How could anybody vote for Obama after watching this?

Options
1…678911

Comments

  • Posts: 13,066
    VictoryGin wrote:
    okay i have a question: how can i change the frequency i vibrate at? because sometimes i like it faster or more frequent.


    Oh my...sounds good to me...
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • Posts: 3,272
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    I was always under the impression Ad hominem is when someone makes insinuations of a personal nature regarding his opponent despite the facts and information presented.

    If someone is third party to the conversation are they really an opponent, or just a third party to the conversation? An opponent once removed not privy to the conversation...is that still an opponent? ....I guess is the question.

    Maybe you're right. It certainly includes the person you're arguing against, but I always understood the ad hominem fallacy to be any sort of defamation against a person without evidence or support.
    you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane.
  • Posts: 13,066
    yosi wrote:
    Maybe you're right. It certainly includes the person you're arguing against, but I always understood the ad hominem fallacy to be any sort of defamation against a person without evidence or support.

    ...is making me think

    definition of opponent: "one that takes an opposite position (as in a debate, contest, or conflict)"

    If the opponent can be considered in the virtual sense, then I suppose we're both right.

    Not a direct attack, but an attack on a common position upheld by proxy.

    Certainly ad hominem in nature at the outset.

    kinda like splenda v.s. sugar... one is the real thing but both taste sweet.
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • Posts: 3,272
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    ...is making me think

    definition of opponent: "one that takes an opposite position (as in a debate, contest, or conflict)"

    If the opponent can be considered in the virtual sense, then I suppose we're both right.

    Not a direct attack, but an attack on a common position upheld by proxy.

    Certainly ad hominem in nature at the outset.

    kinda like splenda v.s. sugar... one is the real thing but both taste sweet.

    Haha. Nice analogy.

    And if I failed to use ad hominem appropriately I apologize. But there is definitely some sort of fallacy going on there (and one at least similar to ad hominem) because it is definitely not a valid argument to say "Obama isn't a good choice for president because he's mediocre" without backing it up, or anything like that.
    you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane.
  • Posts: 2,502
    acoustic guy wrote:
    Before you respond to this, you need to watch the WHOLE video.
    And after you do, if you are not bothered one bit by any of it then that scares me to death as an American.

    http://www.eyeblast.tv/Public/Video.aspx?rsrcID=2036

    c'mon AG you don't really buy into this do you???

    what do you think of Michael Moore?
    the Minions
  • Posts: 13,066
    yosi wrote:
    Haha. Nice analogy.

    And if I failed to use ad hominem appropriately I apologize. But there is definitely some sort of fallacy going on there (and one at least similar to ad hominem) because it is definitely not a valid argument to say "Obama isn't a good choice for president because he's mediocre" without backing it up, or anything like that.

    No apology required. I just started to think about it, and you have a point. One can still make a comment of that nature despite the exposure to the source so to speak.

    I'm sure there's a term for it.....If only I had a degree in wordology hehe
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • Posts: 3,272
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    No apology required. I just started to think about it, and you have a point. One can still make a comment of that nature despite the exposure to the source so to speak.

    I'm sure there's a term for it.....If only I had a degree in wordology hehe

    If only we all did. Then the world would be a little less ambiguous... Oh, a guy can dream...
    you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane.
  • Posts: 13,066
    yosi wrote:
    If only we all did. Then the world would be a little less ambiguous... Oh, a guy can dream...

    Ok...I'm finished thinking about it, and you're right. :D

    One can make an AH statement towards an individual without that individual being available for comment afterwards.

    now...what were we talking about again?...lol
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • Posts: 6,038
    yosi wrote:
    Haha. Nice analogy.

    And if I failed to use ad hominem appropriately I apologize. But there is definitely some sort of fallacy going on there (and one at least similar to ad hominem) because it is definitely not a valid argument to say "Obama isn't a good choice for president because he's mediocre" without backing it up, or anything like that.
    This is why I'm opting not to discuss the other points. When people only hear their judgments and cannot hear me, I'm out.
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • Posts: 3,272
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    Ok...I'm finished thinking about it, and you're right. :D

    One can make an AH statement towards an individual without that individual being available for comment afterwards.

    now...what were talking about again?...lol

    Sweet :D

    Um, green eggs and ham? No wait that was the other Obama thread... hmm...
    you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane.
  • Posts: 17,117
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    If Hitler said rid the world of Zionist Jews in particular I'd agree with him, so part of his opinion is valid.


    wow, you need help dude.
  • Posts: 13,066
    my2hands wrote:
    wow, you need help dude.

    dude, I didn't say they should be exterminated did I?

    Just like Bush should be gotten rid of... Oh... but that's a good thing

    see the point? or would you like another conclusion to jump to?
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • Posts: 3,734
    ledvedderman wrote:
    ...and you don't know proper use of the word "your".

    http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=285025
    Do you remember Rock & Roll Radio?
  • Posts: 3,272
    angelica wrote:
    This is why I'm opting not to discuss the other points. When people only hear their judgments and cannot hear me, I'm out.

    How am I only hearing judgements? I wasn't attacking or judging you (or anyone else for that matter). We were discussing the nature of arguments. I was genuinely interested in hearing the answers to the questions I asked you. A side conversation had broken out about what an ad hominem was and there was absolutely no judgment attached. I feel like we were having a decent conversation and hope that you will still answer my questions.
    you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane.
  • Posts: 3,734
    sweet adeline wrote:
    don't you mean "you're blind"?

    Stuff White People Like

    #99 Grammar
    May 12, 2008 by clander

    White people love rules. It explains why so they get upset when people cut in line, why they tip so religiously and why they become lawyers. But without a doubt, the rule system that white people love the most is grammar. It is in their blood not only to use perfect grammar but also to spend significant portions of time pointing out the errors of others.

    When asking someone about their biggest annoyances in life, you might expect responses like “hunger,” “being poor,” or “getting shot.” If you ask a white person, the most common response will likely be “people who use ‘their’ when they mean ‘there.’ Maybe comma splices, I’m not sure but it’s definitely one of the two.”

    If you wish to gain the respect of a white person, it’s probably a good idea that you find an obscure and debated grammar rule such as the “Oxford Comma” and take a firm stance on what you believe is correct. This is seen as more productive and forward thinking that simply stating your anger at the improper use of “it’s.

    Another important thing to know is that when white people read magazines and books they are always looking for grammar and spelling mistakes. In fact, one of the greatest joys a white person can experience is to catch a grammar mistake in a major publication. Finding one allows a white person to believe that they are better than the writer and the publication since they would have caught the mistake. The more respected the publication, the greater the thrill. If a white person were to catch a mistake in The New Yorker, it would be a sufficient reason for a large party.

    Though they reserve the harshest judgment for professional, do not assume that white people will cast a blind eye to your grammar mistakes in email and official documents. They will judge you and make a general assessment about your intelligence after the first infraction. Fortunately, this situation can be improved if you ask a white person to proof read your work before you send it out. “Hey Jill, I’m sorry to do this, but I have a business degree and I’m a terrible writer. Can you look this over for me?” This deft maneuver will allow the white person to feel as though their liberal arts degree has a purpose and allow you to do something more interesting.

    Don’t worry, it is impossible for a white person to turn down the opportunity to proofread.
    Do you remember Rock & Roll Radio?
  • Posts: 3,272
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    Broad generalizations v.s. specifics is the issue here.

    If something taste like something to someone it is valid, otherwise you are an elitist. Who's to say what is better for whom in this regard?

    If Hitler said rid the world of Zionist Jews in particular I'd agree with him, so part of his opinion is valid. There's usually some measure of validity in every opinion.

    That's an interesting point that I hadn't picked up on (and I understand you're not saying kill all Zionist Jews).

    Are you saying that an opinion becomes valid if someone else agrees with part of it? Cause that's what it sounds like. Or, are you saying that there is something inherently wrong with Zionist Jews and they should be gotten rid of (not killed, just gotten rid). In which case this is belongs to an entirely different thread, one where I would happily disagree with you.
    you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane.
  • Posts: 13,066
    yosi wrote:
    That's an interesting point that I hadn't picked up on (and I understand you're not saying kill all Zionist Jews).

    Are you saying that an opinion becomes valid if someone else agrees with part of it? Cause that's what it sounds like. Or, are you saying that there is something inherently wrong with Zionist Jews and they should be gotten rid of (not killed, just gotten rid). In which case this is belongs to an entirely different thread, one where I would happily disagree with you.

    I think there are valid angles to every opinion, and what might not seem valid at the time may come into light as being of value.

    I'm kinda tired of the word Zionism so I'm gonna say Jewish extremism. I think it's more to the point. I think it serves to undermine the Jewish culture as a whole by directing hatred towards it. The term "racial elitism" would be more succinct.

    One group claiming divine right over the other for whatever reasons.

    That's what I'm against, and that is what needs to be eliminated.
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • Posts: 3,272
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    I think there are valid angles to every opinion, and what might not seem valid at the time may come into light as being of value.

    Again, not sure I agree with that for all cases. I think the opinion that murder is ok, is always wrong. But that is an extreme example.
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    I'm kinda tired of the word Zionism so I'm gonna say Jewish extremism. I think it's more to the point. I think it serves to undermine the Jewish culture as a whole by directing hatred towards it. The term "racial elitism" would be more succinct.

    One group claiming divine right over the other for whatever reasons.

    That's what I'm against, and that is what needs to be eliminated.

    I'm not going to debate this (or parts of it) here, cause its not the right place. But I will say that almost all forms of extremism should be eliminated because as you put it, it generally turns into "racial elitism" for whatever group.
    you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane.
  • Posts: 3,319
    this video made me face The Harsh Truth




    yes,
    Teddy Kennedy really is a blithering buffoon.




    being that he's my Senator, it's a hard thing to admit... sigh...

    ;)
  • Posts: 2,502
    fanch75 wrote:
    Stuff White People Like

    #99 Grammar
    May 12, 2008 by clander

    White people love rules. It explains why so they get upset when people cut in line, why they tip so religiously and why they become lawyers. But without a doubt, the rule system that white people love the most is grammar. It is in their blood not only to use perfect grammar but also to spend significant portions of time pointing out the errors of others.

    When asking someone about their biggest annoyances in life, you might expect responses like “hunger,” “being poor,” or “getting shot.” If you ask a white person, the most common response will likely be “people who use ‘their’ when they mean ‘there.’ Maybe comma splices, I’m not sure but it’s definitely one of the two.”

    If you wish to gain the respect of a white person, it’s probably a good idea that you find an obscure and debated grammar rule such as the “Oxford Comma” and take a firm stance on what you believe is correct. This is seen as more productive and forward thinking that simply stating your anger at the improper use of “it’s.

    Another important thing to know is that when white people read magazines and books they are always looking for grammar and spelling mistakes. In fact, one of the greatest joys a white person can experience is to catch a grammar mistake in a major publication. Finding one allows a white person to believe that they are better than the writer and the publication since they would have caught the mistake. The more respected the publication, the greater the thrill. If a white person were to catch a mistake in The New Yorker, it would be a sufficient reason for a large party.

    Though they reserve the harshest judgment for professional, do not assume that white people will cast a blind eye to your grammar mistakes in email and official documents. They will judge you and make a general assessment about your intelligence after the first infraction. Fortunately, this situation can be improved if you ask a white person to proof read your work before you send it out. “Hey Jill, I’m sorry to do this, but I have a business degree and I’m a terrible writer. Can you look this over for me?” This deft maneuver will allow the white person to feel as though their liberal arts degree has a purpose and allow you to do something more interesting.

    Don’t worry, it is impossible for a white person to turn down the opportunity to proofread.

    why do I get banned for talking about Black people????
    the Minions

Welcome!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
Sign In
Register

Quick Links

Categories