freecounterpoint: trudeau

Sunday, October 29, 2006

trudeau

13 comments:

Tecumseh said...: Is Trudeau still alive? Talk about a relic of the sixties.; 10/29/2006 12:59 PM
The Darkroom said...: ...and more pertinent than ever.; 10/29/2006 4:32 PM
Tecumseh said...: In what sense? To me, he sounds like an old fart, full of pinko-lefty bile, totally disconnected from reality. Besides, he cannot really draw, and his dialogue is typical left-liberal langue de bois. What a schmuck!; 10/29/2006 5:19 PM
The Darkroom said...: full of bile - you mean he is bent on dunking people in the water too ?; 10/29/2006 7:19 PM
Mr roT said...: Is this a non-sequitur or what just came from Howard Dean's office? Having left Catechism many years ago, I have forgotten how to differentiate between brands of bullshit.; 10/29/2006 11:55 PM
My Frontier Thesis said...: Pepe, Doonesbury is your messaih? See, you're religious after all.; 10/30/2006 12:18 AM
The Darkroom said...: a non-sequitur - you have the executive relishing in finessing its way into torturing suspects but it's the cartoonist denouncing it that is full of bile ?

messiah???; 10/30/2006 7:08 AM
Mr roT said...: About the non sequitur, thing, I guess I misunderstood you or AI, or both.
What strikes me about this is that you frequently complain to AA about his repeated use of the ad hominem (he addin' to the number of times he called you a homo?) but you post stuff like this that is nothing other than low and baseless attack. There's attribution of outright malice to Bush and Rove and so on.
It's true that's it's not you saying what Trudeau (how pleasant to realize the writer of Doonesbury has French blood!) does and you aren't accusing anyone here of all this evil.
It does seem odd that you would accept bare-knuckled assertion over argument to make up your posts and then defend them to the teeth while demanding Marquess of Queensbury rules in critiques of your position.; 10/30/2006 5:41 PM
Arelcao Akleos said...: Marquess of Qeensbury, as every Marquesse in Pepe's family line would attest to, means simply that all Royal Shit flows from Versailles to peasants. It is Sacre' for Les Bleus.; 10/30/2006 8:45 PM
The Darkroom said...: jj - the attribution of malice to dubbyah and cie is justified by plenty of circumstantial evidence. You may choose to not believe that this evidence points to malice but I see no reason to give them the benefit of the doubt. Whatever the case may be, I don't see my position as being less honest than yours.

As far as ad hominems go, if aa needs to resort to them to superficially bolster a weak argument, so be it - I see no other need for them, though.; 10/30/2006 8:53 PM
Arelcao Akleos said...: so your rich indulgence in 'em is needless? No, that is the wrong term, for "need" sounds like an earthy peasant word, an AA'ian word....Let's try again, so your rich indulgence in 'em is sui generis?; 10/30/2006 10:05 PM
The Darkroom said...: An ad hominem argument has the basic form:

1. A makes claim X.
2. There is something objectionable about A.
3. Therefore claim X is false.

A is pepe
claim X (as exagerated by aa) is "ricains in iraq are pigs" or something along those lines.
AA states there is something objectionable about A.

X isn't the ad hominem, it's the claim.; 10/30/2006 10:24 PM
Arelcao Akleos said...: Uh, No. You are being, what is the neutral descriptor? Disingenuous. Which translates into Peasant Speak as "lying tricky sack o' ..."
Where you go wrong is the step from 2 to 3.

This would be an example of ad hominem, yes.

Pepe says: "the world is round"

AA says : " Here is evidence Pepe has mocked Ricains, Ricain soldiers, and Ricain dead. Ergo Pepe is wrong about the world being round"

This is not ad hominem:
Pepe says: "I am not the kind of guy who mocks Ricains, Ricain soldiers, or the Ricain dead. I show respect and Marquessiness to all on this blog. It is a lie to say otherwise"
AA says: "Here is evidence Pepe has mocked Ricains, Ricain Soldiers, and Ricain dead. And the evidence has been collated in "Pepe.Doc', which sits on my desktop, waiting for the moment, perhaps imminent moment, to be unleashed. The evidence shows a singular lack of respect and a remarkable lack of Marquessiness, seeing he be conversing with Ricains and all that. Thus Pepe's above claim is BS, pure and unadulterated".

A subtle difference, Pepe, admittedly. But we have the utmost confidence in you.; 10/30/2006 10:34 PM

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)