The History Of Obama's Eligibility

[TRUEGRITT]

Originally Posted by Aristotle the Hun

[SIZE=3]The "progressive movement" has shown itself to be a cesspool of intolerant bullies. The trademark personal insult, name calling, ridicule, and ad hominem attacks characterize the debate style of Obama’s people That tactic has worked quite well on the ignorant and those who value feeling more than reason. Uninformed voted Obama - http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2008/12/uninformed-voted-obama-informed-voted.html[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]
This is not new, transformational politics. This is the rise of a New American Fascism. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]
You might consult an article on this blog entitled. Spot false arguments and make strong ones. http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2008/11/spot-false-arguments-and-make-strong.html[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]
A free hint on how to improve your posts. You will note that ad hominem arguments are at the lower end of the scale on the pyramid chart at the above link; only one step above name calling which is the other part of your content. Do you honestly expect to get somewhere with a post like that when many of the readers on this blog have triple digit IQs?

In case you need a little help with your Latin: An ad hominem argument, consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

Have you had a logic class yet?

You might take a look at this site:

http://www.austhink.org/critical/pages/fallacies.html[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3] Critical Thinking on the Web.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]Also Known as: Appeal to Mockery, The Horse Laugh. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]Description of Appeal to Ridicule[/SIZE]

[SIZE=3]The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an " argument." This line of " reasoning" has the following form: [/SIZE]

1. [SIZE=3]X, which is some form of ridicule, is presented (typically directed at the claim). [/SIZE]
2. [SIZE=3]Therefore claim C is false. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=3]This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because mocking a claim does not show that it is false. This is especially clear in the following example: "1+1=2! That's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard!" [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]Examples of Appeal to Ridicule[/SIZE]

1. [SIZE=3]"Sure my worthy opponent claims that we should lower tuition, but that is just laughable." [/SIZE]
2. [SIZE=3]"Support the ERA? Sure, when the women start paying for the drinks! Hah! Hah!" [/SIZE]
3. [SIZE=3]"Those wacky conservatives! They think a strong military is the key to peace! There’s a tin foil hat idea" [/SIZE]

[SIZE=3]http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/[/SIZE]

Are you the author of the OP link?

Please edit your post and clean it up, just delete all of the HTML stuff, it will still look like it should.

[katzenfreund]

The other two threads were closed for a reason... kindly refrain from posting the same stuff over and over again, this has been going on for months now...