View Single Post
Old 04-09-2009, 10:51 PM   #21
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
... a typical Chicago Politician with his radical views and associations is some sort of saint ...
Saints are fictive designations created by the superstitious. I used no such moniker nor do I believe your current President is without fault. Your comment, however, represents the usual ideological rhetoric and hyperbole used by political junkies who limit their ability to think critically vis--vis their preconceived conclusions. An irrational mode of thought.

Quote:
@ SkinWalker
I will go a step further and point out at least Republicans tend to have the courtesy to resign from office if they are actually guilty of something and get caught.
Again, more preconceived conclusions to which you only seek that data which are supportive. I can easily to examples of the null hypothesis by simply tailoring my observation and arrive at the same irrational outcome as you. I've already demonstrated this. One begins to see Nyborg's conclusions manifest clearer and clearer.

Quote:
As for your (and other people's) statements about members of the Bush Administration, seriously some of the sources you are using have a worse track record than a sleezy used car salesman.
yawn. More irrational, simple, and baseless ideological rhetoric. The "it must be so because I believe it to be" fallacy. yawn... again.

Quote:
It is a fact that Carl Rove wasn't the source of the leak, and Federal Prosecutors serve at the pleasure of the President.
Who gives a ****? Really. Moreover, an honest rebuttal would include the full data, i.e. who it was that actually did commit this form of treason. I notice you avoid this data. Almost as if it doesn't exist. Almost as if it doesn't fit the conclusions you already have and thus.... wish it away.

Quote:
And seriously you guys claim Bush was dumber than a box of rocks, then you claim he is some ulitimate evil with a devious plot to take over the world. That kinda contradicts itself, you can't have it both ways.
Again, preconceived conclusions to which you only seek that data...

Also, you're creating a strawman since it's easier for you to defeat an argument that has a flaw (i.e. the one you create in your head and appear to share some irrational belief that this is an argument held by someone here).

The alleged flaw is that it takes a highly intelligent person to be evil. The obvious problem with your strawman is that this isn't scientifically sound. But, please, cite the data which are supportive of this hypothesis. I've very curious to see it.

The not-so-obvious problem with your strawman is that very few people actually argue that Bush is both deficit in intelligence and an "evil master-mind." Indeed, I can't recall anyone here making that argument. What I do recall, when the "dumb ass a box of rocks" Bush was starting a war with a sovereign nation in 2003, it was argued in this very forum that he was not intelligent and that he was surrounded with greedy, bad, no-good, immoral and shady advisors and cabinet. I don't recall anyone referring to him as an "ultimate evil."

Please. Try to make some rational arguments that are cogent and sound.


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,