Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Random
1. Broken window fallacy. Government spending stimulates the economy if and only if the economic activity produced by the spending exceeds the activity that would have been produced if the money had been left in the taxpayers’ hands to spend themselves. This is asserted but not proved.
2. Irrelevant ad hominem, and silly besides, since you assert an analogy without in any way explaining where the alleged similarity lies.
3. Disagreeing with statist rhetoric is not evidence against anyone’s mental capacity. I will not be buffaloed by insinuations that I am mentally defective, since I have abundant proof that this is not the case. If anyone in this conversation lacks mental capacity, it is yourself, for blithely assuming that your opponents are ipso facto stupid.
4. What is its LD50? I conjecture the latter.
5. The CBC is a political and ideological monoculture.
|
1. The parable of the broken window concerns opportunistic spending in relation to destruction or the remediation of said destruction. It can't possibly apply in relation to the CBC
2. Actually, that wasn't as hominem. As hominem is a personal attack on someone, as "Sounds like a theory from Edmonton Oilers management" is in no way an attack on you as a person, in fact, it attacks your theory. An example of ad hominem would be the questioning of mental capacity, if you're going to use Latin, use it properly.
3. This would be an example of you engaging in an ad hominem attack on the other poster. As well, "buffaloed" means to intimidate or confuse. As the original poster quite obviously did not use his as hominem attack as a means to intimidate or confuse, you are either using the word improperly, or you do not understanding the post you quoted. As well, if you are to infer that the other poster was trying to "buffalo" you by questioning your mental capacity, then it is fair to assume you too are attempting the same. Add to that the fact that you used several possible fallacies (divine fallacy, argumentum r silentio, etc) to argue against a ad hominem attack, then I would say your entire argument is a bit silly. Plus, Ipsos facto means "by the fact itself", which is not how he claim to the conclusion on your intelligence.
4. You used conjecture improperly, as what you said amounts to this, "My theory is this: b, I theorize B." It's redundant, you could have just said assumed, instead of swinging for the fence and missing, it makes your arguments look ill-advised when your speech selections are equally so.
5. It should be explained to anyone interested that the Monolithic Ideology System was invented by Korea, and applies to an entire government body. Applying it to a television station is borderline ridiculous. It's scale and difference of intent makes your use in reference to CBC implausible at best. Unless you meant that the CBC is simply an organization that acts as an organization, in which case your use of "political" and "ideological" would be misplaced.
If you're going to use latin, or bring up informal fallacies, ensure you're using the words properly and not filling your argument with a variety of fallacies. It hurts the credibility of your argument when you make such attempts and miss so consistently. How is anyone to take you seriously if you can't even handle the language you're attempting to use?
Quote:
Originally Posted by flameswin
Did anyone else notice that this post by Jay Random started off like a normal person talking until the part where his mental capacity was questioned, then it was like he went on google and started looking up smarter ways to say things, and it came off really unnatural.  |
Exactly.
Now, perhaps back to a little more CBC talk and a little less questioning of mental stability from those two!