<p>
[quote]
If they ran on their pro-abortion, pro-gay, pro-affirmative action, pro-tax burden, pro-welfare/social services agenda (instead of their "Bush is a moron and we're not Bush") - they would have lost be even more.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This statement is an enthymeme; the implicit premise/conclusion is that liberals are justified in opining straw mans for the sake of garnering votes, since a more intellectual campaign would have been too esoteric for voters.</p>
<p>
[quote]
That is an incorrect rendition; the rendering of normative statements is but one form of the ad populum fallacy.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Back that up? Tell me what I did, and then give me a source that shows that's the fallacy.</p>
<p>Here's three that say you're wrong.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.goodart.org/pop.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.goodart.org/pop.htm</a></p>
<p>I provided my justification for the classification above; do you even know what a normative statement is?</p>
<p>maize -- yeah, disagree. religious voters supposedly want to protect whatever it is that most closely resembles their strongest ethical values. forgive me, but i believe the first commandment is "thou shall not kill" -- not, "thou shall not wed a chick if you don't have a ..." taking that into consideration, i can't fathom since when killing over 100,000 iraqis and millions more unmentioned throughout the cold war intervention period was morally righteous.
as for the economy, if the incumbant runner had a fiscally disasterous term,both sides will inevitably claim that they can stimulate it more. and who knows whether the keynsians or supply-siders have a more potent hand to get the ball rolling anyway? BUT -- supporting the poor and dehumanized citizens of anyone's nation is supposed to be other main tenet of the bible, right?</p>
<p>for the record: i grew up a middle-class, catholic conservative -- (my father was in the air force, my bro in the marines) -- but i changed my opinions after actually learning how the world operates a little. i'm originally from california, but moved around several times between mass and connecticut. so don't strawman my ass while you're at it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
but i believe the first commandment is "thou shall not kill
[/quote]
</p>
<p>actually, it's not - my good Catholic school education coming in handy!</p>
<p>
[quote]
supporting the poor and dehumanized citizens of anyone's nation is supposed to be other main tenet of the bible, right?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>God helps those who help themselves. I don't think the welfare system pre-1996 was what the bible intended when it called for charity. Half of ones paycheck to the federal government is insane.</p>
<p>.....</p>
<p>Nsped, what are you babbling about? A enthymeme is not an ad populum argument, and what you posted a quote as wasn't one, either. You once again said it was, but provided no evidence. I disproved you (and provided 3 links to show you wrong) yet you still claimed that my form was only one (of the many) forms of populum. All I asked is you to provide one that made your claim. Apparently, you couldn't, so now you've changed the subject and babbled even more?</p>
<p>Just fyi, an ethymeme is a fallacy of hidden premise (often presented in the form of a quantifier switch). You know formal logic? Trust me, there was no hidden premise in my opinion there, and (unlike you just accused me of, I think) I was not trying to justify the Democrats' platform or campaign strategy.</p>
<p>Maybe nobody else here follows you, but you can rest assured (even if nobody else does) I can tell you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Nsped, what are you babbling about? A enthymeme is not an ad populum argument, and what you posted a quote as wasn't one, either. You claim that what I countered you with (and provided 3 links to show you wrong) was only one form of populum. All I asked is you to provide one that made your claim. Apparently, you couldn't, so now you've changed the subject and babbled even more?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I provided my justification...</p>
<p>
[quote]
do you even know what a normative statement is?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Obviously you do not.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Maybe nobody else here follows you, but you can rest assured (even if nobody else does) I can tell you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sorry, I actually thought you were competent in political philosophy/logic, but evidently your arguments are merely loosely strung catch phrases of political rhetoric.</p>
<p>Perhaps when you actually understand the full nature of your definition of the ad populum fallacy, you will understand the mistake you made.</p>
<p>Hint: One word is incorrect...
Hint 2: It is "right."</p>
<p>Now try again. You can do it this time, I am sure you can:)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Perhaps when you actually understand the full nature of your definition of the ad populum fallacy, you will understand the mistake you made.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's ad hominem, dontchaknow? Maybe you'll be gracious enough to point it out and provide proof (like I did?). I didn't think so. Next time, use words you understand there, killer.</p>
<p>I didn't answer your normative question because I'm fairly sure you don't know what it means. I read over the entire thread, and I didn't make one.</p>
<p>Let us dissect my justification:</p>
<p>1) This statement is an enthymeme... BECAUSE...
2) the implicit premise/conclusion .... AND THAT IS...
3) is that liberals are justified in opining straw mans for the sake of garnering votes, since a more intellectual campaign would have been too esoteric for voters... WHICH IS...
4) An ad populum fallacy.</p>
<p>By the way, even if you do not understand it, that does not make it incorrect: I dare say it is an appeal to ignorance:)</p>
<p>6th commandment, whatever. it's still pretty dang important. (yes, you got me, i just googled it).
getting into the economic merits/social responsibility views of both sides would take forever. and i've had the debate that's coming up right now about 5,000 times in my life. no need to make it 5,001 when i have an 18 page paper due monday.
but anyway, you seem like a fun guy to talk to. maybe, should we both get into brown, we can have our political dialectic way with each other.
although, i don't have elitist dollars backing me. my luck is dim. what school are you at now?</p>
<p>
[quote]
That's ad hominem, dontchaknow?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No it is not. The lacunae in your logical reasoning suggests that you cannot make a coherent statement. Though attacks often to do not hold logical validity, they are still inductively justified on certain levels.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I didn't answer your normative question because I'm fairly sure you don't know what it means.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>HINT 1: IT IS IN ONE WORD...
HINT 2: IT IS "RIGHT"</p>
<p>Do I have to make this even more pellucid for you?</p>
<p>This is hilarious.</p>
<p>Maize, ah the ignorant youth. Since 1970, government spending increases 64% when a republican is in the White House. Clinton took a huge annual deficit and turned it into $300 billion annual surplus. </p>
<p>GWB takes office and wipes out the $300 billion surplus, turns it into a $400 billion annual deficit by giving tax cuts to the rich, and spending over $3 trillion out to 2008. He has spent more money than any president before him.</p>
<p>Now, that's bad enough. But these aren't strawmen arguments...</p>
<p>What was he doing when the USA was attacked? How many meetings had he had on the topic of terrorism before the WTC was attacked? He was on vacation 60% of the time during the first 8 months in office. </p>
<p>What were his comments when asked about the Attack on the USS Cole? "My people didn't have a focus on terrorism." - Bob Woodward in "Bush as War." </p>
<p>When asked how history will view his presidency, he responded "Who cares, we'll all be dead anyway." - Bob Woodward's book "Plan of Attack." </p>
<p>Oh yeah, why are we in Iraq? Was it to liberate the Iraqi people?? I don't recall that being one of the topics of Colin Powell's address to the U.N..
Wasn't it all about:</p>
<ul>
<li>WMD's. </li>
<li>Chemical/Biological Weapons. </li>
<li>UAV's capable of striking the US. </li>
<li>Revitalized Nuclear Weapons Program. </li>
</ul>
<p>ALL proven FALSE. Statistically speaking, all four reasons for war couldn't be proven false unless there was an agenda by this administration. If there were basic errors in the intel, you would have perhaps one or two reasons fail, not a 100% failure. It's just not statistically possible. It was all a lie. </p>
<p>To knowingly mislead, to cherry pick the facts, and ignore dissenting opinions, in order to meet your agenda equates to a gigantic lie. </p>
<p>Lets face it, Cheney's numerous, unprecedented, visits to the CIA after 911 created pressure for the agents to produce biased information that the administration wanted to hear. This is documented by statements from very said agents. </p>
<p>Even Bush was smart enough to know the intel wasn't cause enough to go to war, yet he went ahead and sent the troops anyway. WHY? Bush's own questioning of the intel just three months before going to war is documented in Bob Woodward's book "Plan of Attack." </p>
<p>There are other news souces besides FoxNews...</p>
<p>Nope, that's formally right - just the stupidest thing I've ever heard.</p>
<p>That statement is actually a positive or nomative (did you have nomative mixed with normative?). It just says. </p>
<p>Positive: Democrats did x if they did y they would have lost by more.</p>
<p>Normative: Democrats ought not to have done x because it is dishonest.</p>
<p>You're now trying to say that I implied the "ought" which nobody else would have assumed. That's a big reach now that you've googled your terms! haha</p>
<p>A true example of what you're trying to say would be:
Democrats did x and if they did y they would have lost by more - then somehow implied (language, tone if talking etc) that they were justified, "oughtafied" in doing what they did.</p>
<p>Why would I imply that they were justified in a post in which rallying against them?</p>
<p>Honestly, what will you think of next.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You're now trying to say that I implied the "ought" which nobody else would have assumed. That's a big reach now that you've googled your terms! haha
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I am a Kantian, but your hardihood is amusing.</p>
<p>I guess children are this way...</p>
<p>Let us go over your illicit reasoning once again:</p>
<p>1) This statement is an enthymeme... BECAUSE...
2) the implicit premise/conclusion .... AND THAT IS...
3) is that liberals are justified in opining straw mans for the sake of garnering votes, since a more intellectual campaign would have been too esoteric for voters... WHICH IS...
4) An ad populum fallacy.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why would I imply that they were justified in a post I'm rallying against them?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>List of improvements you require:
1) Logical reasoning
2) Grammar</p>
<p>You cought me - my first mistake of the thread. I forgot a word. I just editied my above post. Nice try on the recovery.</p>
<p>Wow, you cannot even spell, much less understand the definition of "normative."</p>
<p>
[quote]
ou cought me - my first mistake of the thread. I forgot a word.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Congratulations, you have reached, or shall I say, plummeted to the level of blackdream. </p>
<p>My work here is done.</p>
<p>Calipharius, I apologize for digressing from your thread.</p>
<p>
[quote]
just editied my above post. Nice try on the recovery.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why would I imply that they were justified in a post I'm in which rallying against them?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Smooth ;)</p>
<p>
[quote]
My work here is done
[/quote]
</p>
<p>With calling more names (and might I say - a brutal attack on a forgotten word typo)...</p>
<p>...all while not addressing the stupid assumption that you're trying to pull out now that you've come to grips with the terms you tried to slip in over everyone head.</p>
<p>I'd like to ask suprised, but....</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'd like to ask surprised, but....
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Still having trouble spelling?</p>
<p>
[quote]
you tried to slip in over everyone head.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>...you mean your own head, right?</p>
<p>
[quote]
...you mean your own head, right?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I've provided proof. YOu've backtracked, namecalled, and pointed out spelling errors.</p>
<p>Note: more spelling corrections still no answer to the question? If only you'd have googled your terms BEFORE you tried to argue. You might have been able to do so with civility and without having to go grammar police on typos after you've been disproved.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I've provided proof.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Proof that you understand "normative"? I think not.</p>