Yes, perhaps true. But the same thing could be said of those who placed blind faith in candidate Obama, ignoring his long-standing friendship and acceptance of money from convicted terrorist William Ayers and his cop-killer wife–and the fact that he lied about that association.

For every fault that you found with Sarah Palin, others could find 2 with Obama.

So now, who is being shallow? And who is ignoring things that are so clearly linked?

Thanks for the comment. I would ask that you clarify the point that you are making. What is your definition of slaughter?

Also, I agree that I disagreed with A LOT of Bush’s policies and I’m sure I’ll disagree with A LOT of any future president’s policies. But, that’s whats beautiful about the United States. FREEDOM!!!

I don’t have to worry about posting an opinion and having someone come knock down my door and take me and my family away. That is a beautiful thing and one that many of us take for granted.

Anyway, Have a great day and hopefully we can discuss your assertion.

B

Your encouragment is not necessary. I know full well what the definitions are. If you think they are not applied properly then you need only look back at your posts here and elsewhere to see perfect examples. But since you do not know what they are, I will summarize them.

Ad Hominem – This is where Chris attacks the individual who argues against his truth claim rather than the argument the individual has against Chris’ truth claim. Then after making an attack against the individual, Chris, reiterates his position as if he has just supported it. A frequently used Chris tactic.

Straw Man (Chris’ specialty) – Avoiding the argument against (sound familiar?) and set up a completely different argument against and then knock that argument down, thus claiming that your argument is correct. Since you obviously don’t understand what this is (although you are quite good at it) I will give you an example –

I asked a question about if Chris thinks Everything should be allowed in the library and on TV. My argument is that there are things that should be censored and not allowed on TV or in the Library. Chris disagrees, thus the argument, but instead of addressing my question or statement, Chris sets up this straw man as follows, and I quote:

“As recently as a few weeks ago, politicians were insisting that our economy was fundamentally sound–a statement motivated by ignorance, self-interest, sheer deception, or all of the above. Now, as this government prepares to draw a $700 billion IOU upon the labor of our children and grandchildren, I can only laugh at the suggestion that we embrace its surrogate parenting.”

He is arguing that since the economy collapsed and our politicians were telling us everything is ok, he “can only laugh at the suggestion that we embrace its surrogate parenting” which means he thinks it is laughable to allow them to censor.

Thus, most people would agree that the economy is a huge problem and government is to blame, but he wants everyone to make the leap that because the government messed up the economy, they are not equipped to censor. Well, not many people with any ability to think logically would accept this straw man fallacy that he has set up.

There are many others, but as stated before, politician Chris does not want open and honest discussion. He will not answer questions and instead goes to fallacies to prove a point (which is his only option because his argument itself is fallacious). This is also why he will never address my truth claim: There are things that should be censored by not being allowed on TV or in the Library.

Chris will continue to dance around my argument, throwing out fallacies left and right, but he will never address the true question, because he has no answers.

The question of what information should be suppressed, is inseparable from who should exercise that power. Inseparable. Inseparable. The fallacy is in your premise.

Do you believe that truth can be legislated? Tennessee state officials did, and the result was the Scopes Monkey Trial. Indiana did, and they nearly passed the Pi Bill. Since that time, the scope of scientific knowledge has only increased, while the requirements for holding political office have not.

On topics of mathematics, legislative committees are not qualified to censor the writings of mathematicians. On questions of philosophy, they are unqualified to censor philosophers. And so it is with every other topic known to Man.

Of course, the issue is more complex, and it does indeed intersect fundamentalism and liberty, ethics and law–but this objection is sufficient for now.

I encourage you to look up the definitions of “straw man” and “ad hominem”, so that you might apply them properly in the future. Please take your time.