Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For those attacking Titus without refuting the assertions he made are committing what is called an "ad hominem" fallacy. For those who would like to see through the lies and establish the truth, I recommend that you google "logical fallacies" and learn to spot them. Liberals label people as "racist, bigot, xenophobe, nutjob, etc. because it allows them to avoid the actual discussion.
For those attacking Titus without refuting the assertions he made are committing what is called an "ad hominem" fallacy. For those who would like to see through the lies and establish the truth, I recommend that you google "logical fallacies" and learn to spot them. Liberals label people as "racist, bigot, xenophobe, nutjob, etc. because it allows them to avoid the actual discussion.
The actual discussion has been engaged plenty of times, and birthers continue to come out the losers.
Natural Born is to be: born naturally to two citizen parents that are married to each other. Illegitimate children are not eligible. i.e. Bastards need not apply.
Unanswered Questions for Sity Data
the ever growing list of questions pertaining to his comments on obama's eligibility that Sity Data is avoiding:
* how can obama be an indonesian citizen when it contradicts both US and indonesian law?
* how can you "clearly see" something on a document you've never seen.?
* exactly what was the bill you refered to that hillary clinton and obama "put forward" that tried to have the "natural born citizen" clause removed ?
* where did obama state he was an indonesian citizen?
* exactly where in "dreams from my father" is it stated that obama's father was not on the birth certificate?
* where is it stated that a child born out of wedlock can not be considered a "natural born citizen"?
I don't know whether or not you feel like I singled you out, but I was making a general statement intended to raise awareness of the methods/tactics used to stifle intelligent debate. I wasn't singularly addressing any one person.
For those attacking Titus without refuting the assertions he made are committing what is called an "ad hominem" fallacy.
1. An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. In this case there is direct relevance between the specific area of insanity for which Mr. Titus is being castigated. It is his general nuttiness regarding his unique, anomalous and universally rejected ideas about the Constitution that renders his opinion on the Constitutional definition of natural born citizen suspect.
2. I note that you do not also point out the OP's fallacious appeal to authority (what is called an "Ad Verecundiam" fallacy) by pretending that Mr. Titus's (poorly represented) resume is somehow a reason to consider his unique, anomalous and universally rejected opinion on this definition as true.
3. Your leaping on what you believed to be an "ad hominem" while ignoring the "ad verecundiam" is a special logical fallacy of its very own. It is called "special pleading."
The assertions of Mr. Titus have been repeatedly refuted on this forum, as well as in more than a dozen court cases in just the last three months. To call Mr. Titus a nutcase is not an argumentum ad hominem at all. It is an appropriate label.
The actual discussion has been engaged plenty of times, and birthers continue to come out the losers.
This topic is not relevant to past discussions of the "birther" debate. Again, insted of refuting the information put forward, you conveniently state that the discussion is already settled. Using that logic, any new information provided should not be considered.
For those seeking truth, this is a prime example of a fallacious argument that it used to distract/confuse. It is called a Straw Man fallacy. This is a fallacy in which a person does not address your argument, instead they construct a similar argument (the birther debate is settled) and use that argument to debunk the original argument.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
