Trump proclaims himself 'the chosen one' and tweets claims he is 'the messiah'

[Mountain Man]

In other words, you go for an ad hominem.

Then tell me why I should care what he has to say.

[Charles]

Then tell me why I should care what he has to say.

I would suggest you read his stuff an make up your opinion based on what he writes and not based on who he is.

In your attempt to get away from ad hominems you should not find yourself caught up in an appeal to authority which would again be missing the content and focusing on the person instead.

I understand why you would rather not focus on his message, though.

[rogue06]

Then tell me why I should care what he has to say.

Moreover, tell me why anyone should care what Chuck has to say. "Ad hominem" seems to be his latest stalking horse and of course is never, ever, not even once used to describe something his fellow travelers might post.

[Mountain Man]

I would suggest you read his stuff an make up your opinion based on what he writes and not based on who he is.

You still haven't given a good reason why anybody should care about his opinion.

[Charles]

You still haven't given a good reason why anybody should care about his opinion.

And before I get that far I will probably have to give a good reason why you whould care about my opionion about why you should care about his opinion and so on.

Some of the classic fallacies involve too much focus on the person instead of the message. The fact that you think you need "good reason" to not just go for a personal attack says quite a lot about your way of reasoning. And you have missed another chance to prove him wrong.

[Charles]

Moreover, tell me why anyone should care what Chuck has to say. "Ad hominem" seems to be his latest stalking horse and of course is never, ever, not even once used to describe something his fellow travelers might post.

You mention the ad hominem. And what you write is ad hominem.

What is your reason for often being so focused on persons instead of the message?

[oxmixmudd]

Moreover, tell me why anyone should care what Chuck has to say. "Ad hominem" seems to be his latest stalking horse and of course is never, ever, not even once used to describe something his fellow travelers might post.

Rogue, the sad truth is a very large percentage of the posts by the regulars here to others they disagree with are at least in part attacks on the person making the post rather than counter points adressing the content of the actual post. Charles is not wrong to point it out, and this post is itself a good example of the trend.

Jim

[Charles]

Enough about the man. Let's hear what he has to say:

Outside of government, it is easy for Trump’s followers to become invested in his nonsense. The authority of the presidency can give absurd proposals and theories a veneer of credibility. And because of the demands of political tribalism, lunacy can become defined as loyalty. Craziness can spread like a flu epidemic. However low Trump goes, his supporters go low with him.

We have reached the point where the president’s denial of a charge actually makes it more credible. Recall his suggestion that the “Access Hollywood” tape isn’t real. And the claim that he never said Mexico would pay for the wall. And his claim that he never ordered White House counsel Donald McGahn to fire special counsel Robert S. Mueller III. And his claim that he never said Russia didn’t meddle in the 2016 election. And his claim that he never paid for the silence of a porn star. Self-serving deception by the president is now a justified expectation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...e70_story.html

[Mountain Man]

The fact that you think you need "good reason" to not just go for a personal attack says quite a lot about your way of reasoning.

I haven't attacked the man. I've only asked why we should care about his opinion, a question that you have conspicuously been unable to answer.

[Charles]

I haven't attacked the man. I've only asked why we should care about his opinion, a question that you have conspicuously been unable to answer.

When KG explain who he was, you said:

I'm other words, who really cares what he has to say.

I take no interest in giving you reasons to reasons to focus on the person instead of what he writes. You are balancing between fallacies and want to focus on what is not relevant instead of the message.

[rogue06]

Rogue, the sad truth is a very large percentage of the posts by the regulars here to others they disagree with are at least in part attacks on the person making the post rather than counter points adressing the content of the actual post. Charles is not wrong to point it out, and this post is itself a good example of the trend.

Jim

Charles only "points it out" when those he disagrees with say something. He never once has complained about the egregious behavior of anyone that he sides with. Not. Once.

That is more than sufficient to demonstrate that he isn't actually interested in trying to get people to behave more appropriately.

[Charles]

Charles only "points it out" when those he disagrees with say something. He never once has complained about the egregious behavior of anyone that he sides with. Not. Once.

That is more than sufficient to demonstrate that he isn't actually interested in trying to get people to behave more appropriately.

Even more about "the man" and not the subject. Even if what you say is true it is does not prove me wrong when I point to your ad hominems. Nor does it make them any better. It seems some of you are rather stuck with the idea that you can somehow get rid of the point by attacking the man. You have just provided a new example of that.

And your idea that I side with someone in here is a bit absurd. I disagree with most people and have discussed with most people. But anyway, even that is beside the point.

Why don't you just stay on topic and discuss the content instead?

[Mountain Man]

When KG explain who he was, you said...

And it appears to be a question you are unable to answer.

[Charles]

And it appears to be a question you are unable to answer.

You forget the important part: "I take no interest in giving you reasons to reasons to focus on the person instead of what he writes. You are balancing between fallacies and want to focus on what is not relevant instead of the message."

So convenient to only quote part of it.

[oxmixmudd]

Charles only "points it out" when those he disagrees with say something. He never once has complained about the egregious behavior of anyone that he sides with. Not. Once.

That is more than sufficient to demonstrate that he isn't actually interested in trying to get people to behave more appropriately.

Rogue, that just isn't accurate at all.

Jim