• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Cheney: Obama Should Be Debriefing, Not Investigating

PogueMoran said:
Its a hypothetical based on a post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Click to expand...
I'm not at all surew why you dont understand that your argument here is meaningless, given that I'm not claiming that anything will or will not happen, but only suppose that it does.

Supposing that it does happen negates, in its entirety, your complaint.

So, really, you can either answer the question or stop wasting bandwidth.
 
Goobieman said:
I'm not at all surew why you dont understand that your argument here is meaningless, given that I'm not claiming that anything will or will not happen, but only suppose that it does.

Supposing that it does happen negates, in its entirety, your complaint.

So, really, you can either answer the question or stop wasting bandwidth.
Click to expand...

No you're making an opinion based claim and interjecting by saying "that it was shown to be prevented by bush policies". That's an opinion not based in fact that you interjected. That's why your question is bunk. You're basing it on a supposition that B happened because of A. Try rephrasing your question without interjecting your own opinion
 
JakeFromWI said:
Publicly funded programs run by the government isn't socialist?

News to me.
Click to expand...

Socialism is "a social system in which the means of producing and distributing goods are owned collectively and political power is exercised by the whole community." The mere existence of government programs does not constitute collective ownership and management of the means of production and distribution, and certainly not the common exercise of political power.

Goobieman said:
"Socialist" programs are those that promote or contain socialist elements, those in which the governmnt owns/controls the means of producing and distributing wealth, usually but not necessarily including a component that engages in the redistribution of wealth through the welfare state.
Click to expand...

No, that definition is almost worse. Apart from the fact that government ownership and control of the means of production is itself not sufficient for socialism because this can become antithetical to legitimate public management and exercise of political power, welfare programs do not constitute government ownership and management, much less socialism. In fact, given the role of the welfare state in sustaining macroeconomic stabilization in the capitalist economy as well as the physical efficiency of the working class, welfare state policies ultimately maintain the arrangement wherein the means of production are privately owned by providing benefits within that system...which is why liberal and social democratic capitalism are in fact greater foes of socialism than more rightist variants, contrary to popular belief.

Harshaw said:
But I'll grant that nationalizing an industry is indeed a socialist measure.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't, because nationalization is not sufficient to establish public ownership and management.
 
Does anybody on the face of the Earth still take Evil Dick serious? If so? That is pitiful:)
 
PogueMoran said:
No you're making an opinion based claim...
Click to expand...
I'm not claiming anything. That's the part you dont understand.

I'm setting a stage by presenting an assumption that set of circumstances extsis, and then asking for your reaction to same.

Given that, NONE of your objections are valid.

All you want to do is avoid answering the question.
 
Goobieman said:
I'm not claiming anything. That's the part you dont understand.

I'm setting a stage by presenting an assumption that set of circumstances extsis, and then asking for your reaction to same.

Given that, NONE of your objections are valid.

All you want to do is avoid answering the question.
Click to expand...

Yes you are making a claim. I bolded the part where you interjected your own opinion. You're setting up a logical fallacy. Its not a set of circumstances that exists because the bolded part you have been unable to prove. Keep running around in circles here if you want. My objections are plenty valid. You throw up something based on a logical fallacy and avoid my original questions and then bitch about it
 
PogueMoran said:
Yes you are making a claim.
Click to expand...
Setting the givens in a hypothetical is not making a claim, and so your objection remians invalid.

All your whining notwithstanding, it all boils dont to you not -wanting- to answer the question.
 
Goobieman said:
Setting the givens in a hypothetical is not making a claim, and so your objection remians invalid.

All your whining notwithstanding, it all boils dont to you not -wanting- to answer the question.
Click to expand...

Givens are fixed and not open to interpretation. Your "given" in bold is your person interjection. My objection to your logical fallacy is valid. There's no question to answer its based on a logical fallacy.
 
PogueMoran said:
Givens are fixed and not open to interpretation.
Click to expand...
-I- know that.
YOU seem to have the problem with that notion, as you have done nothing -but- argue against those givens.

Setting the givens in a hypothetical is not making a claim, and so your objection remians invalid.

All your whining notwithstanding, it all boils dont to you not -wanting- to answer the question.
 
Goobieman said:
-I- know that.
YOU seem to have the problem with that notion, as you have done nothing -but- argue against those givens.

Setting the givens in a hypothetical is not making a claim, and so your objection remians invalid.

All your whining notwithstanding, it all boils dont to you not -wanting- to answer the question.
Click to expand...

I'm not the one having a problem with the definition of a given. You made an interjection of opinion with the bolded part claiming "that it was shown to be prevented by bush policies". This is not a given but your personal opinion. My objection is valid. There's not a valid question to answer as its based on an ad hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy. I'm sorry if you don't understand what that means.
 
Goobieman said:
Yes. You are.
Click to expand...

Nope you're claiming your statement about the chance that another attack would be stopped because of Bush's torture policies is a given is incorrect. That's not a given its an interjection of your own opinion.

Goobieman said:
No. I did not. Thus, your argument fails.
Click to expand...

Yeah you did the argument stands. You don't seem to understand what a logical fallacy is.

Goobieman said:
Now, answer the question.
Click to expand...

You never answered my question before you jumped in with your logical fallacy.
 
PogueMoran said:
Yeah you did....
Click to expand...
This is where your failure manifests itself.
What I stated was not an OPINION, it was part of the GIVEN and thus an ASSUMED FACT.

Your argument fails.

Answer the question.
 
Goobieman said:
I'm not claiming anything. That's the part you dont understand.

I'm setting a stage by presenting an assumption that set of circumstances extsis, and then asking for your reaction to same.

Given that, NONE of your objections are valid.

All you want to do is avoid answering the question.
Click to expand...

Pardon me, but I find the above hilarious to say the least.

Admitting that you're setting the parameters of the debate, and then attacking someone when they choose not to acknowledge your set boundaries, is, quite simply, cheating.

You would find yourself disqualified out of an academic debate, if, of course, this was one.

And by the way, just so you know.

Almost everything you have stated makes absolutely no sense at all.
 
The_Limt said:
Pardon me, but I find the above hilarious to say the least.

Admitting that you're setting the parameters of the debate, and then attacking someone when they choose not to acknowledge your set boundaries, is, quite simply, cheating.

You would find yourself disqualified out of an academic debate, if, of course, this was one.

And by the way, just so you know.

Almost everything you have stated makes absolutely no sense at all.
Click to expand...

It's just Goobie, it's how he operates. You get used to it, and laugh a little.
 
Goobieman said:
This is where your failure manifests itself.
What I stated was not an OPINION, it was part of the GIVEN and thus an ASSUMED FACT.

Your argument fails.

Answer the question.
Click to expand...

Assumed fact? Facts are not assumptions that are unfounded which is what your part about stating that "could have been stopped if we didn't abandon Bush torture policies" Again you're trying to say this so-called assumed fact is a given that cannot be disputed. Even though your given if true would mean that the Embassy bombing in Iraq would have been stopped by said torture which it was not or it took place in spite of it. Again your given has not been proven. Thus a logical fallacy. You're interjecting your own opinion and calling it an assumed fact.
 
The_Limt said:
Pardon me, but I find the above hilarious to say the least.

Admitting that you're setting the parameters of the debate, and then attacking someone when they choose not to acknowledge your set boundaries, is, quite simply, cheating.

You would find yourself disqualified out of an academic debate, if, of course, this was one.

And by the way, just so you know.

Almost everything you have stated makes absolutely no sense at all.
Click to expand...


Goober is trying to sound intellectual. If this was an academic debate he wouldn't be using logical fallacies and claiming his own interjections to be "assumed facts"
 
The_Limt said:
Pardon me, but I find the above hilarious to say the least.

Admitting that you're setting the parameters of the debate, and then attacking someone when they choose not to acknowledge your set boundaries, is, quite simply, cheating.
Click to expand...
You're pardoned.

You -are- familiar with 'what would you do if...?' scenarios, yes?

I set up an hypothetical, with a certain set of assumed facts.
Under those assumed facts, I asked what you would do.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Now, I dont really care if you asnwer the question, or not -- but arguing against the question itself denotes a desire to NOT answer the question because it presents you with choices you don't like, and because of it, an irrepressible urge to NOT simply leave the question alone.

And by the way, just so you know.
Almost everything you have stated makes absolutely no sense at all.
Click to expand...
Perhaps English isnt your first language?
If not, then I cannot explain your inability to understand the language in its plain state, but as it IS in its plain state, the fault lies with the reader, not the author.
 
The_Limt said:
Pardon me, but I find the above hilarious to say the least.

Admitting that you're setting the parameters of the debate, and then attacking someone when they choose not to acknowledge your set boundaries, is, quite simply, cheating.

You would find yourself disqualified out of an academic debate, if, of course, this was one.

And by the way, just so you know.

Almost everything you have stated makes absolutely no sense at all.
Click to expand...


Commonly known as the "Stinger Shuffle".
 
PogueMoran said:
Goober is trying to sound intellectual.
Click to expand...
Says he who has been throwing about haughty terms that do not apply, and who continues to lack the honesty to admit it.
 
disneydude said:
Commonly known as the "Stinger Shuffle".
Click to expand...
You've got such a hard-on for me (and Stinger) that you dont even know what that term means -- made even more amazing in that YOU coined it!

Now, go be irrelevant somewhere else -- you shan't find it difficult to do.
 
Goobieman said:
You're pardoned.

You -are- familiar with 'what would you do if...?' scenarios, yes?
Click to expand...

I am familiar with that crude form of debate.

It is not serious, not beneficial, and more often than not, obstructs austere discourse.

You deal in fantasies.

I prefer reality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom