|
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
 Posted - 03/13/2006 : 15:48:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by THoR
Duh
You'll have to explain it in more detail. How does "duh" qualify as an ad hominem?
Let me 'splain...Definitions:
Duh! = You're a dumass
Duh... = You're a dumass because...
Duh? = Are you trying to be a dumass?
Well, Duh. = Of course you're a dumass
"Duh" = A common interjection used by Ted Kennedy
The LAST one was not an ad hominem. |
I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it. |
 |
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2006 : 19:54:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by THoR
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by THoR
Duh
You'll have to explain it in more detail. How does "duh" qualify as an ad hominem?
Let me 'splain...Definitions:
Duh! = You're a dumass
Duh... = You're a dumass because...
Duh? = Are you trying to be a dumass?
Well, Duh. = Of course you're a dumass
"Duh" = A common interjection used by Ted Kennedy
The LAST one was not an ad hominem.
LOL, THor, I think you are wonderful. I don't know what an ad hominem is but some dumb asses wouldn't know that they are if they were kicked in the head by one. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2006 : 20:54:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by THoR
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by THoR
Duh
You'll have to explain it in more detail. How does "duh" qualify as an ad hominem?
Let me 'splain...Definitions:
Duh! = You're a dumass
Duh... = You're a dumass because...
Duh? = Are you trying to be a dumass?
Well, Duh. = Of course you're a dumass
"Duh" = A common interjection used by Ted Kennedy
The LAST one was not an ad hominem.
While you are clearly a dumb ass, none of those phrases are implied by the word "duh." It is simply another way of stating "but it is obviously so." But even if those phrases were implied, they wouldn't be fallacies of ad hominem, since name-calling isn't in and of itself a logical fallacy. If Geemack had said "THoR is a dumbass, therefore his argument can be ignored," you might have on an ad hominem on your hands. Since, however, he had already provided a detailed rebuttle to your basic point, the use of the word "duh" can in no way constitute an ad hominem fallacy, just like my opinion of you as a dumb ass isn't an ad hominem, since it is clearly an opinion and in no way related to the rest of the facts I have presented as my argument.
Furthermore, since the title of your thread is "DumbMasses," for some reason run together as a single word, you have clearly demonstrated that you are not a person above petty name calling. Therefore your feigned indignation rings hollow. It would probably be best if you avoid throwing out the Latin names of logical fallacies until you have more than a passing chat-room familiarity with their definitions. Crying wolf is a quick way of losing whatever credibility you started with, as is "shouting" in overlarge red letters.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 03/13/2006 23:01:42 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2006 : 20:58:02 [Permalink]
|
Duh! I rest my case...
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2006 : 21:57:08 [Permalink]
|
You know, right here in Virginia we have the towns of Manassas and Dumfries, which have decided to merge their incorporations. Though I'm sure you see the punchline already, the name chosen for the new town will be...
...Dumassas.
(No, seriously, the towns aren't merging - they're 12 miles apart.) |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
Posted - 03/14/2006 : 06:19:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by THoR
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by THoR
Duh
You'll have to explain it in more detail. How does "duh" qualify as an ad hominem?
Let me 'splain...Definitions:
Duh! = You're a dumass
Duh... = You're a dumass because...
Duh? = Are you trying to be a dumass?
Well, Duh. = Of course you're a dumass
"Duh" = A common interjection used by Ted Kennedy
The LAST one was not an ad hominem.
While you are clearly a dumb ass, none of those phrases are implied by the word "duh." It is simply another way of stating "but it is obviously so." But even if those phrases were implied, they wouldn't be fallacies of ad hominem, since name-calling isn't in and of itself a logical fallacy. If Geemack had said "THoR is a dumbass, therefore his argument can be ignored," you might have on an ad hominem on your hands. Since, however, he had already provided a detailed rebuttle to your basic point, the use of the word "duh" can in no way constitute an ad hominem fallacy, just like my opinion of you as a dumb ass isn't an ad hominem, since it is clearly an opinion and in no way related to the rest of the facts I have presented as my argument.
Furthermore, since the title of your thread is "DumbMasses," for some reason run together as a single word, you have clearly demonstrated that you are not a person above petty name calling. Therefore your feigned indignation rings hollow. It would probably be best if you avoid throwing out the Latin names of logical fallacies until you have more than a passing chat-room familiarity with their definitions. Crying wolf is a quick way of losing whatever credibility you started with, as is "shouting" in overlarge red letters.
OHMYGOD, you MUST be right. Since GeeMack's statement about "puts forth descriptions of the kinds of judicial powers necessary for that interpretation." was totally in error, that Duh at the end must have been a Kennedyesque interjection. Sorry My Bad 
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
quote:
Originally posted by THoR...
The Constitution of the United States of America requires no interpretation.
Starting from line one, one of the biggest, most glaring, contradicting statements anyone could possibly make about the US Constitution. The Constitution absolutely does require interpretation, and in fact within itself, puts forth descriptions of the kinds of judicial powers necessary for that interpretation. Duh.
|
I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it. |
| Edited by - THoR on 03/14/2006 06:26:14 |
|
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
Posted - 03/14/2006 : 06:24:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
You know, right here in Virginia we have the towns of Manassas and Dumfries, which have decided to merge their incorporations. Though I'm sure you see the punchline already, the name chosen for the new town will be...
...Dumassas.
(No, seriously, the towns aren't merging - they're 12 miles apart.)
Here in Texas we have a grocery chain called HEB - Stands for Howard E Butt the founder. We also have Piggly Wiggly. If they merged - Wiggly Butt grocery stores would be born |
I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 03/14/2006 : 07:03:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
You know, right here in Virginia we have the towns of Manassas and Dumfries, which have decided to merge their incorporations. Though I'm sure you see the punchline already, the name chosen for the new town will be...
...Dumassas.
(No, seriously, the towns aren't merging - they're 12 miles apart.)
About ten or so years ago, two towns wanted a third between them. The towns of Sandwich and Plano in Illinois wanted a community in between them encompassing the unincorporated area that they had to provide police and fire service to. The name proposed? "Baloney". The press got wind of it. Elected officials lost jobs over this. The public was not amused. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 03/14/2006 : 15:29:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by THoR...
Since GeeMack's statement about "puts forth descriptions of the kinds of judicial powers necessary for that interpretation." was totally in error, that Duh at the end must have been a Kennedyesque interjection.
Article III, Section 1 of the US Constitution says...The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. [...] ... which, although not especially detailed, sounds a lot like describing kinds of judicial powers. And in Article III, Section 2 of the US Constitution we find...The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, [...] So apparently those judicial powers would be applied to cases "arising under this Constitution". And in any such case, in order to exercise that judicial power, it would be necessary to interpret the relevant section of the US Constitution under which the particular case has arisen.
Given my interpretation, I wasn't "totally in error" at all. But apparently you and I interpret the US Constitution differently, so you've actually helped prove the falsehood of your opening statement, "The Constitution of the United States of America requires no interpretation." I found it so ridiculously false in fact, it wasn't worth considering the remainder of the essay.
A couple other mildly interesting points occur to me regarding this thread. First, nobody else has bothered to comment on anything beyond that first sentence in your essay either, so it seems you've failed, at least in this effort, to communicate your ideas. And second, even after I clarified my opening comment, and at several other points along the way, you could have salvaged this thread and turned it into a productive discussion, but instead you continued to act like a complete dickhead. Obviously you'd rather just mouth off than to engage in a positive dialog or work towards any solutions for what you apparently feel are problems. And that, as generally interpreted, makes you a troll.
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert...
It [Duh] is simply another way of stating "but it is obviously so."
Thanks for clarifying, H. Properly intepreted. 
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 03/14/2006 : 18:05:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
And that, as generally interpreted, makes you a troll.
And a mentally-imbalanced (we haven't seen anyone employ such large fonts since Big Brain), not very intelligent troll at that. I still got a good laugh out of his "me particle" hypothesis, though. Only the very stupid find their own simplistic understanding of the world so compelling as to blot out all possibility of further learning and comprehension. Considering how very confident THoR is in his own opinions, even when shown to be grossly in error, he must be very dumb indeed.
But, duh! I'm sure you already realized as much. 
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 03/14/2006 18:06:48 |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2006 : 13:10:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by THoR
Here in Texas we have a grocery chain called HEB - Stands for Howard E Butt the founder. We also have Piggly Wiggly. If they merged - Wiggly Butt grocery stores would be born
That wouldn't really be so bad because I'm on an E-group for Cocker Spaniels, they have a nickname of Wiggle Butts. Their butts shake so much when they wag their tails and they are so friendly and loveable. At least one of the many people on that E-group lives in Texas. I bet she's want to go there. |
|
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2006 : 18:22:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
quote:
Originally posted by THoR...
Since GeeMack's statement about "puts forth descriptions of the kinds of judicial powers necessary for that interpretation." was totally in error, that Duh at the end must have been a Kennedyesque interjection.
Article III, Section 1 of the US Constitution says...The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. [...] ... which, although not especially detailed, sounds a lot like describing kinds of judicial powers. And in Article III, Section 2 of the US Constitution we find...The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, [...] So apparently those judicial powers would be applied to cases "arising under this Constitution". And in any such case, in order to exercise that judicial power, it would be necessary to interpret the relevant section of the US Constitution under which the particular case has arisen.
Given my interpretation, I wasn't "totally in error" at all. But apparently you and I interpret the US Constitution differently, so you've actually helped prove the falsehood of your opening statement, "The Constitution of the United States of America requires no interpretation." I found it so ridiculously false in fact, it wasn't worth considering the remainder of the essay.
A couple other mildly interesting points occur to me regarding this thread. First, nobody else has bothered to comment on anything beyond that first sentence in your essay either, so it seems you've failed, at least in this effort, to communicate your ideas. And second, even after I clarified my opening comment, and at several other points along the way, you could have salvaged this thread and turned it into a productive discussion, but instead you continued to act like a complete dickhead. Obviously you'd rather just mouth off than to engage in a positive dialog or work towards any solutions for what you apparently feel are problems. And that, as generally interpreted, makes you a troll.
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert...
It [Duh] is simply another way of stating "but it is obviously so."
Thanks for clarifying, H. Properly intepreted.
Yes, they would be interpreting state law vs The Const...a power not granted the Supreme Court by ANY provision of our charter. |
|
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2006 : 18:24:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
And that, as generally interpreted, makes you a troll.
And a mentally-imbalanced (we haven't seen anyone employ such large fonts since Big Brain), not very intelligent troll at that. I still got a good laugh out of his "me particle" hypothesis, though. Only the very stupid find their own simplistic understanding of the world so compelling as to blot out all possibility of further learning and comprehension. Considering how very confident THoR is in his own opinions, even when shown to be grossly in error, he must be very dumb indeed.
But, duh! I'm sure you already realized as much.
I will endeavor not to drool upon myself...Duh
Easy to attack the messenger - impossible to attack the message |
| Edited by - THoR on 03/16/2006 18:26:07 |
|
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2006 : 18:29:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by THoR
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by THoR
Duh
You'll have to explain it in more detail. How does "duh" qualify as an ad hominem?
Let me 'splain...Definitions:
Duh! = You're a dumass
Duh... = You're a dumass because...
Duh? = Are you trying to be a dumass?
Well, Duh. = Of course you're a dumass
"Duh" = A common interjection used by Ted Kennedy
The LAST one was not an ad hominem.
While you are clearly a dumb ass, none of those phrases are implied by the word "duh." It is simply another way of stating "but it is obviously so." But even if those phrases were implied, they wouldn't be fallacies of ad hominem, since name-calling isn't in and of itself a logical fallacy. If Geemack had said "THoR is a dumbass, therefore his argument can be ignored," you might have on an ad hominem on your hands. Since, however, he had already provided a detailed rebuttle to your basic point, the use of the word "duh" can in no way constitute an ad hominem fallacy, just like my opinion of you as a dumb ass isn't an ad hominem, since it is clearly an opinion and in no way related to the rest of the facts I have presented as my argument.
Furthermore, since the title of your thread is "DumbMasses," for some reason run together as a single word, you have clearly demonstrated that you are not a person above petty name calling. Therefore your feigned indignation rings hollow. It would probably be best if you avoid throwing out the Latin names of logical fallacies until you have more than a passing chat-room familiarity with their definitions. Crying wolf is a quick way of losing whatever credibility you started with, as is "shouting" in overlarge red letters.
Sorry - what color would you prefer? |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2006 : 18:57:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by THoR
Sorry - what color would you prefer?
Transparent.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 03/16/2006 18:58:08 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
