150 rockets fired at Israel after IDF assassinates Gaza terror leader

[Shad]

your point is irrelevant to me. Why do you have such difficulty with that concept after being told often?

It is relevent to the argument you made as per your word use and blunders using basic English.

Irrelevant, show the argument you claim.

I have quoted you multiple times. It isn't my problem you do not know what counter and discredit means.

I have provided the number of rosends original link, no argument there

Wrong as per the quotes from you I have posted. Try again

 

[ChristineM]

It is relevent to the argument you made as per your word use and blunders using basic English.



I have quoted you multiple times. It isn't my problem you do not know what counter and discredit means.


Wrong as per the quotes from you I have posted. Try again

Dont be pathetic

You made the argument, and i am not playing your silly game as i stated from day one. If you nerd to misrepresent me to massage your ego, feel free but its still misrepresentation.

What you quoted came after and are irrelevant to the origin but relevant to your griping.

 

[Shad]

You made the argument, and i am not playing your silly game as i stated from day one.

I have quoted you multiple times. Reread my comments. As per your own words you tried to discredit the source. Discrediting a source does not refute an argument.

If you nerd to misrepresent me to massage your ego, feel free but its still misrepresentation.

I quoted your own words. Try again.

What you quoted came after and are irrelevant to the origin but relevant to your griping.

Wrong as those posts were your attempts to explain yourself thus are relevant. You just used words you didn't know the meaning of. Try again. Use a dictionary next time.

"A genetic fallacy is a type of logical fallacy in which the origin or source of a particular argument or claim is used to support or discredit the argument. This type of fallacy is typically committed when someone uses the source of an argument or statement as a way to discredit or support an idea without further evidence or purpose. While the source of a statement or argument can certainly have an impact on the relevancy or reliability of a claim, it typically should not be the sole grounds for dismissal or acceptance"

https://www.coursehero.com/file/ppc...it-an-opinion-by-discrediting-those-who-hold/

 

[ChristineM]

I have quoted you multiple times. Reread my comments. As per your own words you tried to discredit the source. Discrediting a source does not refute an argument.



I quoted your own words. Try again.



Wrong as those posts were your attempts to explain yourself thus are relevant. You just used words you didn't know the meaning of. Try again. Use a dictionary next time.

After the fact buddy, after the fact. I provided a counter to the source, show me one post that, as you claim, i tried to discredit the source... That my dear is your straw man that came several days after the fact.

I have not tried to explain myself. I have given statement of fact that you messed with so i pushed some buttons.

 

[Shad]

After the fact buddy, after the fact.

Which does not change anything. All you have done is admit your fallacy after. Try again

I provided a counter to the source, show me one post that, as you claim, i tried to discredit the source...

Post 322.

That my dear is your straw man that came several days after the fact.

No strawman as I quoted your own posts. Try again.

I have not tried to explain myself.

Wrong. You have explained multiple times and admitted your fallacious argument unwittingly as you do not know what counter and discredit means. Try again.

I have given statement of fact that you messed with so i pushed some buttons.

I am not disputing any source you have used. This is the 9th time I have told you this.

 

[ChristineM]

Which does not change anything. All you have done is admit your fallacy after. Try again



Post 322.



No strawman as I quoted your own posts. Try again.



Wrong. You have explained multiple times and admitted your fallacious argument unwittingly as you do not know what counter and discredit means. Try again.



I am not disputing any source you have used. This is the 9th time I have told you this.

Bull, my post was not fallacy, as shown by the several corroborating (and independent) statements.

Yes, and. The link discredited the source, not me, perhaps you have difficulty comprehending english?

You only quoted my response to your pedantic stupidity, your strawman is makeing it the central but irrelevant argument.

No, you have claimed my argument was fallacious, i have repeated tat s made no argument.

Then you are arguing over nothing. Thanks for wasting my time and complely derailing this thread to satisfy a personal grudge - and failed, as you will always fail when you try picking argument with me.

 

[Shad]

Bull, my post was not fallacy, as shown by the several corroborating (and independent) statements.

Your attempt to smear the source instead of addressing the argument was the fallacy. Again for the 10th time I was never challenging your source. Try again.

Yes, and. The link discredited the source, not me, perhaps you have difficulty comprehending english?

Discrediting the source does not discredit the argument it makes. See my links so you can learn this.

You only quoted my response to your pedantic stupidity, your strawman is makeing it the central but irrelevant argument.

I quoted you outright saying you were trying to discredit the source. Try again. Maybe learn what the words you are using mean. Invest in a dictionary.

No, you have claimed my argument was fallacious, i have repeated tat s made no argument.

Wrong as per you admitting you were discrediting the source. Again read the links so you can learn the fallacy you committed. Now try again

Then you are arguing over nothing.

Wrong. You just are just trying to dodge what you said clearly in your own words as if you never said the point was to discredit the source. Try again. The only reason to discredit a source is to undermine an argument it makes. However since you never addressed the argument itself you committed a fallacy. Try again

Thanks for wasting my time and complely derailing this thread to satisfy a personal grudge - and failed, as you will always fail when you try picking argument with me.

Blame yourself. You are posting. I am not making you post anything. Whine more then try again.

This has nothing to do about a grudge. Your vain attempt to make it personal instead of about your flawed argument has been noted. The rest of your point is just an assertion. Try again. Less victim-hood grandstanding next time

 

[ChristineM]

Your attempt to smear the source instead of addressing the argument was the fallacy. Again for the 10th time I was never challenging your source. Try again.



Discrediting the source does not discredit the argument it makes. See my links so you can learn this.



I quoted you outright saying you were trying to discredit the source. Try again. Maybe learn what the words you are using mean. Invest in a dictionary.



Wrong as per you admitting you were discrediting the source. Again read the links so you can learn the fallacy you committed. Now try again



Wrong. You just are just trying to dodge what you said clearly in your own words as if you never said the point was to discredit the source. Try again. The only reason to discredit a source is to undermine an argument it makes. However since you never addressed the argument itself you committed a fallacy. Try again



Blame yourself. You are posting. I am not making you post anything. Whine more then try again.

This has nothing to do about a grudge. Your vain attempt to make it personal instead of about your flawed argument has been noted. The rest of your point is just an assertion. Try again. Less victim-hood grandstanding next time

For f***s sake, how many times? There was no argument,only a link to UN watch

You can count your irrelevant opinion as many times as you want.

The arguments the source makes are the basis of its bias

Irrelevant, i provided a relevant link, you dont like the link, tough, public thread, get over yourself.

You really have no idea what is going on do you? I really dont don
don't care about your ad hominems, my post is valid

You are the one whining, i am simply mocking you. But if it makes you feel good to think you are scoring points, feel free.

The only reason to provide evidence of bias is so people can make up there own minds based on facts.

 

[Shad]

For f***s sake, how many times? There was no argument,only a link to UN watch

You are contradicting yourself. You already said your source was used to discredit UN watch. That is an argument, a fallacious one

You can count your irrelevant opinion as many times as you want.

I was giving you definitions of words and how logical arguments work

The arguments the source makes are the basis of its bias

Which is irrelevant. The only reason to bring up bias is as a smear.

Irrelevant, i provided a relevant link, you dont like the link, tough, public thread, get over yourself.

Again your link is irrelevant to my argument. The link can be true or false, it doesn't matter. You still have no idea what I am talking about.... I never made a single statement that your source nor Rosends' is true or false.

You really have no idea what is going on do you? I really dont don
don't care about your ad hominems, my post is valid

I never made an ad hom. Look up the term es you are using.

You still fail to understand bias does not make a source wrong

You are the one whining, i am simply mocking you.

I am not the one whining about wasting time. Try your fiction again.

But if it makes you feel good to think you are scoring points, feel free.

Hilarious level of unawareness you have.

The only reason to provide evidence of bias is so people can make up there own minds based on facts.

This is fallacious as you are not addressing the argument being presented. You never presented facts that the UN Watch's claim and evidence is wrong. You are attacking the source not the argument. Remember the claim is the UN is biased against Israel. You never refuted that claim.

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"),[1] short for argumentum ad hominem, typically refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2]

An appeal to bias is a fallacy that occurs when an assertion is discredited because of the asserter's (supposed) bias.

 

[ChristineM]

You are contradicting yourself. You already said your source was used to discredit UN watch. That is an argument, a fallacious one



I was giving you definitions of words and how logical arguments work



Which is irrelevant. The only reason to bring up bias is as a smear.



Again your link is irrelevant to my argument. The link can be true or false, it doesn't matter. You still have no idea what I am talking about.... I never made a single statement that your source nor Rosends' is true or false.



I never made an ad hom. Look up the term es you are using.

You still fail to understand bias does not make a source wrong



I am not the one whining about wasting time. Try your fiction again.



Hilarious level of unawareness you have.



This is fallacious as you are not addressing the argument being presented. You never presented facts that the UN Watch's claim and evidence is wrong. You are attacking the source not the argument. Remember the claim is the UN is biased against Israel. You never refuted that claim.

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"),[1] short for argumentum ad hominem, typically refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2]

An appeal to bias is a fallacy that occurs when an assertion is discredited because of the asserter's (supposed) bias.

Re-read and actually analyse my post and its context rather than putting you own woo on my mind

Yes we an all do that.
Hyperbole : exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.

Can you not figure it out, despite being told numerous times you are stuck in the same rut that massages your ego.

I dont give a toss about your argument, as far as i am concerned the only relevant fact is that i posted a link to show that a cited site was biased. You can play whatever games to want but that is not going to change,

You have made several ad homs.

Correct, you are the one wasting time, bandwidth, and totally killing a thread, but you are whining, constantly that you are upset that i posted a link to show un watch is biassed

Pot, kettle black, an ad hom you claim not to make

You are not presenting an argument, what you are doing is going round and round with the same old diatribe

Please provide your source for your definition.

 

[Shad]

Re-read and actually analyse my post and its context rather than putting you own woo on my mind

I did. Rosend make a claim. You responded by not refuting the claim but by attacking the source.

Yes we an all do that.
Hyperbole : exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.

This is babble

Can you not figure it out, despite being told numerous times you are stuck in the same rut that massages your ego.

Except for the fact that you have already explained your source was used to discredit UN Watch. Try again.

I dont give a toss about your argument,

Except for the fact you admitted the purpose was to discredit. Try again.

as far as i am concerned the only relevant fact is that i posted a link to show that a cited site was biased.

Which is irrelevant to Rosends' source's claim

You can play whatever games to want but that is not going to change,

All I need to do is look at your previous comment and repeat what you said back at you. Try again

You have made several ad homs.

Nope. If you disagree cite something.

Correct, you are the one wasting time, bandwidth, and totally killing a thread, but you are whining, constantly that you are upset that i posted a link to show un watch is biassed

You can stop posting anytime you want. Instead you respond thus waste your own time and bandwidth while complaining about it. Show some self-control.

Pot, kettle black, an ad hom you claim not to make

Look up the term you are using and try again.

You are not presenting an argument,

Wrong. I have present one repeatedly. Try again

what you are doing is going round and round with the same old diatribe

See the above and try again.

Please provide your source for your definition.

I have multiple times which shows you either have memory issues or didn't read anything. Links are in posts 524, 506, 514 and 460

Ad hominem - Wikipedia

Appeal to bias - RationalWiki

 

[ChristineM]

I did. Rosend make a claim. You responded by not refuting the claim but by attacking the source.



This is babble



Except for the fact that you have already explained your source was used to discredit UN Watch. Try again.



Except for the fact you admitted the purpose was to discredit. Try again.



Which is irrelevant to Rosends' source's claim



All I need to do is look at your previous comment and repeat what you said back at you. Try again



Nope. If you disagree cite something.



You can stop posting anytime you want. Instead you respond thus waste your own time and bandwidth while complaining about it. Show some self-control.



Look up the term you are using and try again.



Wrong. I have present one repeatedly. Try again



See the above and try again.



I have multiple times which shows you either have memory issues or didn't read anything. Links are in posts 524, 506, 514 and 460

Ad hominem - Wikipedia

Appeal to bias - RationalWiki

Round and round we go.
I provided a link to show the source was biased, you problem with providing valid information is what?

Bingo!!!

Except for the fact that, as i have explained, i im pushing your buttons

Bias is highly relevant

You just aren't getting are you?

Hilarious level of unawareness you have.

Duly cited

Ditto, but i i simply responding to your rants, you are the one ranting.

Ad hominem : directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
There ya go, looked up,copied and pasted for your pleasure from the OED

No you haven't, all you have done is fire irrelevant words at me

See above

There ya go, hyperbole this time, you know, the moment you made it personal was the moment i decided to have some fun with you.

Wikipedia? Tell me. Are you a wikipedia author? It can be edited by anyone to say whatever they like.
The ad hom entry was last edited just 10 days ago by someone who does not list their qualifications, assuming they have any.
The appeal to bias entry was last edited in July by person or persons unknown.

Which is why i prefer to use dictionaries, preferably the OED to source definitions

 

[Shad]

Round and round we go.
I provided a link to show the source was biased, you problem with providing valid information is what?

Again for the 11th time your source being true or false is irrelevant. The claim was the UN is biased. Either this claim is true or false. Providing evidence of the source's bias does not make an argument it is making wrong.

Except for the fact that, as i have explained, i im pushing your buttons

Hardly. I find you amusing is the duh kind of way.

Bias is highly relevant

Wrong. Bias does not make an argument wrong. You must show the argument to be actually wrong.

You just aren't getting are you?

I do. You constantly flip between claiming you explained your argument then you didn't then you did. You can not keep track of what you have said.

Ditto, but i i simply responding to your rants, you are the one ranting.

Hardly.

Ad hominem : directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
There ya go, looked up,copied and pasted for your pleasure from the OED

Now cite me doing this.

No you haven't, all you have done is fire irrelevant words at me

No I am just using words you do not understand such as counter and discredit in relation to your flawed response by attacking a source.

There ya go, hyperbole this time, you know, the moment you made it personal was the moment i decided to have some fun with you.

More evidence of trolling. Thanks for admitting this.

Wikipedia? Tell me. Are you a wikipedia author? It can be edited by anyone to say whatever they like.

You lack basic reading comprehension.

Your quote

"Ad hominem : directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
There ya go, looked up,copied and pasted for your pleasure from the OED"

Mine

"Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"),[1] short for argumentum ad hominem, typically refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."

Now follow with me regarding how words works. Sentences can use different words but convey the same point.

1. Attacking the person (your quote) is the same as attacking the character, motive and other attributes of the person (my quote). This means the same thing using different words. The person's motive is about the person. Their character is about the person. Other attribute is about the person

2. rather than the position they are maintaining (your quote) is the same as rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself (my quote) . This means same thing. Position means claim such as X is true.

The ad hom entry was last edited just 10 days ago by someone who does not list their qualifications, assuming they have any.

Show the edit was what I quoted. Show how my quote is actually wrong.

The appeal to bias entry was last edited in July by person or persons unknown.

Show the edit was what I quoted. Show how my quote is actually wrong.

Which is why i prefer to use dictionaries, preferably the OED to source definitions

Too bad in your haste you failed to actually read the source or show how my quote is actually wrong. Your objections do not mean anything as you have no established the quote nor definition are wrong. Read your own citation and apply it to what you just said about wiki

 

[ChristineM]

Again for the 11th time your source being true or false is irrelevant. The claim was the UN is biased. Either this claim is true or false. Providing evidence of the source's bias does not make an argument it is making wrong.



Hardly. I find you amusing is the duh kind of way.



Wrong. Bias does not make an argument wrong. You must show the argument to be actually wrong.



I do. You constantly flip between claiming you explained your argument then you didn't then you did. You can not keep track of what you have said.



Hardly.



Now cite me doing this.



No I am just using words you do not understand such as counter and discredit in relation to your flawed response by attacking a source.



More evidence of trolling. Thanks for admitting this.



You lack basic reading comprehension.
Your quote

"Ad hominem : directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
There ya go, looked up,copied and pasted for your pleasure from the OED"

Mine

"Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"),[1] short for argumentum ad hominem, typically refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."

Now follow with me regarding how words works. Sentences can use different words but convey the same point.

1. Attacking the person (your quote) is the same as attacking the character, motive and other attributes of the person (my quote). This means the same thing. The person's motive is about the person. Their character is about the person. Other attribute is about the person

2. rather than the position they are maintaining (your quote) is the same as rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself (my quote) . This means same thing. Position means claim such as X is true.



Show the edit was what I quoted. Show how my quote is actually wrong.



Show the edit was what I quoted. Show how my quote is actually wrong.



Too bad in your haste you failed to actually read the source or show how my quote is actually wrong. Your objections do not mean anything as you have no established the quote nor definition are wrong.

Ah ha, here ix the problem, my claim was that un watch is biassed.
Note i also provided links to both resolutions against israel and palestine. Although there are more against israel (unsurprisingly) palestine is only a few behind. Showing little bias.

However to read the unwatch site you see no mention whatsoever of the resolutions against palestine and every single one of the resolutions against Israel since unwatch began. They claim this total bolloks if a reporting method is bias against israel. Such hypocrisy needs to be spotlighted

Ahh more personal abuse...

See above. There are we done now?

I have never claimed i did not explain my argument, i have stated there is no argument.

Hey bud, you started this, you addressed me so not ditto

Cited you already, interesting that you ignore it

And there ya go again with the personal abuse...nam i getting to ya? An i getting to ya?

Says the major troll artist, you have been trolling me from day one but i am not winging about it.

Like you, its rather long winded and full of bluster.

 

[Shad]

Ah ha, here ix the problem, my claim was that un watch is biassed.

Which was in response to a claim made by UN Watch. That is an appeal to bias as you dodge the argument made by UN watch.

Note i also provided links to both resolutions against israel and palestine. Although there are more against israel (unsurprisingly) palestine is only a few behind. Showing little bias.

Irrelevant as numbers do not establish bias or not.

However to read the unwatch site you see no mention whatsoever of the resolutions against palestine and every single one of the resolutions against Israel since unwatch began. They claim this total bolloks if a reporting method is bias against israel. Such hypocrisy needs to be spotlighted

Irrelevant as the claim is not about a comparison between the two. You didn't read the UN watch claim.

I have never claimed i did not explain my argument, i have stated there is no argument.

As you said you used a site to discredit a source. That is an argument whether you agree or not

Hey bud, you started this, you addressed me so not ditto

I am not the one complaining about time and bandwidth. Try again

Cited you already, interesting that you ignore it

That isn't an insult. That is an observation. You made a big deal about wiki as a source but didn't bother to see if the details of the fallacy's explanation as correct or not. Hence why I explained how two different sentences can explain the same point.

And there ya go again with the personal abuse...nam i getting to ya? An i getting to ya?

Nope. Look up what a negative conclusion is. Again you made a big deal about nothing.

Says the major troll artist, you have been trolling me from day one but i am not winging about it.

You have whined. Try again. You have confused negative conclusions with trolling. Try again

Like you, its rather long winded and full of bluster.

Wrong. You made a big deal out of wiki as a source without touching on what the wiki actually said. I addressed it. Try again.



Is the wiki explanation correct or incorrect? This is the only point that matters in the previous exchange.

 

[ChristineM]

Which was in response to a claim made by UN Watch. That is an appeal to bias as you dodge the argument made by UN watch.



Irrelevant as numbers do not establish bias or not.



Irrelevant as the claim is not about a comparison between the two. You didn't read the UN watch claim.



As you said you used a site to discredit a source. That is an argument whether you agree or not



I am not the one complaining about time and bandwidth. Try again



That isn't an insult. That is an observation. You made a big deal about wiki as a source but didn't bother to see if the details of the fallacy's explanation as correct or not. Hence why I explained how two different sentences can explain the same point.



Nope. Look up what a negative conclusion is. Again you made a big deal about nothing.



You have whined. Try again. You have confused negative conclusions with trolling. Try again



Wrong. You made a big deal out of wiki as a source without touching on what the wiki actually said. I addressed it. Try again.



Is the wiki explanation correct or incorrect? This is the only point that matters in the previous exchange.

For the last time

My link was in response the a post with no argument and was in response to that post alone.

So you have therefore wasted three weeks of your life and completely derailed this thread making up silly and irrelevant arguments to bolster your personal vendetta.

Game over

 

[Shad]

For the last time

My link was in response the a post with no argument and was in response to that post alone.

There was an argument. UN Watch made a claim. Your response was about bias of the source. Try again.

So you have therefore wasted three weeks of your life and completely derailed this thread making up silly and irrelevant arguments to bolster your personal vendetta.

No vendetta. Stop playing the victim just because someone argues against your flawed points.. I proved my point over and over so no time wasted. Try again.

Game over

Obviously as you can not keep track of what you said. After all you said it was a counter. A point to discredit a source. Those are arguments. Now you attempt to pretend you didn't say anything like that. Try again. Maybe read what you post next time.

You avoided my question. All that whining about a source amounted to nothing.

 

[ChristineM]

There was an argument. UN Watch made a claim. Your response was about bias of the source. Try again.



No vendetta. Stop playing the victim just because someone argues against your flawed points.. I proved my point over and over so no time wasted. Try again.



Obviously as you can not keep track of what you said. After all you said it was a counter. A point to discredit a source. Those are arguments. Now you attempt to pretend you didn't say anything like that. Try again. Maybe read what you post next time.

You avoided my question. All that whining about a source amounted to nothing.

Game over, going round and round in circles ranting the same old irrelevant bull goes nowhere.

 

[Shad]

Game over, going round and round in circles ranting the same old irrelevant bull goes nowhere.

I repeat my point as it is correct. Try again. You can always stop responding if you want to.


It goes no where as you have memory and comprehension issues such as what discredit and counter means. Get a dictionary.

 

[ChristineM]

I repeat my point as it is correct. Try again. You can always stop responding if you want to.


It goes no where as you have memory and comprehension issues such as what discredit and counter means. Get a dictionary.

Game over, you gad no relevant point and pig ignorant personal insults dont make it start again