[surveyor]

[quote=sdgrrl]Thanks surveyor. Not at all worth noting all those affiliations? Not one Left Leaning Think tank on the show? No bias?

You don’t think it would be worth noting that if someone was supporting socialized medicine on a news broadcast and it was found out all the information came from a liberal agenda it would not taint the perception of the discourse at all?

For every “fact” from these guys there are other “facts” from others.[/quote]

Unfortunately sdgrl you don’t argue the facts laid out. You just lay out “affiliations” and “biases”. That’s not an effective argument. Your post puts forward the idea that these “affiliations” and “biases” are effective counter-arguments. They are not. Ad hominem attacks are logical fallacies. You think that just because you can show that a person has biases or agendas that it somehow makes their facts irrelevant. This is absolutely wrong. You would be absolutely wrong in thinking that this “evidence” or “facts” would be thrown out complete just on the basis of a person’s impeachability.

So yes your “argument” as it were would be TOTAL failure because you’re trying to make it about the person instead of about the issue. That is intellectually dishonest at worst and logically incorrect at best.

Again, let me re-emphasize: the fact that a person has a bias, agenda, political leaning, shade, skin color, religion or any other aspect about the person makes no difference upon the argument being made, whether he is for obamacare or against it. These are not factors that make him more correct or more wrong.

Argue the facts. I do not need more research to see that you have not argued the facts. I’m sorry if you are unable to comprehend that this is how a debate works and that these are the rules of logic.

[surveyor]

[quote=sdgrrl]Thanks surveyor. Not at all worth noting all those affiliations? Not one Left Leaning Think tank on the show? No bias?

You don’t think it would be worth noting that if someone was supporting socialized medicine on a news broadcast and it was found out all the information came from a liberal agenda it would not taint the perception of the discourse at all?

For every “fact” from these guys there are other “facts” from others.[/quote]

Unfortunately sdgrl you don’t argue the facts laid out. You just lay out “affiliations” and “biases”. That’s not an effective argument. Your post puts forward the idea that these “affiliations” and “biases” are effective counter-arguments. They are not. Ad hominem attacks are logical fallacies. You think that just because you can show that a person has biases or agendas that it somehow makes their facts irrelevant. This is absolutely wrong. You would be absolutely wrong in thinking that this “evidence” or “facts” would be thrown out complete just on the basis of a person’s impeachability.

So yes your “argument” as it were would be TOTAL failure because you’re trying to make it about the person instead of about the issue. That is intellectually dishonest at worst and logically incorrect at best.

Again, let me re-emphasize: the fact that a person has a bias, agenda, political leaning, shade, skin color, religion or any other aspect about the person makes no difference upon the argument being made, whether he is for obamacare or against it. These are not factors that make him more correct or more wrong.

Argue the facts. I do not need more research to see that you have not argued the facts. I’m sorry if you are unable to comprehend that this is how a debate works and that these are the rules of logic.

[surveyor]

[quote=sdgrrl]Thanks surveyor. Not at all worth noting all those affiliations? Not one Left Leaning Think tank on the show? No bias?

You don’t think it would be worth noting that if someone was supporting socialized medicine on a news broadcast and it was found out all the information came from a liberal agenda it would not taint the perception of the discourse at all?

For every “fact” from these guys there are other “facts” from others.[/quote]

Unfortunately sdgrl you don’t argue the facts laid out. You just lay out “affiliations” and “biases”. That’s not an effective argument. Your post puts forward the idea that these “affiliations” and “biases” are effective counter-arguments. They are not. Ad hominem attacks are logical fallacies. You think that just because you can show that a person has biases or agendas that it somehow makes their facts irrelevant. This is absolutely wrong. You would be absolutely wrong in thinking that this “evidence” or “facts” would be thrown out complete just on the basis of a person’s impeachability.

So yes your “argument” as it were would be TOTAL failure because you’re trying to make it about the person instead of about the issue. That is intellectually dishonest at worst and logically incorrect at best.

Again, let me re-emphasize: the fact that a person has a bias, agenda, political leaning, shade, skin color, religion or any other aspect about the person makes no difference upon the argument being made, whether he is for obamacare or against it. These are not factors that make him more correct or more wrong.

Argue the facts. I do not need more research to see that you have not argued the facts. I’m sorry if you are unable to comprehend that this is how a debate works and that these are the rules of logic.

[surveyor]

[quote=sdgrrl]Thanks surveyor. Not at all worth noting all those affiliations? Not one Left Leaning Think tank on the show? No bias?

You don’t think it would be worth noting that if someone was supporting socialized medicine on a news broadcast and it was found out all the information came from a liberal agenda it would not taint the perception of the discourse at all?

For every “fact” from these guys there are other “facts” from others.[/quote]

Unfortunately sdgrl you don’t argue the facts laid out. You just lay out “affiliations” and “biases”. That’s not an effective argument. Your post puts forward the idea that these “affiliations” and “biases” are effective counter-arguments. They are not. Ad hominem attacks are logical fallacies. You think that just because you can show that a person has biases or agendas that it somehow makes their facts irrelevant. This is absolutely wrong. You would be absolutely wrong in thinking that this “evidence” or “facts” would be thrown out complete just on the basis of a person’s impeachability.

So yes your “argument” as it were would be TOTAL failure because you’re trying to make it about the person instead of about the issue. That is intellectually dishonest at worst and logically incorrect at best.

Again, let me re-emphasize: the fact that a person has a bias, agenda, political leaning, shade, skin color, religion or any other aspect about the person makes no difference upon the argument being made, whether he is for obamacare or against it. These are not factors that make him more correct or more wrong.

Argue the facts. I do not need more research to see that you have not argued the facts. I’m sorry if you are unable to comprehend that this is how a debate works and that these are the rules of logic.

[surveyor]

ad hominem

From wikipedia: An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “argument to the person” or “argument against the person”) is an argument which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of a person advocating the premise.[citation needed]

sdgrrl: If a person says the sky is blue, it does not matter if that person is a conservative, republican, liberal, democrat, or an alien lifeform, it does not change the fact that the sky is blue.

Now please remember that when you argue because your post was not a challenge of the facts or even a challenge of how the opinions are wrong. You went ahead and attacked the persons making the argument. This is in debating terms called “TOTAL FAILURE”.

Yes, all people have agendas. So what. Argue the facts, argue the issues. Try to evolve some.

[surveyor]

ad hominem

From wikipedia: An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “argument to the person” or “argument against the person”) is an argument which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of a person advocating the premise.[citation needed]

sdgrrl: If a person says the sky is blue, it does not matter if that person is a conservative, republican, liberal, democrat, or an alien lifeform, it does not change the fact that the sky is blue.

Now please remember that when you argue because your post was not a challenge of the facts or even a challenge of how the opinions are wrong. You went ahead and attacked the persons making the argument. This is in debating terms called “TOTAL FAILURE”.

Yes, all people have agendas. So what. Argue the facts, argue the issues. Try to evolve some.

[surveyor]

ad hominem

From wikipedia: An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “argument to the person” or “argument against the person”) is an argument which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of a person advocating the premise.[citation needed]

sdgrrl: If a person says the sky is blue, it does not matter if that person is a conservative, republican, liberal, democrat, or an alien lifeform, it does not change the fact that the sky is blue.

Now please remember that when you argue because your post was not a challenge of the facts or even a challenge of how the opinions are wrong. You went ahead and attacked the persons making the argument. This is in debating terms called “TOTAL FAILURE”.

Yes, all people have agendas. So what. Argue the facts, argue the issues. Try to evolve some.

[surveyor]

ad hominem

From wikipedia: An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “argument to the person” or “argument against the person”) is an argument which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of a person advocating the premise.[citation needed]

sdgrrl: If a person says the sky is blue, it does not matter if that person is a conservative, republican, liberal, democrat, or an alien lifeform, it does not change the fact that the sky is blue.

Now please remember that when you argue because your post was not a challenge of the facts or even a challenge of how the opinions are wrong. You went ahead and attacked the persons making the argument. This is in debating terms called “TOTAL FAILURE”.

Yes, all people have agendas. So what. Argue the facts, argue the issues. Try to evolve some.

[surveyor]

ad hominem

From wikipedia: An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “argument to the person” or “argument against the person”) is an argument which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of a person advocating the premise.[citation needed]

sdgrrl: If a person says the sky is blue, it does not matter if that person is a conservative, republican, liberal, democrat, or an alien lifeform, it does not change the fact that the sky is blue.

Now please remember that when you argue because your post was not a challenge of the facts or even a challenge of how the opinions are wrong. You went ahead and attacked the persons making the argument. This is in debating terms called “TOTAL FAILURE”.

Yes, all people have agendas. So what. Argue the facts, argue the issues. Try to evolve some.

[surveyor]

humans being

Whether or not Palin represents family values is immaterial. People who revel in other people’s misery, public or private, tells me a lot about their character, or lack thereof.

Stay classy, Brian.

[surveyor]

humans being

Whether or not Palin represents family values is immaterial. People who revel in other people’s misery, public or private, tells me a lot about their character, or lack thereof.

Stay classy, Brian.

[surveyor]

humans being

Whether or not Palin represents family values is immaterial. People who revel in other people’s misery, public or private, tells me a lot about their character, or lack thereof.

Stay classy, Brian.

[surveyor]

humans being

Whether or not Palin represents family values is immaterial. People who revel in other people’s misery, public or private, tells me a lot about their character, or lack thereof.

Stay classy, Brian.

[surveyor]

humans being

Whether or not Palin represents family values is immaterial. People who revel in other people’s misery, public or private, tells me a lot about their character, or lack thereof.

Stay classy, Brian.

[surveyor]

[quote=briansd1]More entertainment. 😉
[/quote]

Thank you Brian for bringing that to our attention. It’s nice to know what kind of person you are, as someone who takes enjoyment from a person’s and family’s suffering.

[Author]

Posts