The Next US President

[joseph1986]

That is a fallacy of an irrelevant conclusion. Staying on topic.

The ignoratio elenchi is most effective in political contexts where oral arguments are being given. Many listeners in such a context are easily distracted. Often this fallacy can be effective as a persuasive technique when coupled with the ad populum fallacy. The emotional situation in crowd can often be distracting and sometimes leads to overlooking the logical import of what is said. Ask yourself if the premisses were false, would that fact imply that the conclusion is false also? It it would not, then the premisses can be considered irrelevant to the conclusion.

Where to begin. While you're pointless history lesson is not untrue it is completely irrelevant. You beat around the bush for a long time until coming to one simple point that is quite obvious. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to state that liberals don't like conservatives, who are usually Republicans.

Your statement about McKinley is awful and is an appeal to emotion fallacy concerning immigration. Just because you may think that it is morally wrong to keep people from entering the country does not mean that the belief is unjustified or illogical. It is pulling on people's heart strings instead of using facts to win an argument. In fact, even if it were morally wrong to stop immigration it would still be irrelevant to the argument.

Example
As all clear-thinking residents of our fine state have already realized, the Governor's plan for financing public education is nothing but the bloody-fanged wolf of socialism cleverly disguised in the harmless sheep's clothing of concern for children.
Therefore, the Governor's plan is bad public policy.

The problem here is that although the flowery language of the premise might arouse strong feelings in many members of its intended audience, the widespread occurrence of those feelings has nothing to do with the truth of the conclusion.

You are looking at my statement from a philosophical aspect while I gave you true historical accounts. Trying to figure out if your post is a debate between an atheist and a christian but regardless of this matter, I think the part about immigration in your statement did hit a nerve. I'm not trying to appeal to anything sir, I'm just stating Donald Trump will not win, he may win the primaries but I doubt it.....but if he does we will have a democratic white house. What part of this don't you understand? I have nothing against the guy but he will not win, when you read this post next November you will know that I am right and I will continue being right. HE WILL NOT WIN END OF DISCUSSION.

 

[hhiusa]

You are looking at my statement from a philosophical aspect while I gave you true historical accounts. Trying to figure out if your post is a debate between an atheist and a christian but regardless of this matter, I think the part about immigration in your statement did hit a nerve. I'm not trying to appeal to anything sir, I'm just stating Donald Trump will not win, he may win the primaries but I doubt it.....but if he does we will have a democratic white house. What part of this don't you understand? I have nothing against the guy but he will not win, when you read this post next November you will know that I am right and I will continue being right. HE WILL NOT WIN END OF DISCUSSION.

Stating something more loudly or in a bigger font doesnt make a statement more true, nor does it make a false statement true, or vice-versa.

It is not just philosophical, it is logical. If you are not going to use logic in your statements and avoid fallacies, why bother saying anything at all? You do not pay attention well. I will reiterate it.

While you may have stated historical facts, it is an irrelevant conclusion.

Where to begin. While you're pointless history lesson is not untrue it is completely irrelevant. You beat around the bush for a long time until coming to one simple point that is quite obvious. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to state that liberals don't like conservatives, who are usually Republicans.

Your statement about McKinley is awful and is an appeal to emotion fallacy concerning immigration. Just because you may think that it is morally wrong to keep people from entering the country does not mean that the belief is unjustified or illogical. It is pulling on people's heart strings instead of using facts to win an argument. In fact, even if it were morally wrong to stop immigration it would still be irrelevant to the argument.

I think the part about immigration in your statement did hit a nerve. I'm not trying to appeal to anything sir.

Your intentions are immaterial. You like facts apparently. The fact is that you have committed several fallacies. Regardless if something did strike a nerve, which is completely ridiculous, it does not make an argument invalid.

Why don't you show me your crystal ball while you are at it. Write all the sentences that you want in CAPS, it will not change anything. It only shows your proclivity to appeal to emotion and appeal to consequences fallacies. :smart:

 

[itspossible]

 

[itspossible]

 

[joseph1986]

Why do you assume so much?

 

[joseph1986]

when you read this post in about 6 to 8 months you will realize that I have no crystal ball. I just know that Trump is fueled by the PR machine with no fiscal solutions and no constructive solutions who is essentially a desperate attempt by the masses to express their dissatisfaction with government. Trump will not get any female votes which is the main predictor for the next president. He doesn't have any skills in debating because he repeats the same thing again and again. You think I'm mad and assume thats why I used caps but it's just to sink it in to those who do doubt me when they read all of this in the future that.....I don't follow the crowds, and don't care for your fallacy classifications. On fallacies.....your first response was a red herring since you completely dismissed the historical context of my point. Where in my first post did I try to imply the divide of Republican and democrats...that's not what I was at all getting to......I said the center, left and far left. Only twenty percent of individuals in their 20's vote.....these are mostly far left or far right and center individuals....if the far right right will vote for trump WELL you can do math.... this will not equate to the center and far left votes. If Donald Trump wins then my statements are immaterial and everything I say is awful, if he doesn't then you're a person who just assumes everyone has a crystal ball when they clearly explain to you facts that you refuse to see.

 

[itspossible]

 

[joseph1986]

can't go back forth, trump will not be the next president. If I'm wrong then yes what you assume is true my statements are awful and immaterial if he loses then you're a troll

 

[Oscar Reed]

It is not just philosophical, it is logical. If you are not going to use logic in your statements and avoid fallacies, why bother saying anything at all? You do not pay attention well. I will reiterate it.

While you may have stated historical facts, it is an irrelevant conclusion.







Your intentions are immaterial. You like facts apparently. The fact is that you have committed several fallacies. Regardless if something did strike a nerve, which is completely ridiculous, it does not make an argument invalid.

Why don't you show me your crystal ball while you are at it. Write all the sentences that you want in CAPS, it will not change anything. It only shows your proclivity to appeal to emotion and appeal to consequences fallacies. :smart:

.

 

[Atilla]

It is not just philosophical, it is logical. If you are not going to use logic in your statements and avoid fallacies, why bother saying anything at all? You do not pay attention well. I will reiterate it.

While you may have stated historical facts, it is an irrelevant conclusion.

Historical facts are not irrelevant at all you say!!! People go to war based on past history and hate and emotion and you unthinking illogical nut claim they are irrelevant. Which freaking planet you on?

Your intentions are immaterial. You like facts apparently. The fact is that you have committed several fallacies. Regardless if something did strike a nerve, which is completely ridiculous, it does not make an argument invalid.

Depends on the argument right! Trump has striked several notes singling out one woman by name but pretty much alienated half the population of the US of A. Do you have any emotional or come to think of it any intelligence at all. You are hillarious. with your BS.

Why don't you show me your crystal ball while you are at it. Write all the sentences that you want in CAPS, it will not change anything. It only shows your proclivity to appeal to emotion and appeal to consequences fallacies. :smart:

Once again you talk so much rubbish it's unbelievable. You really do!

Two most frequently used words in your language has to be logic and fallacies. Shame you don't known what they mean??? You really should ask for your money back.

Have you considered auditioning for the next Star Trek movie

 

[hhiusa]

when you read this post in about 6 to 8 months you will realize that I have no crystal ball. I just know that Trump is fueled by the PR machine with no fiscal solutions and no constructive solutions who is essentially a desperate attempt by the masses to express their dissatisfaction with government. Trump will not get any female votes which is the main predictor for the next president. He doesn't have any skills in debating because he repeats the same thing again and again. You think I'm mad and assume thats why I used caps but it's just to sink it in to those who do doubt me when they read all of this in the future that.....I don't follow the crowds, and don't care for your fallacy classifications. On fallacies.....your first response was a red herring since you completely dismissed the historical context of my point. Where in my first post did I try to imply the divide of Republican and democrats...that's not what I was at all getting to......I said the center, left and far left. Only twenty percent of individuals in their 20's vote.....these are mostly far left or far right and center individuals....if the far right right will vote for trump WELL you can do math.... this will not equate to the center and far left votes. If Donald Trump wins then my statements are immaterial and everything I say is awful, if he doesn't then you're a person who just assumes everyone has a crystal ball when they clearly explain to you facts that you refuse to see.

 

[Forexmospherian]

Interesting - are the majority of voters in New Hampshire not to clever and maybe don't understand "Integrity" - or have they all been - as Donald calls it - "leveraged"

Lol

The next 6 months in the US is going to be fun and the rest of the world must be all thinking - is this really how democracy works ???

 

[Pat494]

Years ago Trump would not be even in the running.
Is it the drugs ? The death throes of the Rep party, Or what.

The extremists are getting into contention, Left versus Right.
Come on moderates I say

 

[hhiusa]

Interesting - are the majority of voters in New Hampshire not to clever and maybe don't understand "Integrity" - or have they all been - as Donald calls it - "leveraged"

Lol

The next 6 months in the US is going to be fun and the rest of the world must be all thinking - is this really how democracy works ???

This shows who is in the lead overall in the primaries. Trump got 7 from Iowa and 10 from New Hampshire. Hillary has a massive lead.

 

[hhiusa]

 

[itspossible]

good thread-read every word.

 

[Pat494]

Interesting - are the majority of voters in New Hampshire not to clever and maybe don't understand "Integrity" - or have they all been - as Donald calls it - "leveraged"

Lol

The next 6 months in the US is going to be fun and the rest of the world must be all thinking - is this really how democracy works ???

It seems to me that the USA's form of democracy is more likely a plutocracy. i.e. based on money.

 

[hhiusa]

It seems to me that the USA's form of democracy is more likely a plutocracy. i.e. based on money.

You are definitely showing your naiveté. You are just figuring that out now. Everything is based upon money. :smart:

 

[Pat494]

You are definitely showing your naiveté. You are just figuring that out now. Everything is based upon money. :smart:

You really take the biscuit for lowering what should be an interesting exchange of opinions into personalised insults. Then run to the administrators when someone calls your methodology into question ! Ha !
Your so called logicality is just bull**** and very boring. I won't be replying to your crap again. Can't be bothered.

Admit you are a half baked idiot and will try to improve and I might just forgive you !
Or do you plead lunacy ? Mr. Spock you ain't.

 

[Atilla]

You really take the biscuit for lowering what should be an interesting exchange of opinions into personalised insults. Then run to the administrators when someone calls your methodology into question ! Ha !
Your so called logicality is just bull**** and very boring. I won't be replying to your crap again. Can't be bothered.

Admit you are a half baked idiot and I might just forgive you !
Or do you plead lunacy ? Mr. Spock you ain't.

What Mr Hihi rude??? Never! He doesn't sling mud or call people rude names at all. His just simply well informed hyper smart, well read, educated, bred and everything else under the sun that is pure and good like good ol latin.
two
spaces
Your post did make me laff Pat... My sympathies and I do share your sentiments.
two
spaces
Do you think he'll be offended if we ask for a pic of his ears? :cheesy: