Shad
Veteran Member
I have been. It isn't my problem a user repeatedly ignores what I have said demanding I refute something I never was arguing in the first place
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
150 rockets fired at Israel after IDF assassinates Gaza terror leader
- Thread starter Cooky
- Start date
I have been. It isn't my problem a user repeatedly ignores what I have said demanding I refute something I never was arguing in the first place
Shad
Veteran Member
No I didn't.
Your post not the source you linked. See the difference?
Which does not make an argument wrong. You never attacked the argument. You attacked the source. Try again
I know what I am talking about. You still have no idea what I am talking about. Ask someone for assistance as my point is over your head.
Yes you did
My post was accurate. And @rosends is the one attacking site owners and making it personal. Hows about you aim accuracy?
There was no argument only the source, you have claimed the source was the argument. What's sauce for the goose eh?
I dont really care what you are waffling about when you insult from ignorance. However if you are unable to present your argument clearly and without insults... What do you expect?
Last edited:
Shad
Veteran Member
Wrong. Now prove your assertion. I will wait.
I was not talking about that directly.
No I said the only reason you would point out a bias is to undermine the claim from Rosends' source. That is the argument.
Yet you respond.
You can not even figure out what my argument is even when I tell you. Try again.
What assertion, the UN watch is right wing biassed?? Have you not been reading the thread?
So what were you talking about?
Your opinion is noted, considered and bof. My link was my counter, the corroborating indipendent comments i posted justified my link. Sorry you dont like it but tough.
Yeah. Its fun, your objection to me having fun with you is what?
You have no argument, you are just griping at the blonde female who you cant bully.
Shad
Veteran Member
Go back and read the comment chain. You lost track of the conversation again.
Establishing a bias does not mean a source is wrong.
You can not even figure out what my opinion is after having told you multiple times.
That is a fallacious argument.
Ad hominem - Wikipedia
Appeal to bias - RationalWiki
So you complain then take part. Hilarious.
Wrong. My points just go over your head.
Playing the victim. Yawn. My point has nothing to do with your sex nor is it why I am posting. Try again.
Last edited:
Nope, you repeatedly posted bull, i kept to my stance
I never said it was wrong (perhaps you have lost track of the comment train) i said it was biased and you agree. So you problem is obviously not my post but the poster. Read the terms and rules about making it personal.
You old me nothing, all you keep repeating like a faulty record is that my post was wrong (and several more snide comments implying the same)
Nope that is an accurate post, you want to make it an argument and fail because as i have told you just about every time you harp on about your dreams, it was not an argument.
Pointing out your faults is not complaining. Not backing down from a bully is not complaining. But please feel free to massage your own ego.
No? Wow? Are you the same shad?
Shad
Veteran Member
You can not even figure out what my argument is.
Wrong. I said the only reason for one to point out a bias is to undermine the source as per the fallacies I linked.
Nope. I said I didn't challenge your source. Lack of a challenge is not an agreement.
For The Sake Of Argument | Definition of For The Sake Of Argument by Lexico
Wrong. Your argument was flawed. Your inability to understand is about you.
That has nothing to do with what I said.
That is because you are unable to understand my point nor can not figure out my argument after pointing it out time and time again by me
Intent was obvious as you didn't attack the argument only the source. Try again.
Wrong. You have yet to point out a fault as you still have little idea what my point is. Try again.
Correcting you isn't bullying. Play the victim to someone that buys it.
Babble.
Oh yes, its irrelevant
Wrong, the reason to show a site is biased is to show the site is biased.
Jolly good
Interesting but irrelevant
Nope, not flawed, not even an argument and you can bully and rant all you want, it makes no difference. Your inability to comprehend basic logic is woeful.
What you have said through this exchange. You are so easy to read.
As i said, you have no point other that to attempt to discredit me. Not having a point shows you fail
Sheesh, how many times do you need to be told?
You are not correcting anything, you are making up a bs argument that is completely irrelevant, you know this but are unable to save face. Not my problem, you jumped in with an invalid gripe, time to jump out again.
Nope, accurate. Sorry you dont like it.
Shad
Veteran Member
Wrong
That does not make an argument wrong.
Wrong. It is the fallacy you used
Wrong. I established your point was illogical
Fantasy in your head.
You did that with your own argument. I merely pointed it out. My point stands
You still used a fallacious point. Try refuting Rosends' argument instead of attacking the source.
Wrong. Bringing up a bias to as a counter (your words) is a fallacious argument. Try again.
Wrong. Try again. Maybe make an argument next time
Is the below true or false?
P1: X says Y is true.
P2: X is biased.
C: Y is false.
Come back when you have something relevant to say rather than re-hashing the same old nonsense. And stop wasting my time?
Shad
Veteran Member
You can stop replying anytime you want. Show some self-control instead of whining.
Is the below true or false?
P1: X says Y is true.
P2: X is biased.
C: Y is false.
Who is whining, your wishful thinking methinks. I dont back down to bullies, far better than you have tried and failed. But i am thinking you have nothing valid to add.
Your logic test is biased because it does not represent the facts
Try
P1: X says Y is true.
P2, P3, P4 and many more say : X is biased.
C: doesn't know what he's talking about
Shad
Veteran Member
Wrong. My test is pure logic.
That is a fallacious argument. All you did was add more points. Thanks for demonstrating your argument is fallacious and you are irrational. Hilarious.
Btw my test was from one of the links I provided. One you didn't bother reading. Hilarious. You unwitting admitted your argument is a fallacy as you have no idea what you are talking about. Impressive.
Appeal to bias - RationalWiki
An appeal to bias is a fallacy that occurs when an assertion is discredited because of the asserter's (supposed) bias.
The fallacy is an ad hominem fallacy and thus an informal fallacy; often, it is a form of poisoning the well.
Form
P1: X says Y is true.
P2: X is biased.
C: Y is false.
bull, you (or your link) are omitting facts and therefore irrelevant
Shad
Veteran Member
It is pure logic. Repeating P2 does not make X wrong.
Yeah, shouldn't happen but it does.
And how about the IDF killing children, that shouldn't happen either, but it does
And while they are shooting rockets and killing children nothing will be solved
Shad
Veteran Member
Nope. Read the link provided earlier that demonstrates additional points do not make something wrong because a source is biased.
It applies here.
Legitimate use
Appeal to motive is a logical fallacy. However, motive can be highly relevant in practical discourse: when almost all the proponents of position A seem to support rather more odious position B, then it's a useful heuristic to check out whether B is actually the goal. e.g. Holocaust denial is, in practice, overwhelmingly just neo-Nazism dressed up as a mere question of history. Similarly, much of the denial of the health effects of tobacco was funded by tobacco companies.
If one can prove the opponent's argument is false, and that they have an ulterior motive for making the false claim, their entire position is much weaker. But to argue robustly, you need to show the actual argument is wrong. Simply being indicated as having a conflict of interest does not make one wrong.