The example I used was to illustrate the fallacious reasoning. In this case a simple argumentum ad hominem. Prefacing a response with the word 'extremist' is meaningless. I'm sure the "Founding Fathers" were 'extremists' in their day. I'm sure to some people, "Abolitionists" were 'extremists' in their day. Galileo was an 'extremist'. Hume was an 'extremist'. Which is the reason we're not getting the 'Change You Can Believe In', as real change would be too 'extreme' for the normalized population. So, a slow decay into the future is our path. But, on the bright side, if you're good at State mandated MCQ then you'll be right - if not, the State provides general welfare for the welfare of the Magic Thinking.
Well, pointing out your error of logic isn't argumentum ad hominem or in anyway fallacious. You aren't a founding father either. What you are is an ideological zealot. You subscribe to a long debunked ideology which isn't supported by reason or fact and has been resoundingly debunked. That's why you hate learned individuals like economists. Because your beliefs are easily debunked and are not supported by evidence and reason. Your beliefs have been completely debunked and you remain completely unfazed by reality, by fact and reason. Pointing that out is not in any way fallacious, that is fact.
Oh blah blah blah blah Michael! Of course like Schmelzer you have never used an adhom! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The point is that your brand of politics will never see the light of day...and that of course applies to Schmelzer.
I don't have a 'brand' of politics. I restated a moral argument for reducing legalized violence against morally innocent humans that was originally defined by the Ethicist Immanuel Kant. You didn't make a counter-argument to Kant's reasoning. Instead you made a fallacious personal attack. Well, that's exactly what past Authoritarians did to Socrates, Hume, Galileo, and countless others both known and unknown. Voluntaryist Abolitionist were 'extremists' to Authoritarian Slave-owners. Voluntaryist Suffragettes were 'extremists' to the Authoritarian Patriarchy. Voluntaryist American Republicans were 'extremists' to the Authoritarian Aristocracy. Voluntaryist Entrepreneurs are 'extremists' to the Authoritarian Rent-Seekers who rely on Regulatory-Capture to secure so-called 'free' market share. Yeah, I get it. You like the feeling of someone in Authority 'taking care' of you. Maybe you were spanked as a child as a form of 'discipline' and learned to obey Authority? That's my guess. But who knows and who cares? What we do know is this: History suggests it won't be 'my brand' / Voluntarism left in the dust-bin, but you Authoritarians. And get this, it's happen right now, as we type. How ironic.
Forbes: There's Only One Way To Beat Donald Trump -- John Zogby, NOV 29 (2015) Who should be cut? Carson (too nutty), Huckabee (too religious and nutty), Pataki and Graham (too insignificant), Christie (too fat). Leaving us with: Rubio, Cruz, Bush, Kasich, Paul and Fiorina. Not that it matters. Four years after electing the POTUS, the trillion-dollar phony wars will be on-going, instead of knocking off 500,000 a year, medical 'care' will be wiping out 650,000+, the environment will be worse off, the economy will be a mess, we'll be well into QE4-eva Pro Edition and most Government school graduates will lack the ability to read the previous paragraphs and understand what they just read.
Actually, they are all nutty, especially Cruz and Rubio and equally important, they are completely devoid of morals.
Zogby seems to be assuming that cutting the field would allow some other candidate to pick up a lot of votes. That requires considerable argument, and the candidate to be named - the null hypothesis would be Trump picking up the same share from each dropped candidate's constituency that he has from the overall, ending up with 62% of the vote and a landslide nomination. I have long harbored a general suspicion that the guys who write for Forbes and similar business publications are not the brightest bulbs on the tree, but even so this quote - from a professional pollster, no less - startled: I'm not sure how sincere he was, there - maybe stroking the dimwits who subscribe to his magazine? - but that's a better explanation of why he thinks Fiorina is a viable candidate and Jeb Bush is a "moderate" and Rand Paul represents a more significant faction of voters than Ben Carson, than it is of why the Republican field should be smaller.
you know the guy who gets all of his information from a wackadoodle site named after an aristocrat probably shouldn't be knocking on the aristocracy considering thats the goal of your ideology an economic aristocracy.
Could you please restrict your defamations against me to personal discussions with me? It is not the first time I have explained you that ad hominem arguments can be criticized for being weak argument, but that there is, in itself, nothing wrong with them - except that they are weak. And I have never claimed that I never use ad hominem arguments.
Except the truth isn't a defamation or ad hominem, it's just the truth. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Coming from a totalitarian regime as you do, I expect you don't know the difference.
I'm not defaming you, just stating fact. Don't be so thin skinned. And its not the first time that I have told you that what you say is not true, and I'm really not to interested in your argument on semantics and pedant.
Yes, you do. The content of your posts is straight feeds from the standard US authoritarian rightwing propaganda sources, almost entirely. That's why your "facts" are so badly screwed up all the time.
So, please prove, with a quote, where I have said that I never use ad hominem. Or you will be identified as a liar.
Identify me as you like. I'm not doing any search to show what you have said more than once over your time here and your 1100 posts. The forum can decide who is the liar. Will you ever stop trying to get out from under Schmelzer?
You're an Authoritarian iceaura, I'm not. My world view is based on the nonaggression principle and meritocracy. While identify-politics has placed you on the Left, you'd be just as likely to fall on the right. As an example, like the Right, you think State-violence against innocent humans (in this case 'Citizens) should play a prevalent role in 'society' - for the 'good of society'. Not only an oxymoron, this line of reasoning correlates strongly with the eventual downfall of everything from overly bureaucratic box-ticking public service institutions (which is why Government is always trying to sell them off to the private sector - oh, but I'm sure you have a CT to explain that away) to the downfall of society itself (see: Sweden). It's why you support Authoritarians like B. Sanders, who, when he's not playing the Progressive politician and asking you to pity Asians as 'virtual Slave Laborers', he's otherwise wearing his Nationalism coat and asking you to blame Cheating Asians for 'stealing yir jerbs'. You like this line of Magic Thinking because it gives you both someone to blame AND pity. Win-Win. Believe me, your ideology is much more closer aligned with the far-right than mine. Pretty much the ONLY difference between you and someone on the far right (that I can tell) is which morality laws you would like to see the State violently enforce against innocent humans. They have theirs. You have yours. Lucky for you, we live in a State of Authoritarianism and the pendulum will swing back and forth. You'll get your Authoritarian Socialist eventually. Let's see how that works out for us.
Your supposed personal identity or self image I have no interest in. What I posted was the observation that the content of your posts is and has been for years a straight feed from the standard rightwing authoritarian propaganda sources in the US - Breitbart, the American Enterprise Institute, Fox brand TV programs, the National Review, etc. This is true down to your specific confusions and idiosyncracies of vocabulary, which are familiar from the wingnut blogs of the authoritarian right, as well as the characteristic obsessions and confusions of place, time, or agency, that bedevil the intellectual minions of American fascism. And that is your political brand, here. If you don't like it, quit endorsing it. Quit posting stupid shit you found in rightwing authoritarian sources.
your an apologist for oligarchy and fascism like most libertarians. except for the coercion against average workers to force them into low jobs and favoring a system that favors connections over talent. still lying i see. and ice is most closely a leftist anarchist outside of his delusions on guns from what i've seen. except he has never said anything like that. the guy who believes fucking over the common man will magically produce a median income of 350k shouldn't be accusing anyone of magical thinking. which is why your idols praised fascism? as opposed to you which wants corporation to violently enforce things on people. better than your fucked up utopian fantasy would i can tell you that much.
iceaura, From WIKI (I'm going to assume this isn't too far 'right' for you) The monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force, also known as the monopoly on violence (German: Gewaltmonopol des Staates), is a core concept of modern public law, which goes back to Jean Bodin's 1576 work Les Six livres de la République and Thomas Hobbes' 1651 book Leviathan (I'm going to assume as this predates the USA this isn't counted as the republican right by you). As the defining conception of the State it was first described in sociology by Max Weber in his essay Politics as a Vocation (1919) (how's a German writing in 1919 - not too far into the modern 'republican right' for you?). Weber claims that the state is any "human community that successfully claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory";[1] thus, "the modern state is a compulsory association which organizes domination."[2] In other words, Weber describes The State as any organization that succeeds in holding the exclusive right to use, threaten, or authorize physical force against residents of its territory. Such a monopoly, according to Weber, must occur via a process of legitimation. From WIKI: Immanuel Kant on anarchy (I'm going to assume this isn't too far 'right' for you) The German philosopher Immanuel Kant treated anarchy in his Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View as consisting of "Law and Freedom without Force". Thus, for Kant, anarchy falls short of being a true civil state because the law is only an "empty recommendation" if force is not included to make this law efficacious. For there to be such a state, force must be included while law and freedom are maintained, a state which Kant calls republic. (I'm going to assume because this was written 200 years ago - oh, I don't know, maybe you'll count it as not having come from Fox News) As summary Kant named four kinds of government: Law and freedom without force (anarchy). Law and force without freedom (despotism). Force without freedom and law (barbarism). Force with freedom and law (republic). --0-- Now, try not letting the words confuse you to much. YOU are an Authoritarian Statist. You may think of yourself as a "Democratic Socialist". I really don't care. Democratic Slavery is no more moral than plain ole' vanilla Slavery. Simple enough? The US Constitution was written with one concept in mind: to LIMIT the powers of the State. The first 10 amendments (warmly known as the Bill of Rights) are further to protect us from IT. From the State. Not from McDonald's'. Not from "The" Koch Brothers. Not from Apple Incorporated. But from the State. A lesson all people apparently need to learn every few generations or so. Don't worry, Authoritarian Socialism will have it's day in the sun. And after it's destroyed what's left of society - we can return to a limited role for government and free markets / free people, freely trading with one another using an agreed upon currency and within the law. Believe me, I would LOVE B. Sanders to take the helm and plow this f*cker right into the iceberg. I suppose Trump or Hillary will have to do.
Thank you for informing us all of the existence of works of philosophy with big words in them. Perhaps in revisiting them you will discover - via a liberal arts education - why frequently and continually sourcing from the errors and idiocies of Forbes magazine, the National Review, Brietbart, WSJ editorials, and professional pollster John Zogby being oddly clueless about polling data in a specific way, while seldom if ever sourcing an actual libertarian, liberal, or leftwing analyst and showing no sign of being aware of their reasoning or observations; while employing the vocabulary as well as the issue framing of Fox News and wingnut talk radio (Trump the Progressive, for example, in the thread title), brands you, politically. You have a political brand, here. It is rightwing authoritarian - same as your sources, issue framing, vocabulary, and characteristic errors.
What I have done a lot of time is to describe your arguments as ad hominem. They often are. You seem to have made the conclusion that I think using ad hominem arguments is somehow inherently wrong, morally wrong or so. It is not. Ad hominem arguments are not morally wrong, they are only very weak as arguments. Arguments about the content are much stronger. So, the one who answers arguments about the content with ad hominem is usually the loser. The question is, once they are so weak, why can it make sense to use them nonetheless? Their advantage is that for arguments about the content one has to understand the content. One needs time for this, one has to make some research and so on. Ad hominem is much cheaper to find and to understand. But there is also another difference which you totally ignore. Ad hominem arguments are not the same as personal attacks. An ad hominem argument is an argument, the aim is to make a point about some content. Theory X is wrong because Y proposes it, and Y is stupid. The aim is not to attack Y, but to attack theory X. The simple claim "Y, you are stupid" is, instead, simply a personal attack, and not an ad hominem argument. For personal attacks, the situation is quite different. Here, one has to care about moral principles, in particular about the non-aggression principle, and tit for tat as an upper bound for retaliation. So, to attack first may be morally wrong, to answer such an attack with a counterattack is, from a moral point of view, fine. So, I can also accuse you to make an unprovoked personal attack, because this is an aggression, but I can also use such attacks myself if it is justified as a retaliation. Note also that the logic is a completely different one. A personal attack is not a weak argument about some content, because it is not an argument about some content. These are general ideas, ideas I care about, and therefore I'm quite sure that I do not confuse them in my own postings. Therefore I'm quite sure I have not written things which contradict these ideas in all my postings, even if I don't remember them all.
