How's this for different morals?

[mogadishu]

BAG - I find your argument style rather unreasonable. I shall depart from this conversation now while I still have the will to live.

[Blond Adult Girl]

BAG - I find your argument style rather unreasonable. I shall depart from this conversation now while I still have the will to live.

By Mogadishu!

I'm sorry that I'm too intimidating!

[Lena]

BAG - I find your argument style rather unreasonable. I shall depart from this conversation now while I still have the will to live.

By Mogadishu!

I'm sorry that I'm too intimidating!

I don't think M'shu is running but worn out arguing with uninformed cliches ..............

[Blond Adult Girl]

BAG - I find your argument style rather unreasonable. I shall depart from this conversation now while I still have the will to live.

By Mogadishu!

I'm sorry that I'm too intimidating!

I don't think M'shu is running but worn out arguing with uninformed cliches ..............

No, he's worn out from the way i debate. I'm like Bill o reilly-I'm a tough cookie. After all, there are plenty of more extreme conservatives then O Reiily, but O Reilly always seems to get the most hate. Why? Because he is intimidating!

Mr Bond, Myron, Diva, and Tony have conservative beliefs that are very similar to mine, but they aren't hated because they don't have that "piss everyone off" style of debate that i do, and that O Reilly does.

Mogadishu is running from both my style and my skills, as many liberals on this site have. One of them even says he'll never debate me again in regards to politics.

[mogadishu]

No - actually lena was right. I'm worn out arguing with tired uninformed cliches.

But it's nice that we can agree on something. You are indeed like bill o'reilly.

[Blond Adult Girl]

No - actually lena was right. I'm worn out arguing with tired uninformed cliches.

But it's nice that we can agree on something. You are indeed like bill o'reilly.

BTW, i find it funny how the title says "Phil Donahugh kicks Bill O Reilly's a$$" He did nothing of the sort. He accused O Reilly of being a warmongeror, and then when O Reilly got in his face, Donahugh claimed O Reilly was too loud.

And what did Donahugh prove with his Constitution argument?

[elliott20]

I've been mostly just observing since this is clearly not my expertise but BAG I must point one thing to you, being able to bombard someone with hail upon hail of fallacies is not the same as skill. It just makes you louder.

But I just want to summarize what I think is the center of your argument here.

BAG's premise from her last post

1. America interest reigns supreme
2. Iraq has oil
3. Cheap Oil means better economy
4. Better economy for the US means the American interest is being best served.

You combine these together, and you get

US invading Iraq for it's oil serves the American interest best.

Human rights and morality issues don't really enter it.

Arguably, premise 3 and 4 can be debated and argued. But that's not the point here.

[Blond Adult Girl]

BAG's premise from her last post

1. America interest reigns supreme=yep
2. Iraq has oil=yep
3. Cheap Oil means better economy=yep
4. Better economy for the US means the American interest is being best served.=yep

You combine these together, and you get

US invading Iraq for it's oil serves the American interest best.=yep

Human rights and morality issues don't really enter it.=yep

Fallicies or not, i made my points clear. I think that fallicies are an effective tool for making your point so long as you don't slam the other person.

[elliott20]

fallacies, by definition, are not considered proper logic, and any argument that hinges on fallacies is by definition invalid.

So, it can be used to make a point, but it doesn't lend the argument credence.

however, the argument of yours I just summarized is in fact a true to form logical argument. The thing is, it's just vastly different from your initial argument.

[Blond Adult Girl]

fallacies, by definition, are not considered proper logic, and any argument that hinges on fallacies is by definition invalid.

So, it can be used to make a point, but it doesn't lend the argument credence.

however, the argument of yours I just summarized is in fact a true to form logical argument. The thing is, it's just vastly different from your initial argument.

Yeah. The fallicy isn't the argument itself, but the argument can be WITHIN the fallacy, i think.

[elliott20]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that precisely.

A fallacy is just an argument that does not bear logical consistency. It therefore can only contain an argument that is by the very definition of a fallcy, invalid. To wit, there is a reason why talking head pundits usually have no real political pull. Their rhetoric is not defensible when following proper debate procedures.

[myron myron]

[Lena]

Can we pleae get back to important things ?

Want to have to learn more like yesterday ..............

[elliott20]

A point supported by a logical fallacy is not necessarily an invalid point; it's just not proved by the logical fallacy.

Let's say my point is that all human beings are mortal, an unquestionably valid point.

And let's say I support my point by the logical fallacy of non sequitur, "Four quarters equal one dollar, therefore all human beings are mortal."

My point that all human beings are mortal remains a valid point, but it is just not proved by the logical fallacy.

Well, yes that is certainly true.

But like I said, it doesn't give the argument credence, but rather brings up an entire new argument that needs to be substantiated, and as such cannot be acceptable as proper.

[myron myron]