150 rockets fired at Israel after IDF assassinates Gaza terror leader

[ChristineM]

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.

You can shout all you want, i have shown where it is wrong, there are not enough coefficients in your second equation. Or did you not notice that?

And can i ask what has this to do with the thread or are you simply attempt to derail it further?

 

[Shad]

You can shout all you want, i have shown where it is wrong, there are not enough coefficients in your second equation. Or did you not notice that?

That is irrelevant as per my quote. Try again.

Fox News claims it is 52F outside
Fox News is biased
Fox News is biased
Fox News is biased
Fox News is biased
Fox News is biased
Fox News is biased
C: It isn't 52F outside.

None of the biased establishes it isn't 52F outside.You must demonstrate it is not 52F outside.

And can i ask what has this to do with the thread or are you simply attempt to derail it further?

I am just showing the flaws in your argument. Beside you keep replying so I am hardly the one derailing anything.

 

[ChristineM]

That is irrelevant as per my quote. Try again.

Fox News claims it is 52F outside
Fox News is biased
Fox News is biased
Fox News is biased
Fox News is biased
Fox News is biased
Fox News is biased
C: It isn't 52F outside.

None of the biased establishes it isn't 52F outside.You must demonstrate it is not 52F outside.



I am just showing the flaws in your argument. Beside you keep replying so I am hardly the one derailing anything.

Don't talk bukloop.

I must show no such thing. Its your straw man. You play with it

The temperature can be verified, UN Watches bias can be verified. End of story

You are the one going off track, asking stupid questions and making irrelevant statements.

 

[Shad]

Don't talk bukloop.

I'm not

I must show no such thing. Its your straw man. You play with it

Your example was still fallacious. No amount of bias from a source make an argument wrong. You must demonstrate the argument is actually wrong.

The temperature can be verified, UN Watches bias can be verified. End of story

You never refuted the claim of UN Watch. Try again.

You are the one going off track, asking stupid questions and making irrelevant statements.

Nope. You made the argument. I am just pointing out it is fallacious. Take your L and move on.

Ad Hominem

"Ad Hominem Fallacy: (abusive and circumstantial): the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of seeking to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument. Often the fallacy is characterized simply as a personal attack. However, a personal attack is a claim, not a fallacy. Thus, a character or a circumstantial attack simpliciter is not evaluated as an ad hominem argument or an ad hominem fallacy."

Poisoning the well - RationalWiki

"The usual method is to point out the unpleasant nature of the person making the opposing argument, in which case it is a special case of a personal attack or ad hominem. In general, "to poison the well" means to pre-provide any information that could produce a biased opinion of the reasoning, positive or negative."

15 Logical Fallacies You Should Know Before Getting Into a Debate

"More specifically, the ad hominem is a fallacy of relevance where someone rejects or criticizes another person’s view on the basis of personal characteristics, background, physical appearance, or other features irrelevant to the argument at issue."

 

[ChristineM]

I'm not



Your example was still fallacious. No amount of bias from a source make an argument wrong. You must demonstrate the argument is actually wrong.



You never refuted the claim of UN Watch. Try again.



Nope. You made the argument. I am just pointing out it is fallacious. Take your L and move on.

Ad Hominem

"Ad Hominem Fallacy: (abusive and circumstantial): the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of seeking to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument. Often the fallacy is characterized simply as a personal attack. However, a personal attack is a claim, not a fallacy. Thus, a character or a circumstantial attack simpliciter is not evaluated as an ad hominem argument or an ad hominem fallacy."

Poisoning the well - RationalWiki

"The usual method is to point out the unpleasant nature of the person making the opposing argument, in which case it is a special case of a personal attack or ad hominem. In general, "to poison the well" means to pre-provide any information that could produce a biased opinion of the reasoning, positive or negative."

15 Logical Fallacies You Should Know Before Getting Into a Debate

"More specifically, the ad hominem is a fallacy of relevance where someone rejects or criticizes another person’s view on the basis of personal characteristics, background, physical appearance, or other features irrelevant to the argument at issue."

You can rant all you want, I am not repeating myself again for the benefit of the hard of understanding.

 

[Shad]

You can rant all you want, I am not repeating myself again for the benefit of the hard of understanding.

Your point is still fallacious. I have proven this by multiple demonstrations and sources. Try again.

 

[ChristineM]

Your point is still fallacious. I have proven this by multiple demonstrations and sources. Try again.

Nope. You have given you opinion for what its worth, you have provided copy and paste pieces and links that don't relate. If you want to refute my point then refute the site i linked to (mediabiasfactcheck.com), refute their article, dont do what rosends did by trying to discredit the site owner, or what you both did in trying to discredit me when he failed. Refute the site... And i am betting you can't though you will never admit it, you would prefer to waste my time and several pages of a thread that you both succeeded in detailing.

 

[Shad]

Nope. You have given you opinion for what its worth, you have provided copy and paste pieces and links that don't relate.

Wrong. Each link is related to your fallacious argument. Try again

If you want to refute my point then refute the site i linked to (mediabiasfactcheck.com), refute their article,

I was never challenging this. I was pointing out using it as a counter is fallacious. Try again. (This is the 6th time I have told you this child)

And i am betting you can't though you will never admit it, you would prefer to waste my time and several pages of a thread that you both succeeded in detailing.

I was never challenging the site. (This is the 7th time I have told you this child). Your source being true or false is irrelevant to what I have said.

Impressive. You are so incompetent you can not even read what I post and understand it after having told you what I am not doing 7 times. Ask an adult for help.

 

[ChristineM]

Wrong. Each link is related to your fallacious argument. Try again





I was never challenging this. I was pointing out using it as a counter is fallacious. Try again. (This is the 6th time I have told you this child)



I was never challenging the site. (This is the 7th time I have told you this child). Your source being true or false is irrelevant to what I have said.

Impressive. You are so incompetent you can not even read what I post and understand it after having told you what I am not doing 7 times. Ask an adult for help.

Round and round you go, you have nothing so why bother

And the 7th time i have told you why i linked to mediabiasfactchech. Funny hoe that works eh?

Ahh back to insults, a sure sign you have lost it?

 

[Shad]

Round and round you go, you have nothing so why bother

To teach you how to read English

And the 7th time i have told you why i linked to mediabiasfactchech. Funny hoe that works eh?

My link was my counter, the corroborating indipendent comments i posted justified my link.

Now child lets look up what the word counter means

Definition of COUNTER

Definition of counter (Entry 3 of 7)

transitive verb

1a : to act in opposition to : oppose
b : offset, nullify tried to counter the trend toward depersonalization

Ahh back to insults, a sure sign you have lost it?

Nope. Conclusions that happen to be insulting. After all you keep wanting me to refute something I never was challenging even after telling you that 7 times (now 8). Yawn. So yah you have issues with English if it gets to telling you 7 times. That is a sign of incompetence. Now try again. Look up what a negative conclusion is.

 

[ChristineM]

To teach you how to read English





Now child lets look up what the word counter means

Definition of COUNTER



Nope. Conclusions that happen to be insulting. After all you keep wanting me to refute something I never was challenging even after telling you that 7 times (now 8). Yawn. So yah you have issues with English if it gets to telling you 7 times. That is a sign of incompetence. Now try again

I dont care what you do but you appear obsessed with your ignorance

And i suggest you read entry 3 of the definition you supplied

 

[Shad]

I dont care what you do but you appear obsessed with your ignorance

Wrong. My points are solid as per all the links explaining the fallacy. Try again.

And i suggest you read entry 3 of the definition you supplied

Quote it.

 

[ChristineM]

Wrong. My points are solid as per all the links explain the fallacy. Try again.



Quote it.

Bull

Cant you read?

 

[Shad]

Bull

Cant you read?

Yes. I want to make sure I am reading the same 3 as you are just saying 3 is vague. Now quote it.

 

[ChristineM]

Yes. I want to make sure I am reading the same 3 as you are just saying 3 is vague. Now quote it.

Sorry bud, i im nit going out of my way for you, it must be easy for you to read. And it relates to my use of the word?

 

[Shad]

Sorry bud, i im nit going out of my way for you, it must be easy for you to read. And it relates to my use of the word?

Okay so you will not clarify your point thus your point is dismissed as a bluff. You merely made another assertion that you refuse to defend. Next!

Incompetent and lazy. Impressive.

 

[columbus]

@ChristineM
Do you really believe that the UN treats Israel and their attackers evenhandedly?

I don't. So much so that I don't even bother reading news about the UN any more. I don't know who or what UN Watch is. But if all they're doing is documenting the bias of the UN, then your assessment that they're right wingers doesn't mean anything to me.
If what they're saying is accurate, then other people's biases against them just make the other people wrong.
Tom

 

[Shad]

@ChristineM
Do you really believe that the UN treats Israel and their attackers evenhandedly?

I don't. So much so that I don't even bother reading news about the UN any more. I don't know who or what UN Watch is. But if all they're doing is documenting the bias of the UN, then your assessment that they're right wingers doesn't mean anything to me.
If what they're saying is accurate, then other people's biases against them just make the other people wrong.
Tom

As I have said establishing a source is biased does not make it's argument wrong. You seem to understand this point.

 

[ChristineM]

@ChristineM
Do you really believe that the UN treats Israel and their attackers evenhandedly?

I don't. So much so that I don't even bother reading news about the UN any more. I don't know who or what UN Watch is. But if all they're doing is documenting the bias of the UN, then your assessment that they're right wingers doesn't mean anything to me.
If what they're saying is accurate, then other people's biases against them just make the other people wrong.
Tom

Yes, and Israel are guilty of attacks n Palestinian, it works both ways. I simple don't shut my eyes when Israel commits atrosities

 

[ChristineM]

As I have said establishing a source is biased does not make it's argument wrong. You seem to understand this point.

I have told you this before, i have not said UNWatch is wrong but it is biassed.

You seem to have problems with this fact