Mr.B1ack wrote:
> So what's next, vote to ignore the 14th
> amendment so everybody can own slaves
> again ???
What cartoon did THAT wild-eyed "logic" come from?
Oh I know!
FoxLimbaugh&Co!
When you thought it up, did the veins on
your forhead buldge out Rush Limbaugh style?
==========
Any serial liar with a cult-like following
would naturally train us to think that Truth
cannot be found, that all outside info is Evil.
For all serial liars, to remain credible, all
- Outside information MUST be discredited!
Particularly the most reliable and trusted
of all...Science. ...But all outside information.
This is no Evil plot. It's just simple logic that
flows naturally from the given condition:
"Any serial liar with a cult-like following..."
The only rational question is:
"Does FoxLimbaugh&Co meet those criteria?"
Answer? Everybody but the cult members know.
But if you don't know, see above.
Then test it for yourself. Google might work.
...start by learning some "logical fallacies."
The Limbaugh Fallacy: Straw Man
www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply
ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a
distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that
position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following
pattern:
Dem has position X.
Repub presents position Y (which is a distorted version
of X).
Repub attacks position Y.
Therefore Repub joyously and loudly concludes X is
false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a
distorted version of a position simply does not constitute
an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect
an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.
...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy
In logic and rhetoric, a fallacy is usually an incorrect
argumentation in reasoning resulting in a misconception or
presumption. By accident or design, fallacies may exploit
emotional triggers in the listener or interlocutor (appeal
to emotion), or take advantage of social relationships
between people (e.g. argument from authority). Fallacious
arguments are often structured using rhetorical patterns
that obscure any logical argument.
Fallacies can be used to win arguments regardless of the
merits. Among such devices, discussed in more detail below,
are: "ignoring the question" to divert argument to unrelated
issues using a red herring, making the argument personal
(argumentum ad hominem) and discrediting the opposition's
character, "begging the question" (petito principi), the use
of the non-sequitor, false cause and effect (post hoc ergo
propter hoc), bandwagoning (everyone says so), the "false
dilemma" or "either-or fallacy" in which the situation is
oversimplified, "card-stacking" or selective use of facts,
and "false analogy". Another favorite device is the "false
generalization", an abstraction of the argument that shifts
discussion to platitudes where the facts of the matter are
lost. There are many, many more tricks to divert attention
from careful exploration of a subject.[1]
Fallacies can generally be classified as informal (premises
fail to support the proposed conclusion, but the argument is
structured properly) or formal (logical structure is
flawed). ...........snip