I wish i was surprised, but I am not. The media should making a much bigger deal out of these Clinton Foundation/State emails. Even worse the DOJ turned down the FBI's request for an investigation.

jmog;1806767 wrote:Did you actually read the definition you posted? I did not attack Zwick, which was the person making the argument.

I attacked his source/authority which in my opinion is more False Authority and is part of attacking the bias of the website is attacking their methodology which is attacking the substance.

Show where I attacked Zwick and you have an argument, if not then you do not.

Earth to scientist Jmog. I never said you attacked zwick derpy. I said you attacked politifact which is ad hominem.

There is no such fallacy as the False Authority fallacy. You are confusing the Appeal to Authority fallacy and a claim in retort that the authority is a false authority is an equally fallacious and invalid argument in the form of an ad hominem.

In fact, which is again too funny...when you search false authority fallacy this is what you get this:

However, it is also a fallacious ad hominem argument to argue that a person presenting statements lacks authority and thus their arguments do not need to be considered.[14] As appeals to a perceived lack of authority, these types of argument are fallacious for much the same reasons as an appeal to authority.

Indeed claiming an authority is a false authority is an ad hominem. And you know what? Nobody cares because in politics ad hominem is part of the game but I find you to be entertaining because you always complain about it...do it all the time yourself and then cannot even acknowledge it and fuck up the name,of another fallacy an wind up proving my point AGAIN.

Brilliant! #DerpGonnaDerp

jmog;1806815 wrote:

Ok BS, here goes.

This is from Politifact.com. This graph shows their rankings from left to right on who tells the "truth" vs who tells "lies". I had a better graph that listed more candidates from earlier in the campaign to every exacerbate my point, but you will get the idea.


If you look at any set of POTUS elections since politifact started its "Truth-O-Meter" without fail the Rs are always lying more often than the Ds (with a couple random exceptions thrown in there).

Now, if Politifact has no bias at all, then their data, statistically would give a 99.9% confidence in stating that "Republicans lie much more often than democrats".


Now, another reasonable assumption that there are bad apples in both parties but a random sample of given Rs and given Ds, that their "truthfulness" should be evenly dispersed. Similarly whether it's nationality, race, etc, anyway you divide up a random sample of human beings the # of "liars" vs "truth tellers" should be randomly dispersed.

This is simple statistics, Caucasians don't lie anymore than African Americans, Christians don't lie anymore than Muslims, etc. If the sample size is large enough the amount of "truth telling" will be evenly dispersed.

So, either one believes politifact has zero biased and republicans and democrats are not really a normal sampling of human beings, or one believes the scientific/statistical reasoning that something is amiss at politifact with their "truth-o-meter" when it comes to Rs vs Ds.

You answered the question yourself derpy. We don't have what you call a normal sample of human beings in the Republican party.

And your assumptions herein are unfounded. No reason to assume parties which reflect belief sets about the world and not immutable characteristics which can have widely different degrees of empirical support.

For example, you believe dinosaurs lived with humans. I canot call this a lie because you believe it to be true. But if you have to comport the world to fit this belief you are going to wind up lying more to stop cognitive dissonance.
Point is your assumptions are ridiculous but AGAIN this is a perfect example of the length you will go to to fit the world to your beliefs.

PS: politifact could certainly be biased. Don't care. I am here to laugh at your absurd reasoning.

BoatShoes;1806961 wrote:You answered the question yourself derpy. We don't have what you call a normal sample of human beings in the Republican party.

And your assumptions herein are unfounded. No reason to assume parties which reflect belief sets about the world and not immutable characteristics which can have widely different degrees of empirical support.

For example, you believe dinosaurs lived with humans. I canot call this a lie because you believe it to be true. But if you have to comport the world to fit this belief you are going to wind up lying more to stop cognitive dissonance.
Point is your assumptions are ridiculous but AGAIN this is a perfect example of the length you will go to to fit the world to your beliefs.

PS: politifact could certainly be biased. Don't care. I am here to laugh at your absurd reasoning.

You don't even know that you just proved my point.

You said I failed because republicans are not a normal set off humans. You compare it to a belief, in your view, that is so absurd that lying has to be the norm to stop cognitive dissonance.

So you basically are saying that republicans views are so absurd they have to lie. Your viewpoint is so skewed against republican's viewpoint that you see most of what they say as a lie. And, with this in mind, your assessment agrees perfectly with politifact. Do you not see yet how their data is skewed?

Also, I, along with politifact, am not talking about a person's intention to mislead. They try to deal with facts only and if that is truth or not true. They don't deal (try not to) with relative truth which is a whole other can of worms that you tried to open up with your skewed ad hominem about me. You don't know what I believe, you know my answers to people's questions on here about how/when/where the Bible mentions dinosaurs and how all of that could possibly fit with the creation world view. You know my arguments FOR that world view since those are the questions asked at that time. You don't know my arguments against that world view since no one ever cared to ask.

So, you can come on here and every time you disagree with me try to attack with a "well he believes dinosaurs walked with humans so he is a moron" but really it just makes you look like an ass. Especially since you don't have my whole world view known.

BoatShoes;1806960 wrote:Earth to scientist Jmog. I never said you attacked zwick derpy. I said you attacked politifact which is ad hominem.

There is no such fallacy as the False Authority fallacy. You are confusing the Appeal to Authority fallacy and a claim in retort that the authority is a false authority is an equally fallacious and invalid argument in the form of an ad hominem.

In fact, which is again too funny...when you search false authority fallacy this is what you get this:



Indeed claiming an authority is a false authority is an ad hominem. And you know what? Nobody cares because in politics ad hominem is part of the game but I find you to be entertaining because you always complain about it...do it all the time yourself and then cannot even acknowledge it and fuck up the name,of another fallacy an wind up proving my point AGAIN.

Brilliant! #DerpGonnaDerp

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority#False_authority
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies#Informal_fallacies

From Wikipedia-False authority (single authority) – using an expert of dubious credentials or using only one opinion to sell a product or idea. Related to the appeal to authority fallacy.


When you google "false authority" the first thing that comes up in the google window is...

argumentum ad verecundiam. (also known as: argument from authority, appeal to false authority, argument from false authority, ipse dixit, testimonials [form of]) Definition: Using an authority as evidence in your argument when the authority is not really an authority on the facts relevant to the argument.

So in other words, keep trying Boat. I maybe wrong about discrediting the original source is ad hominem vs false authority, but false authority is a real fallacy.
Are you lying here on purpose to try to add to your ad hominem on me or just having trouble with the internet today?

jmog;1806975 wrote: Are you lying here on purpose to try to add to your ad hominem on me or just having trouble with the internet today?

He is merely following in the footsteps of his idol.

BoatShoes;1806961 wrote:We don't have what you call a normal sample of human beings in the Republican party.

Technically, this could also be construed as an ad hominem. What is to suggest that the Republican Party is not an accurate cross-section or what we mean when we use the nebulous term "normal?"

BoatShoes;1806961 wrote:For example, you believe dinosaurs lived with humans. I canot call this a lie because you believe it to be true. But if you have to comport the world to fit this belief you are going to wind up lying more to stop cognitive dissonance.

While I don't share jmog's young earth view, this is a straw man. If one believes dinosaurs lived with humans, it is a point on which other aspects of their worldview framework might be built. As such, other beliefs which may or may not seem absurd to you, me, or others can be genuinely held. I would go so far as to assert that, generally speaking, most young earth apologists I know genuinely believe what they say. Even the elements build on that as a foundation are genuinely held out of a felt necessity. Still genuine all the same. In essence, it's not lying, or at least not under the grounds you've stated above.

As such, there's nothing in that belief which inherently gives anyone more reason to knowingly make false claims.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/12/report-claims-doj-probe-clinton-foundation-emails-ongoing.html


I'm with Giuliani: time to open a RICO investigation.

O-Trap;1806995 wrote:
While I don't share jmog's young earth view, this is a straw man. If one believes dinosaurs lived with humans, it is a point on which other aspects of their worldview framework might be built. As such, other beliefs which may or may not seem absurd to you, me, or others can be genuinely held. I would go so far as to assert that, generally speaking, most young earth apologists I know genuinely believe what they say. Even the elements build on that as a foundation are genuinely held out of a felt necessity. Still genuine all the same. In essence, it's not lying, or at least not under the grounds you've stated above.

As such, there's nothing in that belief which inherently gives anyone more reason to knowingly make false claims.

To be honest, and I have stated this before on here Boat just tends to ignore it, I am not sure about young earth, I just am able to argue that side of the discussion with scientific reasoning just like I can the old earth side with scientific reasoning. I can even scientifically see both sides. Almost like Schrodinger's cat, both dead and alive are true until you open the box. I can actually cognitively believe both sides are valid scientific arguments and give evidences for both. I just get a kick out of the typical response when evidence is given to support a young earth by a PhD scientist the typical response by those like Boat is "well Christian scientist XYZ is obviously biased and trying to prove his belief system", like an atheistic scientist couldn't possibly have similar biases to prove their world view.

In my life I have been fully 100% believing in young earth creationism and fully 100% believing in big bang/evolution/trillions of years. As I gather more information on both sides of the discussion my belief system/world view honestly becomes more of a spectrum between the two rather than hard core either way (instead of 0,1 bytes in computer terms I have a full scale between 0 and 1 now, all rational/irrational numbers in between).

Kind of like sexuality used to be believed either heterosexual or homosexual, now it is considered a spectrum. Same here on my world view, I am somewhere in between.

The difference is that Boat only sees/asks for questions like "well dinosaurs weren't mentioned in the Bible so it's obviously wrong". I reply with a few passages in Job and show that between that and dragon "myths" around the world in ancient times that it is possible.

Is the health of HRC an issue? Are they trying to disguise the repercussions from that fall she had in 2012? Dr. Drew (Pinsky) seems to think it very well may be. I know the link is to the questionable InfoWars site, but they are reporting on what Dr. Drew told KABC'a McIntyre in the Morning show...
http://www.infowars.com/dr-drew-gravely-concerned-about-hillary-clintons-health/

Apple;1807766 wrote:Is the health of HRC an issue? Are they trying to disguise the repercussions from that fall she had in 2012? Dr. Drew (Pinsky) seems to think it very well may be. I know the link is to the questionable InfoWars site, but they are reporting on what Dr. Drew told KABC'a McIntyre in the Morning show...
http://www.infowars.com/dr-drew-gravely-concerned-about-hillary-clintons-health/

No.
Don't fall for conspiracy theories.

ptown_trojans_1;1807874 wrote:No.
Don't fall for conspiracy theories.

I definitely believe the far right is pushing this narrative too far, however, some of the videos of her unexplainable 'jerky' movements are typical of seizures, etc and are cause for concern.

jmog;1807877 wrote:I definitely believe the far right is pushing this narrative too far, however, some of the videos of her unexplainable 'jerky' movements are typical of seizures, etc and are cause for concern.

Nothing I've seen makes me think it's anything other than Hillary trying to overcompensate for her "robotic" persona. Some of them I might simply say I see a "drunk with power/adulation" that many politicians seem to have, but some do a better job than others of masking it.

I would be concerned about anyone's health in their late 60's especially if they will be holding one of the most stressful positions in the world. Blood clots are nothing to brush aside. It's potentially about to end a NBA star's career (Chris Bosh), let alone the 69 year old female Kim Jong look alike. It won't surprise me if she is just as senile as Reagan was by the end of her term as president (hopefully 4 years). Luckily for her, she has her rapistberger impersonator "husband" around to make her look healthy. Bill has not been looking or sounding good lately.

I do find funny though that mccains age was a huge issue, but not a word has been said about any of these current candidates, which included a 74 year old socialist.

like_that;1807894 wrote:I do find funny though that mccains age was a huge issue, but not a word has been said about any of these current candidates, which included a 74 year old socialist.

I definitely remember some die hard democrats on this forum (and even some repubs) listing that as a major reason for not voting for McCain. Any excuse lol

like_that;1807894 wrote:I would be concerned about anyone's health in their late 60's especially if they will be holding one of the most stressful positions in the world. Blood clots are nothing to brush aside. It's potentially about to end a NBA star's career (Chris Bosh), let alone the 69 year old female Kim Jong look alike. It won't surprise me if she is just as senile as Reagan was by the end of her term as president (hopefully 4 years). Luckily for her, she has her rapistberger impersonator "husband" around to make her look healthy. Bill has not been looking or sounding good lately.

I do find funny though that mccains age was a huge issue, but not a word has been said about any of these current candidates, which included a 74 year old socialist.

It was just as amusing to see the same people clamoring for Clinton's health records now thinking McCain's age wasn't an issue. The whole age thing is dumb, anyway. I know people in their 50s that are healthier than people in their 30s. That isn't to suggest that risk factors don't increase with age, but for us to quibble about people who haven't had noted battles with health problems (a one-off fall or the inability to raise arms doesn't really count) and who are currently under the average life expectancy in the US by at least eight years ... it's silly.

ptown_trojans_1;1807874 wrote:No.
Don't fall for conspiracy theories.

I'm not sure Dr. Drew is one who would be promoting a conspiracy, especially in the realm of this instance. He seems to me to be just noting, using his medical experience and education, symptoms which run parallel to persons who suffer from similar circumstances as those HRC has incurred.

Apple;1807926 wrote:I'm not sure Dr. Drew is one who would be promoting a conspiracy, especially in the realm of this instance. He seems to me to be just noting, using his medical experience and education, symptoms which run parallel to persons who suffer from similar circumstances as those HRC has incurred.

You have to remember, ptown is a shill. There are many reasons to be concerned with Hillary's health.

superman;1807929 wrote:You have to remember, ptown is a shill. There are many reasons to be concerned with Hillary's health.

Look, I think the woman is vile, both as a politician and (from what I can gather) as a person. However, to suggest that there are many reasons to be concerned about her health is along the same lines as saying there are many reasons to think I have cancer if I'm looking at WebMD.

She, her doctor, and anyone else who actually knows any current medical diagnoses would be the only people with the knowledge to as to whether or not there are reasons to be concerned with her health.

She's not a trustworthy candidate, so I'm not sure why her health matters.

O-Trap;1807937 wrote:Look, I think the woman is vile, both as a politician and (from what I can gather) as a person. However, to suggest that there are many reasons to be concerned about her health is along the same lines as saying there are many reasons to think I have cancer if I'm looking at WebMD.

She, her doctor, and anyone else who actually knows any current medical diagnoses would be the only people with the knowledge to as to whether or not there are reasons to be concerned with her health.

She's not a trustworthy candidate, so I'm not sure why her health matters.

I am not concerned about her health, but I give 0 fucks about her. However, blood cots are nothing to fuck around with. If she wants to brush that aside, that's her choice.

like_that;1807942 wrote:I am not concerned about her health, but I give 0 fucks about her. However, blood cots are nothing to fuck around with. If she wants to brush that aside, that's her choice.

Oh, I'm not saying they are. But unless there's something I've not heard, are we certain that she's currently struggling with blood clots?

gut;1807878 wrote:Nothing I've seen makes me think it's anything other than Hillary trying to overcompensate for her "robotic" persona. Some of them I might simply say I see a "drunk with power/adulation" that many politicians seem to have, but some do a better job than others of masking it.

so you want that for a president?

O-Trap;1807943 wrote:Oh, I'm not saying they are. But unless there's something I've not heard, are we certain that she's currently struggling with blood clots?

There is something obviously wrong with her.
1. Why is there a guy walking around with a diazepam pen with her?
2. Why does she wear Fresnal Prism glasses?
3. What's up with the weird stool thing?

superman;1808015 wrote:There is something obviously wrong with her.
1. Why is there a guy walking around with a diazepam pen with her?
2. Why does she wear Fresnal Prism glasses?
3. What's up with the weird stool thing?

Again, this is like trying to diagnose with WebMD.

1. She could have anxiety. Hardly unreasonable for a person seeking election as POTUS. Or hell, maybe it's not for her, but for someone who stays close to her.
2. Fresnel prism glasses have been used to help treat astigmatisms or a lazy eye. She's old.
3. Did I mention that she's old? My grandfather prefers to sit as well.

Like I said, I've got no love for the woman, but the latching on to these things which can have completely innocuous reasons amounts to grasping at straws. She's a bad candidate. She shouldn't be president, but her health has nothing to do with it.

I haven't heard anything about someone keeping IV diazepam close by, but there is no way anyone would use it for anxiety when diazepam comes in a tablet form. If it is a Diastat (rectal gel pen) then it is for seizures.