Wait, you think we were on track to win in Vietnam? And it was the protests that screwed things up? And you think the citizens of Vietnam are 'relegated to live under communism?' Vietnam had one of the highest growth rates in the world since the government instituted free market reforms in 1986. Vietnam is a member of the WTO, and well respected in the international community. The human rights situation is still abysmal, but improving. Give it time and Vietnam will be indistinguishable from the free and prosperous hybrid socialist/free market economies of Europe. As of right now, their economy is doing quite a bit better than ours. Funny how it was capitalism that imploded recently, not socialism.
It was sad enough to see Beck's shameless self promotion, let alone to now see Colbert's cynical copycatting of shameless self-promotion
I felt it was pretty obvious what my point was. It is not sad to see Colbert's 'cynical copycatting of shameless self promotion,' because that is what Colbert does, and has always done, and it's funny.
It seems you have mistaken what I wrote to mean that I support Beck or O'Reilly. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Oh, no, there are all kinds of Glenn Beck fans. For instance, there is the crazy wing: libertarian crazies, religious crazies, racist crazies. Then there is the retard wing, home-schooled retards, closeted retards, old senile retards. We also have the diabolically evil faction, Wall Street evil, coal mining evil, big oil evil, the military industrial evil complex.
Glen Beck's popularity spans all sorts of crazy, retarded and evil.
They don't have any ideas worth acknowledging and dealing with. We all have a limited amount of time and attention, there is no sense wasting a limited resource on trivial things.
You stopped watching during the Bush years, didn't you? Comedians tend to make fun of those in power. Comedy Central ridicules Obama and the Democrats plenty, now that they are the ones in power.
Are usually nerdy college students or people who live in their parent's basement rent free. In other words dependents who are dependant upon staying out from the daylight. You really think they are going to get a bunch of them pryed away from their gamestations and computers long enough to go outside to a rally in the hot burning sun?
You would have better luck convincing Vampires to eat a cloves of garlic while standing in an open air church at high noon.
You shouldn't assume that everyone who watches the same shows you do is like you.
Shinto was the official state religion of Japan during WWII, you retard. The guys who bomber Pearl Harbor were Shinto. Your imaginary history of Islam and made-up number of attacks are also outright lies.
Wrong. If George is making claims that he is the King of Siam, he is presenting a statement, not an argument. There is no logic to evaluate. We are not saying that George's logic is invalid because he is insane, that would still be argumentum ad hominem. We are presenting the logical argument that runs as follows. Crazy people can not be trusted to make accurate statements. George is a crazy person. Therefore, we should not trust George. Note, We are not saying "Therefore, George is incorrect," As even crazy people may be correct sometimes. We are saying we shouldn't trust him. Note that this is also different from "George is a big meany and I don't like him and therefore you shouldn't trust him," which is not logical and could be considered an ad hominem or poisoning the well.
What I am saying is that if George were actually certified by a psychologist as being insane, that fact would be a good reason to disbelieve his claim to be the King of Siam, and therefore, it is not a logical fallacy to say "George is certifiably insane, therefore, you shouldn't listen to him."
>implying that arguments made by a loon aren't crap.
Please, learn to think.
Huh? I'm not implying that arguments made by a loon are good or bad. Loons can make any sort of argument, and even a stopped clock is right twice a day. The argument is either logical or it isn't, that holds true for whoever makes the argument. That is why ad hominem is a fallacy.
Now, there are times when calling someone a loon is not an ad hominem. For instance, "Don't listen when George tells you he is king of Siam. George is certifiably insane" is not an ad hominem if George is in fact insane and not the king of Siam, the fact of his insanity a good reason not to listen to his claims, and therefor this argument is not a fallacy.
It isn't really an ad hominem at all. If you say "This guy is a loon, therefore his arguments are crap" then that is an ad hominem, but if you say "This guy's arguments are crap, therefore he's a loon" it isn't. His being a loon doesn't necessarily make his arguments crap, but just saying his arguments are crap or even calling him a loon isn't an ad hominem. An ad hominem is a specific type of logical fallacy, it is not a general insult.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, snap. It's funny because it's true.
Wait, you think we were on track to win in Vietnam? And it was the protests that screwed things up? And you think the citizens of Vietnam are 'relegated to live under communism?' Vietnam had one of the highest growth rates in the world since the government instituted free market reforms in 1986. Vietnam is a member of the WTO, and well respected in the international community. The human rights situation is still abysmal, but improving. Give it time and Vietnam will be indistinguishable from the free and prosperous hybrid socialist/free market economies of Europe. As of right now, their economy is doing quite a bit better than ours. Funny how it was capitalism that imploded recently, not socialism.
Stop it. It isn't flamebait. I may be a liberal and Wyatt may be conservative, but even I can tell he's not here to incite flames.
I was responding to this:
It was sad enough to see Beck's shameless self promotion, let alone to now see Colbert's cynical copycatting of shameless self-promotion
I felt it was pretty obvious what my point was. It is not sad to see Colbert's 'cynical copycatting of shameless self promotion,' because that is what Colbert does, and has always done, and it's funny.
It seems you have mistaken what I wrote to mean that I support Beck or O'Reilly. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Oh, Canada! We stand on cars and freeze.
Slashdot isn't pointless idiocy. There are intelligent people here.
It's obvious you haven't watched either recently.
I think the fellow below had it right when he completed the cycle with "Getting laid leads to marriage, and marriage leads to SUFFERING!"
Oh, no, there are all kinds of Glenn Beck fans. For instance, there is the crazy wing: libertarian crazies, religious crazies, racist crazies. Then there is the retard wing, home-schooled retards, closeted retards, old senile retards. We also have the diabolically evil faction, Wall Street evil, coal mining evil, big oil evil, the military industrial evil complex.
Glen Beck's popularity spans all sorts of crazy, retarded and evil.
And thus, the cycle is complete.
They don't have any ideas worth acknowledging and dealing with. We all have a limited amount of time and attention, there is no sense wasting a limited resource on trivial things.
You stopped watching during the Bush years, didn't you? Comedians tend to make fun of those in power. Comedy Central ridicules Obama and the Democrats plenty, now that they are the ones in power.
Colbert's entire shtick is parodying shamelessly self promoting pundits like "Papa Bear" O'Reilly and Beck.
Are usually nerdy college students or people who live in their parent's basement rent free. In other words dependents who are dependant upon staying out from the daylight. You really think they are going to get a bunch of them pryed away from their gamestations and computers long enough to go outside to a rally in the hot burning sun?
You would have better luck convincing Vampires to eat a cloves of garlic while standing in an open air church at high noon.
You shouldn't assume that everyone who watches the same shows you do is like you.
Controversy leads to page hits. Page hits lead to advertisers. Advertisers lead to income. Income leads to getting laid.
Mystery solved.
Shinto was the official state religion of Japan during WWII, you retard. The guys who bomber Pearl Harbor were Shinto. Your imaginary history of Islam and made-up number of attacks are also outright lies.
Wrong. If George is making claims that he is the King of Siam, he is presenting a statement, not an argument. There is no logic to evaluate. We are not saying that George's logic is invalid because he is insane, that would still be argumentum ad hominem. We are presenting the logical argument that runs as follows. Crazy people can not be trusted to make accurate statements. George is a crazy person. Therefore, we should not trust George. Note, We are not saying "Therefore, George is incorrect," As even crazy people may be correct sometimes. We are saying we shouldn't trust him. Note that this is also different from "George is a big meany and I don't like him and therefore you shouldn't trust him," which is not logical and could be considered an ad hominem or poisoning the well.
What I am saying is that if George were actually certified by a psychologist as being insane, that fact would be a good reason to disbelieve his claim to be the King of Siam, and therefore, it is not a logical fallacy to say "George is certifiably insane, therefore, you shouldn't listen to him."
Aha! Now I know why Welshmen have tails! Cthulhu worshipers, all of them.
And ad hominem isn't a noun. So you don't call something an ad hominem; you call it ad hominem.
Wrong.
>implying that arguments made by a loon aren't crap.
Please, learn to think.
Huh? I'm not implying that arguments made by a loon are good or bad. Loons can make any sort of argument, and even a stopped clock is right twice a day. The argument is either logical or it isn't, that holds true for whoever makes the argument. That is why ad hominem is a fallacy.
Now, there are times when calling someone a loon is not an ad hominem. For instance, "Don't listen when George tells you he is king of Siam. George is certifiably insane" is not an ad hominem if George is in fact insane and not the king of Siam, the fact of his insanity a good reason not to listen to his claims, and therefor this argument is not a fallacy.
It isn't really an ad hominem at all. If you say "This guy is a loon, therefore his arguments are crap" then that is an ad hominem, but if you say "This guy's arguments are crap, therefore he's a loon" it isn't. His being a loon doesn't necessarily make his arguments crap, but just saying his arguments are crap or even calling him a loon isn't an ad hominem. An ad hominem is a specific type of logical fallacy, it is not a general insult.
Why are we talking about caps when there isn't any evidence of leaks and the platform has not collapsed into the sea?
Because we like to sound as if we've got something useful to say?
Would it surprise you to learn there are Shinto shrines within half a mile of Pearl Harbor?
Don't forget the 'giving ourselves a bonus' bonus. Handing out bonuses is hard work.