Why are facts called a 'smear?'

Post Reply New Topic

zero, what false premises were in the OP? That was just a listing of facts. They may not have been relevant to anything in particular, but you cannot claim that false premises were used.

If you're going to criticize Merle's "logic" (which is rather futile as she didn't actually make any point in this thraed) you might accuse her of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, assuming that she is implying that the incidents she listed in the OP somehow caused the shooting in Arizona.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Conservatism.

Do you remember 9/11? Do you remember a major Republican presidential candidate running an entire f*****g primary campaign based on 9/11? Going farther back, do you remember 9/11 being exploited for political gain in 2002 and 2004?

How the hell is bush a conservative?

I already have albiet in a different thread, right now the only person with any remote crediblity with left leaning political views is waltur. I don't see why any conservative member here should waste their time giving your exploitation of murder for political gain credibility it doesn't deserve.

You and other leftists have accused conservatives of being accessories to murder with absolutely no evidence, so don't even bother trying to claim you didn't or I will go back and quote you. I quite frankly am offended, very angry, and my anger is justified.

Inuyasha, you lying bastard. I have called you on this before.

That is a flat-out lie. I have called you out on this over here where you slandered me before. I am sick of your repeated false accusations.

You are a despicable human being with no sense of decency.

goosefraba, just go to the mods no need to rage.

Yeah his spending was out of control and he expanded the government big time.

@ Orwell: I think the War in Iraq is BS, but I don't blame the US for going after the people responsible for 9/11. Afghanistan is definitely justified. If someone at a bar swung at me, the next place he's gonna end up is on the floor.

Gotta love the chorus of "no true Scotsman" fallacies, as long as we're on the topic of logic.

Ace, you do realize that Reagan also expanded government and his spending was also out of control? By your absurd definitions, we haven't had a "conservative" in office since Herbert Hoover.

Also, I didn't bring up Iraq or Afghanistan, just the political profiteering on the part of Republican politicians off of 9/11.

Sure whatever...


That is a flat-out lie. I have called you out on this over here where you slandered me before. I am sick of your repeated false accusations.




http://www.wrongplanet.net/posts147762-start75.html

You were saying Orwell...

Last edited by Inuyasha on 12 Jan 2011, 3:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

During the administration of "The Great Communicator" the thickness of the Federal Register doubled. RWR also failed to keep several promises (surprise surprise). He did not eliminate the Dept. of Education as a cabinet position.

ruveyn

Pointing out that Roeder was a right-winger is a false smear? How? That is completely unrelated to the Tucson shooting. I have never once claimed or insinuated that conservatives were "accessories to murder" in relation to the shooting of Representative Gifford.

You owe me an apology for your repeated slanderous accusations.

I was not addressing the OP. Just pointing out that people who think logic produces correct responses are likely seeing the process in it's idealistic setting. In reality, many logical arguments (that are valid as presented) are based on facts which would not pass muster if properly scrutinized, and most people don't take the step to properly investigate the validity of the premises being offered...they are presumed to be true when often they are not or misleading because facts improperly organized can yield false conclusions.

Quit moving the goal posts Orwell.

No goal post has moved. I have never accused anyone on the right of being "accessories to murder," and certainly not in relation to the shooting in Arizona.

You have lied about me, repeatedly, and you have been called out on it and proven wrong. The adult thing to do would be to apologize to the person you have slandered, and move on.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

I'm rather chuffed.

I think that we are playing a bit fast and loose with concept of, "fact." More specifically, we seem to be conflating the somewhat objective concept of, "fact," with the more subjective concept of, "truth."

There is a reason that the traditional witness' oath in Common Law courts is to tell, "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."

An anectdote might well contain a fact, which from an objective standard is an actual, accurate record of an event. But there is nothing in the mere accuracy of a fact to tell you whether it is typical or exceptional. It is not enough to cite an example and claim the generality as a conclusion. You must prove the link.

Citing an anecdote as evidence of a general principle may be misleading if the speaker fails to take not of similar facts that contradict the general principle (failing to tell "the whole truth.") The selective culling of facts to support a preconceived idea is a similar practice.

There is a legal maxim that is appropriate to this, "suppressio veri, suggestio falsi." It doesn't matter whether you are left wing, right wing or a centrist the same responsibility applies.