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 quite a while there was no proof that Clinton did what he was accused of. The left did what the right is doing with Moore. Attack the credibility of the accusers. Ask why they did not come forward sooner. And say there was no proof of the allegations. Hillary blamed a vast right wing conspiracy, whatever that means. Exactly like before. Just a different political party.
I respect your views on abortion. However this one person is not going to change anything. For me Moore getting in is like Bill Clinton winning again. Unacceptable.
That's not true at all. They all came soon pretty quickly. NBC spiked their own interview with Juanita Broddrick who accused Clinton of rape. That doesn't happen if Slick is a Republican and you know it. lol Clinton was kicked out of Oxford due to a rape allegation. The media also spiked their info that Clinton was having an affair with a 22 year old intern , that was only reported because Matt Drudge scooped it.
Moore hasn't settled with any accusers and we are only just hearing about it. Democrats turned out to vote for Hillary, who smeared the many accusers of her husband, and Bill is a rock star in the party that always gets the prime time spots at conventions.
Bringing up some other situation rather than addressing the specific situation at hand is the definition of a "tu quoque" fallacy. I understand that some people do not want to abide by a logical framework when forming arguments - But, but, but....
No, this is you trying to control the debate. It doesn't work like that. I do not have to debate this topic as you instruct me to.
No, this is you trying to control the debate. It doesn't work like that.
Nah, it is you not wanting to loose one of your well worn logical fallacy tools when called on it. That's fine though, I understand that you have difficulty forming a position without them.
Tu quoque (/tjuːˈkwoʊkwiː/, also /tuːˈkwoʊkweɪ/;[1] Latin for, "you also") or the appeal to hypocrisy is an informal logical fallacy that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s).
Tu quoque "argument" follows the pattern:
Person A makes claim X.
Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
Therefore X is false.[2]
An example would be
Peter: "Based on the arguments I have presented, it is evident that it is morally wrong to use animals for food or clothing."
Bill: "But you are wearing a leather jacket and you have a roast beef sandwich in your hand! How can you say that using animals for food and clothing is wrong?"[2]
Nah, it is you not wanting to loose one of your well worn logical fallacy tools when called on it. That's fine though, I understand that you have difficulty forming a position without them.
Ok, well I certainly seem to be holding my own with you. You don't get to control the course of the debate. This is real life, not a college campus.
Not really. You seem to be getting schooled whether you realize it or not, actually.
All you are doing is engaging in ad hominem because you are losing the debate.
For example, you can't explain why it is more moral to vote for an abortion supporter who campaigns with creepy Joe Biden and is a past Clinton supporter than it is to vote for Moore. Yet that is your premise.
I am all for a new candidate but if the choice is Moore or JOnes, I think Moore is the moral choice.
Ok, well I certainly seem to be holding my own with you. You don't get to control the course of the debate. This is real life, not a college campus.
Well, we can let the people reading judge the relative strengths of the presented arguments for themselves. Declaring victory by fiat in place of the people reading who must ACTUALLY make that judgement seems a bit arrogant. For some, they would probably agree. Others might disagree.
I also never tried to control the debate, I just recognized you would have difficulty participating without leaning on some specific fallacies that have been laced through your arguments. I never said you COULDN'T do it, I just recognized that you would probably continue to lean on such flawed arguments, and presented an identification of what fallacies they are as well as links to them so that the people reading can decide from themselves if they agree that they are indeed being represented. Which is ALSO allowed in the debate.
Well, we can let the people reading judge the relative strengths of the presented arguments for themselves. For some, they would probably agree. Others might disagree.
I also never tried to control the debate, I just recognized you would have difficulty participating without leaning on some specific fallacies that have been laced through your arguments. I never said you COULDN'T do it, I just recognized that you would probably continue to lean on such flawed arguments, and presented an identification of what fallacies they are as well as links to them so that the people reading can decide from themselves if they agree that they are indeed being represented. Which is ALSO allowed in the debate.
You are just engaged in ad hominem. It doesn't make any sense to argue that I can't talk about Democrat hypocrisy. You are obviously making a partisan argument.
You can't defend the Democrat hypocrisy so you start in with legalize type of arguments about fallacies. That is a good sign that I won that point.
It isn't honest to say it is irrelevant than many Clinton supporting Democrats and Biden supporting Democrats are now lecturing us about Moore, given the interest in Moore's past is based on the fact that he is in an election with a Democrat.
It doesn't make any sense to argue that I can't talk about Democrat hypocrisy. You are obviously making a partisan argument.
It is unrelated to the case of Roy Moore's... proclivities. Now, if you want to talk about the relative ideals of his competitor, as you have done in some other posts, that would be relevant. Bill Clinton is clearly not however, as his situation is removed both temporally and spacially from this particular situation.
In addition, the assumption that everyone you are disagreeing with is a Clinton/Biden supporter is also fallacious, and in my case and I suspect at least one other I have seen posting, wrong.
It is unrelated to the case of Roy Moore's... proclivities. Now, if you want to talk about the relative ideals of his competitor, as you have done in some other posts, that would be relevant. Bill Clinton is clearly not however, as his situation is removed both temporally and spacially from this particular situation.
It is relevant if liberals like you supported Bill Clinton but now say Moore is disqualified. And you know that is the case for many Democrats blasting Moore.
I get people don't like accurately identified as hypocrites.
I never said all Moore critics are liberals. I mentioned Never Trump Republicans upthread.
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.
