidence to contrary, inflation and interest rates won’t rise — and increasing our astronomical $23 trillion in national debt won’t be a drag.
I can go on and on and on...
Your TDS spam threads bitching about Trump is nonsensical when anyone can prove others, namely liberal democrats, have spent far more and done far more damage to America than what you "claim" Donald J. Trump has done.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
-->@<<<TWS1405_2>>>Cherry picking attorneys espousing factually inaccurate legal assessments (like Bill Barr) to support your wrong interpretation is by definition an appeal to authority fallacy.And if you even could find some attorneys (it won’t be thousands), they would be easily debunked.The point is you have zero credibility in your failed position put forth with illogical baseball ticket analogies, whereas Shapiro has credibility given his legal, academic and professional background establishing his credibility.Is this a joke?
On you, sure, since you cannot grasp the truth in the wake of your obvious confirmation bias and narcissism.
"While experts are often the best people to reference for credible information, it’s possible to use an expert’s statement in a way that isn’t logically sound."
In no way shape or form have I cited Shapiro in a way that was unsound. His legal analysis is on point. Therefore, my appeal to his authority is proper and NOT a fallacy. On the other hand, if you find one or two other attorneys (clearly a leftist progressive democrat who hates Trump) that will support your stupid Ticketmaster baseball dugout analogy, that, by definition, would in fact be a logical fallacy - the appeal to authority fallacy.
To date you have NOT refuted any single aspect of Shapiro's legal analysis of the J6 indictment. FACT!
You are the one invoking an authority (Ben Shapiro), I am pointing out why your "argument" is not an argument at all (because it is nothing more than an appeal to authority fallacy - hence the "so what" at the end of that sentence).
No, it is not. My citation is proper and legally sound. See above. And your "so what" = intellectual cowardice denialism.
So (sic) you are responding to my pointing out that you are committing a logical fallacy by lecturing me about that same logical fallacy.And you don't even see the irony here.
There is no irony at my end, just yours.
I have committed no fallacy, but you would be if you cited Bill Barr.
But even looking past the fallacy that you are engaging in, the remarkable logic pretzel you are contorting yourself into is quite impressive. You claim that Ben Shapiro, a podcaster and political commentator who has about 10 months experience in law, none of it in the criminal justice system, is somehow a more reliable source here than Donald Trump's own hand picked (sic) attorney general.
I have engaged in no fallacy; and doubling or even tripling down on claiming it without disproving any of the legal analysis proffered by Shapiro with an actual legal argument of your own just makes you look not only desperate but also affirms that obvious intellectual cowardice denialism on your part. Something you are so flagrantly awesome at this site.
They're really are no words.
Not surprised. You rarely have anything remotely on point to say. Just total and complete obfuscation with word salads and nonsensical analogies.
I never retort with posts the likes that you claimYou just did.
No, I did not.
You posted a link to the Ben Shapiro show explaining why this indictment doesn't hold up. I refuted it in a few sentences.
No, you refuted nothing.
You responded without a single word responding to my argument.
More obvious intellectual cowardice denialism. I sure has hell did. You just refuse to acknowledge it.
Mr. Know-it-All Double_R knows all, sees all, and is never wrong but everyone else is.
Fucking poster child for the Dunning Kruger Effect to the Proverbial "T"!!!
You're entire post was to tell me I have no credibility and Ben Shapiro knows better.
Yup. FACT!
You cannot seriously think what you provided was anything reassembling an intellectual point.
Of course not, it was a cold hard visual observation that cannot be denied, unless you're you. Then you will deny it, obviously.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
that has zero place in this discussion.
Sure it does. When your enemies outpace you on replenishing their numbers exceeding yours…that’s a problem.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
So I worry for the status of smart people. I am not seeing them winning the reproduction race.
Wow. Something we actually agree on.
Created:
I don’t agree with the “it makes them look cool,” because it doesn’t.
Trucks are practical, more so than cars or SUVs. I own a truck. Never did own one until I moved further north. Need it due to amount of snowfall, pulling a 29’ RV, taking crap to the dump, hauling shit bought at Lowe’s or Home Depot, so on and so forth. Can’t do any of that with a 2 or 4door sedan or small SUV (I did own a Jeep Cherokee once).
Your focus on certain material things and clothing accessories is pathetically absurd and childishly nonsensical.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
-->@<<<TWS1405_2>>>Anyone worth their salt in debate/discussion knows full well that… “Credibility is essential to establish in a debate, otherwise the other side(s) will have no reason to consider your points.” Additionally… “If you have pertinent experience with the topic of debate, making that experience and the associated knowledge known will help establish you as an authority on that topic, which in turn will grant you credibility. ”So yeah, it does matter.Not to anyone who understands rational epistemology engaging in debate. No number of links will change that.
ROTFLMAO!!!
Oh yeah they most certainly would!! Well, at least those not those stuck in their own confirmation biases. There are quite a few members here who paddle upstream (Dunning Kruger Effect) in that regard, and you’re proving to be one of them at this point. Shame.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Shapiro is a lawyer, you’re not.And I could show you a thousand lawyers who agree with me. So what?
Cherry picking attorneys espousing factually inaccurate legal assessments (like Bill Barr) to support your wrong interpretation is by definition an appeal to authority fallacy.
And if you even could find some attorneys (it won’t be thousands), they would be easily debunked.
The point is you have zero credibility in your failed position put forth with illogical baseball ticket analogies, whereas Shapiro has credibility given his legal, academic and professional background establishing his credibility.
He has credibility, you do not.Her had credibility among the MAGA base. No one outside of that takes him seriously.
You don’t speak for others, only for yourself. This salient fact of credibility is so in your face, but alas out comes the classic intellectual cowardice denialism. Err rather classic narcissism you so often exude.
His argument(s) is sound.Yours is not.Do you even know what sound argument is? Hard to tell given that all you ever post are these stupid and childish "I'm right and you're wrong, so there" posts.
ah yes, retort with a strawman in the form of a personal attack. I never retort with posts the likes that you claim. Such a claim is just proof that you can never debunk my positions when that retort of yours comes up. It’s equal to putting up the 🤚 of intellectual cowardice denialism. And yes, I will keep ascribing that observation to you since it is the perfect and most descriptive way in addressing your narcissistic refusal to accept the possibility that you’re wrong and someone else is more correct than you claim to be.
This entire reply of yours was so predictable. What would anyone expect from one exhibiting classic signs of narcissism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
No one.
Just a test to see if anyone was paying attention.
Thx
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
It’s an observation. One is either educated in subject matter A, or they are not educated in subject matter A.and it doesn't matter in a debate either way.
LOL!! You’re joking, right??
Anyone worth their salt in debate/discussion knows full well that… “Credibility is essential to establish in a debate, otherwise the other side(s) will have no reason to consider your points.” Additionally… “If you have pertinent experience with the topic of debate, making that experience and the associated knowledge known will help establish you as an authority on that topic, which in turn will grant you credibility. ”
So yeah, it does matter.
Truth by definition cannot be a fallacy.A purported but false implication of truth can be.
Nothing I put forth was such. What I said is truth, and he proved it with his follow up “bullshit” responses.
that translates to them having zero credibility to discuss subject AIf you're talking about credibility you're already off the reservation as far as debate goes. Appeal to authority when trying to use credibility. Poisoning the well when trying to deny authority (often when it is not even invoked).
Quoting out of context fallacy and strawman fallacy. In either case, go back to the top of this reply and re-read what I quoted regarding credibility. You’re wrong. Period.
Regardless, pointing out they they lack the education does advance the argument in discounting their ignorant nonsenseDiscountenance for that reason is known fallacy.
No it’s not. Interesting you didn’t even name the alleged fallacy. Either way makes no difference. You’re still wrong.
You two need to stop with the militantancy on the CoC. It’s overreaching and patently absurd. M.T.F.U.Then it was over reach and patently absurd when Greyparrot was forbidden from responding to insults in kind. Inequitable application of rules or interpretations of rules is intolerable.
Ha ha. Where was he denied such?
A debate site is by definition a place where cultural opposition to fallacies is of the greatest utility and no fallacy is easier to identify than ad hominems, so I'll accept no rule and I'll except a uniform ban of ad hominems but I won't accept double standards.
Then there needs to be a clear cut definition with examples of what an ad hominem is for this site’s purposes. Because half the shit some of you people whine about are NOT ad hominems.
Some of you people need to learn and know/understand the difference between a noun used @ the person vs an adjective describing the attitude, behavior, demeanor exhibited by a person. One can be and is often used as an ad hom (@ the person) while the other clearly is not.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
@ADreamOfLiberty
You two need to stop with the militantancy on the CoC. It’s overreaching and patently absurd. M.T.F.U.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
-->@<<<TWS1405_2>>>"[Insert Name] isn’t educated enough to understand that salient fact of economics."Either advances no argument or it is a fallacy.
Please. Don’t be coy or passive here.
It’s an observation. One is either educated in subject matter A, or they are not educated in subject matter A. It’s a fact based observation. It’s truth. Truth by definition cannot be a fallacy.
And if establishing someone lacks the requisite education in subject A, that translates to them having zero credibility to discuss subject A in the manner in which they are purporting themselves in subject A, as if they were a subject matter expert without the requisite knowledge and experience in said subject matter. Whew. That was a mouthful.
Regardless, pointing out they they lack the education does advance the argument in discounting their ignorant nonsense so others actually educated in the subject may advance said subject further without the nonsensical distraction of the one putting forth uneducated commentary.
Created: