What Democrats should be saying

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by ManM

You leave out relevant information, presenting a subset of the facts as if that were the whole story. A person reading your posts alone would not find out that the “missing link fallacy” was specifically identified and described in an essay titled, “The Handbook of Logical Fallacies”, with the description being repeated in an online free thought journal titled “Port of Call”.

So the fact that I, just like you when you first made your claim, did not judge the fucking title of the webpage relevant, was the gross lack of charity that explains your incessant mewling?

Sweet potato tickle, what a pile of shit.

What the fuck does the title of the page matter? There are three --possibly four if you count a straight copy -- online uses of the phrase: one of which you cited. Wiggle and squirm as you please.

You provide no details about your “vague resemblance to the use I made of it” claim, because doing so would reveal just how vague those resemblances are, and demonstrate that they are not comparable to a specific appearance in an essay that identifies logical fallacies.

Okay, so you are on drugs. My calling it a vague resemblance was out-and-out "dishonest", a "stunt", "antics", even fucking "devious", because it is actually... get this... a vague resemblance!

Dipshit is far too kind a word for you.

And this essay that "identifies" (rather than, say, coining or conjecturing) logical fallacies -- this single, lonely Ayn Randophile source in all of intellectual e-space -- you feel that by failing to make a note of its title, I misrepresented you in some way that explains your ridiculous caterwauling?

Granted that I've followed you into a complete diversion; still, it's worth doggedly chasing down your evasions every once in while, just to put you back in your box. I mean, what you've said here really is dipshittery extraordinaire.

Of course, that’s not relevant to your point that it is not accepted as a formal logical fallacy, but, and here is the catch, I never claimed that it was universally accepted as a formal logical fallacy.

And I never attributed this strong a claim to you, oh Boy Who Cried Misrepresentation, only that there was a received use of the term. Remember? You tried to suggest that I'd made some mistake with the use of the fallacy name, calling it a "fabricated fallacy" and adding, "ironically, if you google “missing link fallacy”, you will find that it is attributed to making a statement that is missing a link in the chain of causation."

Nice passive voice, carefully unspecific as to the force of the "attribution".

Now, did you mean to say instead, Ironically, if you google “missing link fallacy”,you will find only a single self-proclaimed authority, an Objectivist, who has a different definition?

Because that's the full set of facts, isn't it, son? And if you don't report the full set of facts, well, that's dishonest!

Or did you, gosh, mean to insinuate that I'd made some error regarding the fallacy that is actually "attributed" to the phrase? Requiring, then, that there be some received usage relative to which a divergent use would be a mistake?

If you meant the former, then your remark was worded very strangely, and such a complete failure to establish an "irony" as to be pathological. But if you want to say, now, that that's all you meant in the first place, I'll happily take you at word.

If the latter, my observations were and are directly relevant and decisive; there is no received usage; my usage was no mistake.

You make solid conclusions based on the subset of information presented by your posts. Since your conclusions follow from the things in your post, it provides an illusion of correctness.

Oh, damn me and my conclusions that follow from my posts. Why are you still whingeing about this? As you've correctly said, people can read for themselves and decide whether you are systematically cooking your standards in accepting vague Administration proposals as clear implementations while responding to Democrat proposals with an unprincipled round of "But how will that accomplish the goal?" If I've misrepresented the specificity of that Administration document, I'm sure I'll get an earful.

And when I point out what you are doing, accurately describing it as misrepresentation, you call me a dipshit.

No. When you whine for demonstrably -- and already demonstrated -- absurd reasons, I call you a dipshit. Worse words would apply as well.

I didn’t actually appeal to mere disagreement

Huh.

Originally Posted by what you actually said

But hey, the neocons bitch about my liberal bias, and their cohorts on the left (neolibs?) bitch about my conservative bias, so I must be doing something right.

Umm. Okay. No doubt I've just been dishonest somehow. I can't wait to find out how. But for now let's end with a true "moment of zen" bit of irony:

you still never managed to do the one thing that could end this: point me to a Democratic plan.

*sigh*

*sigh* indeed.