Nice rationalization of attacking me.
if you think me pointing out that some of your statements are hypocritical is somehow attacking you, then i don't know what to tell you. I can’t fix that persecution complex for you.
In context, I wasn't complaining about being attacked, I was explaining the difference between a valid tu quoque fallacy and an invalid tu quoque fallacy. For example, if I mention that you were saying that I was possibly being dishonest and are now repeatedly taking my comments out of context, which is dishonest, that would be an invalid argument because it has nothing to do with the argument, it is an ad hominem.
You mean like when I said twice that it is always relevant?
yeah, but i was responding to a statement you made AFTER that, showing inconsistency with THIS statment above.[/quote]
You mean your assumption that I don't feel the same way when it's another race (I'm broadening the spectrum since /you/ only mentioned white). The burden of proof in on you for that one.
You statements make people defensive. This is common knowledge.
so why use them except to attempt to put me on the defensive?
Irony.
oh, that's much better than those "i know you are" arguments you mention later.[/quote]
It's either irony or you did it intentionally. I was kind enough to give you an out.
That was your initial response, was it? Rewriting history again, huh? (The first is when you took my mocking your frustration at my refusal to give your logically fallacious arguments any credence with a response out of context.)
nice try, but nothing was out of context. you can go re-read the thread, no history is being rewritten. and by the way, mislabelling the logical fallacies doesn't frustrate me. again, as dicsussed, it's a pretty transparent way to deflect.[/quote]
Again, exception doesn't prove the rule.
Your mentions of Ron Paul and Glen Beck prove my point. Once, afaik, did I mention your liberal leanings and it was incidental ("Go back to your liberal circle jerk blogs") and could easily have been replaced with republican had you been republican. The rest were criticisms of the ideology.
you've mentioned my "liberal leanings", and i made comments about beck to the original poster and ron paul to you, yes. i've also responded to your ideology. great! we're both doing the same thing. uh, great job, everyone.[/quote]
Now you're just putting your fingers in your ears. What's next? You gonna hold your breath?
Don't worry. I have no desire to engage someone who thinks "I know you are but what am I" is a valid argument.
i would love for you to point out where i used this argument. i suspect that you're going to say that me telling you that being hypocritical in your responses isn't productive is somehow an "i know you are!" argument. if so... come one, you're better than that. that's a very dishonest reframing of my point.
[/quote]
Tu quoque, which has been pointed out several times, is essentially "I know you are but what am I?"
This whole exchange brings to mind two aphorisms
"Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level then beat you with experience"
And I can't remember the exact quote but it was something to the effect of "I must hurry for I am their leader and they are leaving without me."
And with that, I'm done.
