Goddamn - that someone would actually say this is pretty phenomenal. Google the man's achievements at the very least.
The most fundamental thing wrong with your post is that I was actually referring to Ted Kennedy...but I'm willing to accept that I wasn't clear enough.
Obama has just sat around and watched while congress has fucked everything up. Eight months into the presidency and the only significant thing that has even been passed was the disaster of a stimulus bill.
Restating your original argument with minor elaboration is generally not good practise tbh.
This implies that you support a fundamentally unilateral executive power. Unfortunately for you, the days of such things have passed into history now that Bush II is out of office. The Prez should not be taking responsibility for every decision made in the US; it is a representative democracy, after all. The President has to rely on Congress to pass legislation and cannot (and should not) ram laws down their throats if they quote unquote "fuck up". In fact, your blatant dismissal of this integral component of the American Congressional system suggests to me that you don't have a clue about how the whole thing works. The Democrats no longer have their filibuster-proof majority now that Ted Kennedy is dead and so they cannot simply rubber-stamp legislation through Congress as your language would suggest.
Murphyad, I do not think you understand anything Iheartgays has said. Maybe it has gone completely over your head young man. Anyway, to point out a logical flaw in your argument, Iheartgays is not the only one full of opinion but no information as you imply. Infact, information does not truly exist under certain definitions, it is rather our own perception and hence rather an opinion. For example, you might say "the sky is blue" and regard this as information. It is not, however, for someone who cannot perceive blue, or even for someone who does not speak your language, true, and therefore not information but rather an opinion. You can see how this idea becomes increasingly complicated the more complex the so called 'information'.
.
I implied no such thing because I was referring to the opinion of iheartgays only. The fact that others may share the views of iheartgays is neither here nor there, has no bearing on the argument and is certainly not a logical fallacy.
Opinion = premise without stated proof in an agrumentative sense. Iheartgays gave a premise i.e. that Obama is a poor president. He/she gave no legitimate justification for his/her consequent reasoning and I further undermined this by highlighting that most of what iheartgays said was patently false. Ergo it was an opinion, not an argument.
Well done. Clearly you ignored the fundamentals of my post. As such it is you that I have gone over the head of. In a way, some of what you said is right because Iheartgays is not the only one full of opinion but no information. You are as well.To finish off, Obama is a tool. I expected much more from him. Really he's just a puppet figurehead leading America in the direction it's been going since the cold war, becoming an epically fail of a country. well thats my 'opinion' anyway
Why attack a fellow poster who is just presenting his viewpoints? I strongly agree with Epic Mans POV here, and the only difference between an opinion and an argument is the evidence which backs it up. And who needs evidence in a case like this? If I locked a black man and a white woman in a room together and came back after a week and the white woman had been eaten, does it take evidence to prove it was the black man? Surely the white woman didn't eat herself?
Perhaps I was a bit too harsh. Apologies to anyone taking great offence.
Evidence which is necessary and which you utterly lack.
Uhhhh........is it just me or does this bear absolutely no relation whatsoever to whether or not Obama is a good president? This is probably the weakest analogy that has every been presented to me, ever. It is right up there with the Chewbacca defense.
And this proves that Murphyad is wrong how?To finish off, Obama is a tool. I expected much more from him. Really he's just a puppet figurehead leading America in the direction it's been going since the cold war, becoming an epically fail of a country. well thats my 'opinion' anyway
It doesn't. I am not just a mindless idiot out here to 'troll' and 'prove people wrong', unlike some people here who gain personal satisfaction from shutting down others opinions. *cough* murphyad *cough*.
Read the metaphor discussing how evidence is not necessary to every case.
So because you don't personally bear any affection to a given metaphor, you feel it is alright to attack it? Does that give someone who doesn't particularly like gays the right to beat them? And you completely missed the point: evidence isn't necessary in every case, sometimes its called common sense.
It's necessary in this one (see below).
You insist on continuing with equally weak analogies, which are not metaphors btw. The fact is that an analogy about a black person and a white person locked in a room simply does not pertain to empirical debate about the validity of evidence in this case because this is a totally different circumstance to the one you described. It wasn't that I didn't have any 'affection' for this analogy, it just simply wasn't relevant. Furthermore, the burden of proof is on you to suggest otherwise if you feel so strongly about it (and if you can do so then I will be more than happy to believe you) and therefore I am perfectly right to attack it if I believe it to be irrelevant.
And I, epic man, am not here to perpetrate unreasonable ad hominem [personal] attacks by calling others "mindless idiots", which is a tag that I find rather offensive. This is not a forum for spouting personal opinions without credence. It is a forum of debate, and that is what I am doing: debating. If you are so indignant about (justifiably) being proved wrong that you wish to call me a 'troll' (and you clearly don't know what a troll is) then you are quite frankly in the wrong place. So I suggest you swallow your pride and stop acting like a 5-year-old who's just dropped their icecream.
Nice analogy. I prefer to think of epic man as a 30 year old accomplished scholar, and you as a wannabe debater who's almost reached your 12th b'day. But that's irrelevant, because as you said, 'it is a forum of debate' rather than 'spouting personal opinions.' Though I don't see how debate can be sparked without personal opinions.
You're quite right: it is irrelevant, so why did you say it? I think I know: because you can't think of any better way to demean my argument than by attacking my person. This line of reasoning is fundamentally false and inherently unjustified, so give it a rest.
Of course, opinions (premises) are the foundation of a debate, but they must be supported with credible evidence in an empirical argument. I have said this three times now. Is there something about it that continues to baffle you?