Unemployment Drops in Alabama: Was it H.B. 56?

Originally posted by focus4chumps
no, its actually a logical fallacy. "ad hominem tu quoque" to be specific. since you can not validly argue against his point in such a fashion, maybe its time to bark up a relevant tree.

Learn what words mean before you use them. I'll take your troll bait. Just because a poster thinks they are a certain political leaning, does not mean that they are correct. They could have a misunderstanding of what those definitions are especially since the US has ****ed up with "right" and "left" are on some issues (as Robtard clearly misunderstand that I was talking about political science in general, not US politics).

Here's what actually happened:

"I am Russian because most of my ancestors were natives of Argentina."

"No, you're NA because you said you're Native American, are mostly NA, your ancestors are NA, and you have the DNA tests to prove it."

"Nu uhhh! One of my great-great-grandfathers is from Russia, so I'm Russian."

"I agree you are part Russian, but you're mostly NA."

Here's you: "RAWR! Dat's ad hominem tu quoque! RAGE!"

That's hardly the ad hominem tu quoque that you are trying to pass it off as. 🙂

Originally posted by dadudemon
Learn what words mean before you use them. I'll take your troll bait. Just because a poster thinks they are a certain political leaning, does not mean that they are correct. They could have a misunderstanding of what those definitions are especially since the US has ****ed up with "right" and "left" are on some issues.

Here's what actually happened:

"I am Russian because most of my ancestors were natives of Argentina."

"No, you're NA because you said you're Native American, are mostly NA, your ancestors are NA, and you have the DNA tests to prove it."

"Nu uhhh! One of my great-great-grandfathers is from Russia, so I'm Russian."

"I agree you are part Russian, but you're mostly NA."

Here's you: "RAWR! Dat's ad hominem tu quoque! RAGE!"

That's hardly the ad hominem tu quoque that you are trying to pass it off as. 🙂

it was not my intention to stultify you and throw you into a defensive position. since i obviously did that, i apologize. perhaps my words were a bit curt. the point i was making is that, as per fact, arguing against an opponent's point based solely on their general principals is in fact an avoidance of said point and an argument 'against the man'. its a dead end and can only lead to pointless bickering and a complete lack of topic.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
no, its actually a logical fallacy. "ad hominem tu quoque" to be specific. since you can not validly argue against his point in such a fashion, maybe its time to bark up a relevant tree.

i don't want to waste anyone's browsing time by posting links to sites which clearly outline this fallacy just as it was labeled, but its an easy google.

*edit* ok fine, lets lay it to rest. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

Originally posted by focus4chumps
it was not my intention to stultify you and throw you into a defensive position. since i obviously did that, i apologize. perhaps my words were a bit curt. the point i was making is that, as per fact, arguing against an opponent's point based solely on their general principals is in fact an avoidance of said point and an argument 'against the man'. its a dead end and can only lead to pointless bickering and a complete lack of topic.

That was not me being defensive, trust me. And your words were not "curt".

When the person's point is about their political positions and it is the opposite of what their actual political positions are (from a poli-sci perspective), pointing that out to them is not an argument against the man. It's letting them know that they hold beliefs that are not correct by the definitions. Throw in the fact that the US has skewed what Left and Right actually are and you have arrived at where the present conversation actually is. Basically, Robtard is still right and I am still right. Neither of us are wrong. I just wanted to bring up the "left" and what the US considers "left" is not the same thing: Robtard is quite left. Abortion rights, gay rights, equal opportunity for women, anti-discrimination/racism (basically, egalitarian in almost all political leanings). There's nothing wrong with it but it is a "dirty word" in the US for many people. That's how Zeal was using it, that's not Rob took it, and I wanted to get rid of that notion. It's not a dirty word. You have also skewed it to be an "attack on the man" but it's hardly an attack against the man when I am dispelling virtual political myth. Yes, liberal gun rights are actually left leaning.

Additionally, it is not a dead end. Many in the US think that the US version of right-wing politics solves job problems. Then they tote false conclusions such as the one in the article. Understanding the extreme left is closer to anarchy than the "right-wing" politics in the US, "they turk or jerbs" becomes even more comical.

i'll give it to you that zeal initiated this downturn in discussion by focussing the debate on robtard's supposed position in the political spectrum (which is confusing enough when dealing with american polictics).

you seem like an intelligent person when you take the time to organize your thoughts and focus on the prize, but please take a step back and see this for what it is. a contributor's general position has nothing to do with the point they argue. so, even if you somehow successfully abuse and humiliate the entire population of left-leaning americans into submission, you have still not argued his point.

here, i'll throw you a bone:

"Prices would still increase due to overhead from wage increases, just a fact."

thats the point you would want to focus on shoot down, right?
not whether robtard has intercourse with multicultural men while eating organic tofu and writing checks to the aclu. see?

Originally posted by focus4chumps
so, even if you somehow successfully abuse and humiliate the entire population of left-leaning americans into submission, you have still not argued his point.

This is not the goal. Nor will it ever be. Abusing left-leaning Americans into submission will not work. Letting them know that the US has ****ed up how most Americans view "left" and "right" is a far better way to go about it...especially in the thread were a person on the "far right" is clearly an idiot and almost deliberately lying about immigration laws and reform (lest this be used as troll certain members (Zeal), I am referring to the article writer, not a KMC poster).

Originally posted by focus4chumps
"Prices would still increase due to overhead from wage increases, just a fact."

thats the point you would want to focus on shoot down, right?
not whether robtard has intercourse with multicultural men while eating organic tofu and writing checks to the aclu. see?

I did type of a reply to that. I erased it because I don't feel like arguing that much with Robtard. I try to be nicer to people I consider friends.

But my reply consisted of an exception, rather than the rule. The exception is one manufacturer decided to bring back their operations to the US because it was cheaper. Legal Americans are who they employed. They did it with "smart" management and very transparent processes. That's not something worth debating because what he said is largely true. Most companies are far too short-sighted to create a tangible strategic plan beyond 2-years. Something about share-holders and profit margins being the focus of modern global businesses...

Originally posted by dadudemon

I did type of a reply to that. I erased it [...]

this was your error.

your logical options are:

- form a valid retort to said point (even if it means remembering your erased win and posting it finally)

- ignore said point and go on to argue another relevant point(s)

- let it go

its just that this focus on 'robtard from the internet' and his previous political leanings has got to go. that really is the sum total of my argument here. nothing more.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
this was your error.

your logical options are:

- form a valid retort to said point (even if it means remembering your erased win and posting it finally)

It wasn't an erased "win". It was a "lose" because it was the "exception".

Did you read my post?

Originally posted by focus4chumps
- ignore said point and go on to argue another relevant point(s)

Mission accomplished.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
- let it go

Mission accomplished.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
its just that this focus on 'robtard from the internet' and his previous political leanings has got to go. that really is the sum total of my argument here. nothing more.

So I should pretend to not know anybody when I'm on the internet? Gotcha.

Are you done playing white knight?

Originally posted by focus4chumps
i don't want to waste anyone's browsing time by posting links to sites which clearly outline this fallacy just as it was labeled, but its an easy google.

*edit* ok fine, lets lay it to rest. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

maybe your internet passions have gotten the best of you mr. kandy. this is the initial post i addressed, and the more thorough dissection which followed, pertaining to personal appraisals and his posts which followed. maybe there is an interference with internet signals and we're reading entirely different posts. maybe the laws governing logic are applied differenty on movie forums. i admit i am a newbie in this regard.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I strongly disagree with this claim about yourself. Your political leanings indicate that you are definitely a leftist.

Many of the political thoughts you express are in some way "egalitarian" ones.

Unless you're being a smartie.

Keep in mind that you have stated to be a moderate in the past and I am aware of such statements.

and ddm, understanding where a 'side' (individual with a point to express) is 'coming from' has nothing to do with a stated point. that point is removed from the individual. if someone with down syndrome tells you that the sky is blue, is he wrong because he's mentally handicapped?

Originally posted by focus4chumps
maybe your internet passions have gotten the best of you mr. kandy. this is the initial post i addressed, and the more thorough dissection which followed, pertaining to personal appraisals and his posts which followed. maybe there is an interference with internet signals and we're reading entirely different posts. maybe the laws governing logic are applied differenty on movie forums. i admit i am a newbie in this regard.

I don't want to argue Kig Kandy's points for him but you are obviously playing foolish on purpose (you have already made it apparent that you're just another troll). I explained to you already why such a statement, from myself, cannot be ad hominem tu quoque. Correcting a miss-perception about political labels is far from tu quoque. I'll refer to that text for your future replies.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
and ddm, understanding where a 'side' (individual with a point to express) is 'coming from' has nothing to do with a stated point. that point is removed from the individual. if someone with down syndrome tells you that the sky is blue, is he wrong because he's mentally handicapped?

Maybe you don't like to know of any prior information from anyone when it comes to politics. Generally, a wise person would want to understand where a person is coming from when they make statements that seem crazy or outright lies. Again, we are talking about the article, not Robtard. If you prefer to judge a person based on what they have said in the last 5 minutes rather than the last 30 years, that's your prerogative: very foolish, but still your choice.

Edit - This is not to say that I find it foolish to forgive a man his trespasses or that I don't believe a person can change their mind. To confuse what I'm saying for that would be missing my point.

Double edit- Calling me "ddm" reveals a bit much. Don't you think? You should work harder. 🙂

I think the term left and right are just too vague and encompassing to be of any real use outside of specific political systems where they might as well be "chocolate" and "rainbows" though as it is just used to explain leanings towards a certain political party in this system as outlined on a predefined axis. As in "Republicans are just way more chocolate than these rainbowist Democrats".

Originally posted by Bardock42
As in "Republicans are just way more chocolate than these rainbowist Democrats".

hmm

That also works as a double entendre. Was that on purpose?

Originally posted by dadudemon
hmm

That also works as a double entendre. Was that on purpose?

No, I think it's just our culture, everhttp://www.killermovies.com/forums/editpost.php?s=&action=editpost&postid=13658348ything works as a double entendre, if we just try hard enough...

Originally posted by dadudemon
Some, not all. Your overall stance is quite left. Just because you want some couples to take responsibility for their actions, doesn't mean that you are a bible thumping conservative.

What is your stance on Welfare? Cause a true left finds taxes to be "bad", not good. It is a necessary evil on the path to a "clean" and "pure" society. Are you forgetting about Marxists?

Political correctness? How...Well, if you're for the freedom to say whatever you want that would not be PC, then that's left.

I'm talking about in general, not in the US. Gun ownership argument. Technically, gun control is a "right" issue. It is only the US that has skewed what that means to where the left supports gun control. A true "left" is for responsible but quite liberal gun freedom. Keep in mind that the further left you go, the closer to anarchy you get (the good kind).

Other than abortion, I don't see you supporting your case, very well.

Thinking that you're being attacked when there is nothing wrong with being called leftist on a board full of college educated political philosophers is hardly an insult. I just did not find your denial of "leftist" to be apt. More like you were denying it to spite a poster that thinks calling someone "leftist" is an insult.

If you haven't deduced that I'm telling you that I don't lean heavily either way politically, then I don't know, dude. I'm as much a "bible thumping conservative" as I am a 'bleeding heart liberal', the answer being neither, I'm a moderate/moderate-left. I know this of myself better than you may think you know me. Another fact.

No, I don't think the label "leftist" is a negative, but I did correct Zeal's comment on the merits A) it was not true B) He tried to dismiss my points based on said accusation by using it as a negative label(not that it would either way).

Now if you're done focusing on my personal political stances, the thread topic if you will.

Originally posted by Robtard
If you haven't deduced that I'm telling you that I don't lean heavily either way politically, then I don't know, dude. I'm as much a "bible thumping conservative" as I am a 'bleeding heart liberal', the answer being neither, I'm a moderate/moderate-left. I know this of myself better than you may think you know me. Another fact.

No, I don't think the label "leftist" is a negative, but I did correct Zeal's comment on the merits A) it was not true B) He tried to dismiss my points based on said accusation by using it as a negative label(not that it would either way).

Now if you're done focusing on my personal political stances, the thread topic if you will.

And I'm telling you that what you label yourself is incorrect (from the correct use of the term, not the US-politics centric application). We have discussed almost all facets of the "political topics" so there is not much left to define or for me to discover.

I will give you that you are moderate, for US, on Abortion but that is just about it. Every other stance I can think of, concerning you, is left. Not far left, mind you, but left. I seem to remember you saying you were also a fiscal conservative in the past which further lends to your claim of "moderate".

I am also aware that Zeal was using it as an insult. Since I am largely a leftist, as well...I hardly see it as an insult.

BTW, I also thought I was a moderate until I actually researched what it really meant to be a "leftist" during the spring semester. You'd be surprised at how many things the US has screwed up in our "labels".

Granted, and this will be my final word on it, both you and I are moderates in the US.

Originally posted by dadudemon
And I'm telling you that what you label yourself is incorrect (from the correct use of the term, not the US-politics centric application). We have discussed almost all facets of the "political topics" so there is not much left to define or for me to discover.

I will give you that you are moderate, for US, on Abortion but that is just about it. Every other stance I can think of, concerning you, is left. Not far left, mind you, but left. I seem to remember you saying you were also a fiscal conservative in the past which further lends to your claim of "moderate".

I am also aware that Zeal was using it as an insult. Since I am largely a leftist, as well...I hardly see it as an insult.

BTW, I also thought I was a moderate until I actually researched what it really meant to be a "leftist" during the spring semester. You'd be surprised at how many things the US has screwed up in our "labels".

Granted, and this will be my final word on it, both you and I are moderates in the US.

K.

ok so you've set out to derail your own thread and you have succeeded. congratulations?

Originally posted by Bardock42
For a nation that has thrived and grown completely due to immigration (and some slavery), Americans are ridiculously against the concept.

True. 🙂