• The next President - who's good enough?
    366 replies, posted
[QUOTE=SystemGS;34254561]Delineating an argument with even more ad hominem attacks is counter-intuitive. If you want to take the meaning of argumentum ad hominem up with me, just PM me. Anyway, back to the actual discussion.[/QUOTE] winner. this is change happening. this is liberalism at it's finest.
[QUOTE=Scoooby;34254541]Could you do any more in preventing the restoration of america? What this is telling me is that PSUEDO-INTELLECTUALISTS are the issue now.[/QUOTE] Yes, people who know more are the problem. I KNOW THE SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM OF INTELLECTUALS Ron Paul 2012 [editline]16th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Scoooby;34254567]winner. this is change happening. this is liberalism at it's finest.[/QUOTE] I do not even know what you mean by this.
[QUOTE=SystemGS;34254561]Delineating an argument with even more ad hominem attacks is counter-intuitive. If you want to take the meaning of argumentum ad hominem up with me, just PM me. Anyway, back to the actual discussion.[/QUOTE] lmao there's no need for a discussion, i'll just post a definition [quote]An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.[1][/quote] acting a post as nonsensical is not in any way shape or form in any universe an ad hominem
[QUOTE=person11;34254569]Yes, people who know more are the problem. I KNOW THE SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM OF INTELLECTUALS Ron Paul 2012 [editline]16th January 2012[/editline] I do not even know what you mean by this.[/QUOTE] Yes. Those psuedo-intellectuals are the congress dumbfucks that YOU voted in, because YOU did nothing. People are too busy listening to psuedo-intellectuals "amping the same bullshit WE ALL heard"
never has a poster posted so much but said so little as scooby
[QUOTE=Lazor;34254594]never has a poster posted so much but said so little as scooby[/QUOTE] i'm done. i'm done. i'm done. it's like 2:30am, i have class at 8am. You're a joke.
[QUOTE=Lazor;34254576]lmao there's no need for a discussion, i'll just post a definition acting a post as nonsensical is not in any way shape or form in any universe an ad hominem[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Lazor]lol as if your post makes any more sense now[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Wikipedia] an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief[/QUOTE] I think that speaks for itself.
[QUOTE=Scoooby;34254578]Yes. Those psuedo-intellectuals are the congress dumbfucks that YOU voted in, because YOU did nothing. People are too busy listening to psuedo-intellectuals "amping the same bullshit WE ALL heard"[/QUOTE] Alright, Glenn Beck. I did not do nothing, I voted for the best option for my personal views and beliefs. People tend to listen to Intellectuals because they are right. How smart the people in Congress are is not really an issue, just how much we agree or disagree with them. As much as I disagree with many politicians, I would only accuse a few of being not smart, such as Perry, Bachmann, and Santorum. I think Ron Paul is a pretty smart guy, despite being wrong about so much. [editline]16th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Scoooby;34254605]i'm done. i'm done. i'm done. it's like 2:30am, i have class at 8am. You're a joke.[/QUOTE] ad hominem party tonight woooooooooooo "reasoned debate? what's that?"
[QUOTE=person11;34254614] Paul is a pretty smart guy, despite being wrong about so much.[/QUOTE] And I think you're a pretty smart guy (honestly) but you're doing so little.
[QUOTE=SystemGS;34254608]I think that speaks for itself.[/QUOTE] wow way to take that out of context you terrible human being it's about attacking a characteristic of THE PERSON not the ARGUMENT if ad hominem were defined the way you thought it was then literally any argument would be an ad hominem
ITT: Ad hominem up the butt
[QUOTE=Lazor;34254631]wow way to take that out of context you terrible human being it's about attacking a characteristic of THE PERSON not the ARGUMENT if ad hominem were defined the way you thought it was then literally any argument would be an ad hominem[/QUOTE] you've been arguing ad hominen while i've been debating social equality issues. i'm the progressive. i'm the difference. you're the lazy fuck who does nothing but talks.
[QUOTE=Lazor;34254631]wow way to take that out of context you terrible human being it's about attacking a characteristic of THE PERSON not the ARGUMENT if ad hominem were defined the way you thought it was then literally any argument would be an ad hominem[/QUOTE] You were attacking a characteristic of the person. "You can't form a reasoned argument anyway."
[QUOTE=Scoooby;34254621]And I think you're a pretty smart guy (honestly) but you're doing so little.[/QUOTE] What do you mean by doing so little?
[QUOTE=Scoooby;34254640]you've been arguing ad hominen while i've been debating social equality issues. i'm the progressive. i'm the difference. you're the lazy fuck who does nothing.[/QUOTE] ad hominem argument police should be my title
[QUOTE=SystemGS;34254642]You were attacking a characteristic of the person. "You can't form a reasoned argument anyway."[/QUOTE] lmao wow no. no i didn't. that is absolutely not what my post said or implied. you are reading meanings into my post which are not there. my post said nothing more and nothing less than his post not making sense, which is not an ad hominem
[QUOTE=SystemGS;34254635]ITT: Ad hominem up the butt[/QUOTE] Ad hominem up in diz bitch
[QUOTE=person11;34254649]What do you mean by doing so little?[/QUOTE] "not taking a vote. not giving a shit."
[QUOTE=SystemGS;34254650]ad hominem argument police should be my title[/QUOTE] i think "bends definitions to make myself look smart on the internet" would be better
Ok how about we just stop arguing about the definition of ad hominem and continue talking about who should be the President.
[QUOTE=person11;34254669]Ok how about we just stop arguing about the definition of ad hominem and continue talking about who should be the President.[/QUOTE] Silly. Ron Paul should be president. Because once again. All of the other presidential candidates are the spitting image of how wealth consumes a soul.
[QUOTE=Scoooby;34254660]"not taking a vote. not giving a shit."[/QUOTE] What do you mean by that? I clearly said that I voted. [editline]16th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Scoooby;34254673]Silly. Ron Paul should be president.[/QUOTE] I should be President. But since I can't run yet, I will vote for Obama.
[QUOTE=person11;34254674]What do you mean by that? I clearly said that I voted. [editline]16th January 2012[/editline] I should be President. But since I can't run yet, I will vote for Obama.[/QUOTE] Ok. Now against your vote for Obama. [url]http://www.mittvmitt.com/[/url] Mitt Romney = Barrack Obama. The top 2 candidates. Advocating the same issues. Supported by the same corruption.
[QUOTE=Lazor;34254654]lmao wow no. no i didn't. that is absolutely not what my post said or implied. you are reading meanings into my post which are not there. my post said nothing more and nothing less than his post not making sense, which is not an ad hominem[/QUOTE] Falling back on absurdity. There's a certain implicitness in that post that everyone can see. It's obviously mocking, which says "scooby can't argue". Come on, don't fall back on absurdity.
[QUOTE=SystemGS;34254697]Falling back on absurdity. There's a certain implicitness in that post that everyone can see. It's obviously mocking, which says "scooby can't argue". Come on, don't fall back on absurdity.[/QUOTE] I love you have my babies. Or better yet, we'll have eachother's babies. I'm speaking for the GENERAL IDEALS of FACEPUNCH. Not these guys who occupy the forums 24/7.
[QUOTE=Lazor;34254664]i think "bends definitions to make myself look smart on the internet" would be better[/QUOTE] Internet pity parties are fun.
[QUOTE=SystemGS;34254697]Falling back on absurdity. There's a certain implicitness in that post that everyone can see. It's obviously mocking, which says "scooby can't argue". Come on, don't fall back on absurdity.[/QUOTE] the only thing begin implied is that you're reading shit into my posts actually no i'm outright stating that
[QUOTE=Scoooby;34254685]Ok. Now against your vote for Obama. [url]http://www.mittvmitt.com/[/url] Mitt Romney = Barrack Obama. The top 2 candidates. Advocating the same issues. Supported by the same corruption.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=SystemGS;34254697]Falling back on absurdity. There's a certain implicitness in that post that everyone can see. It's obviously mocking, which says "scooby can't argue". Come on, don't fall back on absurdity.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Scoooby;34254702]I love you have my babies. Or better yet, we'll have eachother's babies. I'm speaking for the GENERAL IDEALS of FACEPUNCH. Not these guys who occupy the forums 24/7.[/QUOTE] What the fuck is this thread turning into.
[QUOTE=person11;34254721]What the fuck is this thread turning into.[/QUOTE] you and people like you talking to yourselves. And I'm here to tell you, why Ron Paul is OUR [U]BEST[/U] and [U]ONLY[/U] HOPE.
Also, Obama has proven his skill as President in the last 3 years, and is a more inspiring leader who is much better views than Romney on social issues. Romney is a not-so-bad third place behind Huntsman. Ron Paul is dead last.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.