[Vision2020] How much more should we take?

[No Weatherman]

On 10/17/08, joekc at roadrunner.com <joekc at roadrunner.com> wrote:
> Dear No Weatherman,
>
>  I'm back! But only for a moment.
>
>  Can I call you Doug? I know that you've taken the privlidge to ask me if you could call me by my
>  first name, and I note that you have not afforded me the same privelidge. So I'll call you 'Doug.'

Joe,

You may call me "No" or since you coined it, "Dr. No."

Thanks for asking.

>  Anyway, Doug, you've used my name on several occasions to say that I've been evading your posts.
>  But I'm not evading them, in fact, I've addressed all of them. All of your posts have been examples
>  of ad hominem arguments -- most have been examples of guilty by association, a species of the
>  ad hominem fallacy. You say, in particular, that you would like me and others to just continue the
>  thread of your first post -- yet your first post was responded to, time an time again. It was an
>  instance of the ad hominem fallacy. Now I understand that you have a difficult time recognizing
>  the difference between arguments and non-arguments, between fallacies and good arguments.
>  Maybe it is too much to expect that you might notice a difference, and I can understand how
>  someone, like you, might respond to those who do notice a difference as being 'elitists.'

Contra your faulty memory, you addressed nothing.

You called me names, dodged my question, insisted on several occasions
that you had not read any of my posts, called me some more names,
misrepresented me, misquoted me, and lied. And I caught you.

Therefore, rather than admit you made a fool of yourself, you tried to
buy me off with a C note.

Did I miss anything?

>  But let's just notice a few other things. For one, you've tired to pin Obama's ties on his
>  associations. You've even noted that Doug Wilson (who is, perhaps, no relation to you) is
>  associated with other vile characters (I forget your exact words but they are a matter of public
>  record) but you forgot, in that instance, to draw your conclusion. What should we say about
>  Doug Wilson's associations with the scum of the south? What conclusions should we draw from
>  that about his character? You never completed that inference.

I have been very careful to stay exactly on point and as I recall, my
on-point focus sent you into a tizzy. You want to talk about
everything else but the one subject I broached in my first post, and
this tortured argument is no different.

But since you need it stated emphatically, I did not forget to draw my
conclusion and I did not complete the inference because the example
was not the point of the argument — it illustrated the point.

The point was that if Dr. Gier believed his former student had a moral
obligation to disavow his associates, then, given this ethical
standard, Barack Obama has a moral obligation to disavow his domestic
terrorist associate Bill Ayers.

It's a matter of consistency and, arguing from the lesser to the
greater, I would say that Barack Obama's obligation is infinitely
greater than Dr. Gier's former student because Obama's personal and
profession associate once bombed the White House. IOW, he poses a
threat to national security.

Do you get the point?

In case you don't, let me emphasize it another way. Barack Obama threw
Rezko, Wright, and Farrakhan under the bus because he understood that
his personal relationship with them raised legitimate questions about
his associates.

Since he established this standard, does not consistency require him
to do the same with Ayers?


>  Yet you continue to draw inferences about Obama based on his associates. For my own part, I
>  would say that both inferences are flawed, and for the same reason. Ad hominem fallacy. I found
>  it interesting that you noted this often in attacks against yourself, when you usually took any
>  insult to be an instance of ad hominem fallacy, whether or not it was part of an argument.
>  Somehow we are to believe that your ad hominems against Obama are better than other (non-) adhominems (mere insults) against yourself. And then will you all buy the bridge I have to sell?

You mistake the relevant ad hom for the ad hominem fallacy. Your
reference which you gave to me states:

"The major difficulty with labeling a piece of reasoning as an ad
hominem fallacy is deciding whether the personal attack is relevant.
For example, attacks on a person for their actually immoral sexual
conduct are irrelevant to the quality of their mathematical reasoning,
but they are relevant to arguments promoting the person for a
leadership position in the church. Unfortunately, many attacks are not
so easy to classify, such as an attack pointing out that the candidate
for church leadership, while in the tenth grade, intentionally tripped
a fellow student and broke his  collar bone."
http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacy.htm#Ad%20Hominem

Barack Obama's domestic terrorist associates are absolutely relevant
to the question of his qualification to hold the Office of POTUS, just
as his stumping for Sharia in Kenya is relevant.

You obviously disagree, but I would argue that it's relevant for the
American people to know what the man really believes as opposed to the
image of a man that his handlers have presented to us. Yes, it's an ad
hom but, no, it's not a fallacy.


>  Just one more question, or maybe a few. Why on earth should we take your ad hominem
>  arguments to be of worth? Why should we give any of your posts a moment's thought, when the
>  heart of those posts asks us to draw an inference that is unsupported by the evidence (after all,
>  that is just what a fallacy does)? Why should we consider the ad hominem attacks against you as
>  more worthy of consideration than your ad hominem attacks against Obama? Why should we draw
>  negative inferences against Obama, given his associates, when you have not explictly drawn any
>  negative inferences against Doug Willson, given his associates? (Well, Doug, we know the answer
>  to that!)

I will not answer the questions because you, a teacher of logic, loaded them.

If you care to prove your case, I'll grant your assumptions and answer
your questions.


>  In short, why on earth do we have to put up with this Neo-Nazi crap, and when will we get a grip
>  about what is going on and note that you and your Neo-Nazi friends should take a hike? When will
>  we figure out how to deal with this crap that Neo-Nazi's like you, Doug, are throwing out?
>
>
>  --
>  Joe Campbell

Respectfully and sincerely, you're an idiot.