Re: How a powerful rightwing lobby is plotting to stop minimum wage hikes
Paxaeon said:
That's twice you are wrong. At no time did I attack you or your character.
That's yes ANOTHER fallacy example - VERY GOOD! I never claimed you attacked my character I specifically stated and linked to ad hominem as an attack on the SOURCES provided. Apparently not only didn't you read my previous post, you ignored the link I provided which clearly states attacking
the source as the problem. See, by you mischaracterizing my previous post, you've now created what is called a
STRAWMAN fallacy - Congratulations! No, I never claimed you attacked my character... but you are now the only one claiming that and a nice strawman indeed.
Here's more education for you about logical fallacy since now you've made the mistake twice --- so you were previously projecting logical fallacy onto me when in actuality your previous posts.
Logical Fallacies» Straw Man Fallacy
Paxaeon said:
I questioned the accuracy, legitimacy, and bias of your sources.
Yet you provided no foundation for those questions other than the source itself. You provided no refutation of the claims in either link, only the source itself. Therefore, your logical fallacy problem. If you wish to refute a source, then you need to do so with verifiable evidence that is not just factual but convincing. When can I expect that happen? :lamo
It's also very precious you want to now argue the definition of ad hominem but you can do that with yourself on your own time.
Paxaeon said:
Evaluating an opponent's sources (
Evaluating Internet Research Sources) is an inherent and legitimate facet of argumentation, whether you accept that or not. Rather than defend the "Heritage Foundation" as an unbiased source, you are crying that I am attacking you (ad Hominem), which in itself is a
"red herring".
It is if you provide legitimate verifiable evidence that contradicts the facts presented. It's not enough to simply state "Mother Jones" is a hack site (which it is) but the facts within the article have to be refuted in order to lend credibility to such an opinion. Because you cannot find a Steve C Watts on an internet search that states what you want it to state is not verifiable evidence.
Paxaeon said:
This isn't "all about you" or your character or beliefs. It's about providing unbiased facts, from objective, legitimate and credible sources in an argument. Your failure to adequately prove your thesis by misdirecting my arguments is your problem, not mine.
Actually this is about the REAL topic at hand, which you may not have noticed is, Minimum Wage hikes.
Please do try to speak to the topic at hand.