sydneydude
New member
check it
http://www.aina.org/news/obamaletter.pdf
http://www.aina.org/news/obamaletter.pdf
Obama's letter mentioning Chaldeans and Assyrians
- Thread starter sydneydude
- Start date
senecaCHGI
New member
What a world you live in, where a man who is a frontrunner for the highest political office on Earth, and who holds a seat in the the most powerful legislative body in human society, isn't worth our precious time.
Hey, Eeyore, what do you suggest we focus on? Or let me take a wild guess: you have some wild conspiracy theory about who "actually" run things?
If that theory involves warlocks, I ask that you kindly preface future comments with, "I believe warlocks actually run stuff, and..."
senecaCHGI said:
I happen to be a little "realistic." There hasn't been a black president once in the history of the United States. What makes you think there's going to be one now? Let me put it this way: don't keep your hopes up.
senecaCHGI said:
You seem to be under the illusion that America is a "democracy." Well, keep telling yourself that.
senecaCHGI
New member
Okay, I will. That is, until I get more evidence of the shadow Warlockracy we are secretly living under.
Yay! Inductive reasoning! "There can't be a black president." "Why?" "Because there hasn't been a black president." "But why hasn't there been a black president?" "Because there never was one." Oh...awesome logic. I'm going to be sure to keep driving recklessly through that school zone by my house, because there's never been an accident that killed a little kid there before. That means there never can be one! Thanks inductive reasoning!
Not that it matters, but Obama isn't even my candidate of choice in this election...yet.
KhIgGaAaAaAa
New member
senecaCHGI said:
bro moot warlock, its called the NWO and you gotta be a mason as well and you go to bilderberg conferences lol go to the local masons lodge and see if you can get in contact with any 33rd level masons, probably won't but those are the dudes that run the world. All the old money families like the rockefellars, carnegie's...all them.
it started back when they introduced the FED in either 1912 or 1913, it was all those big money people back then that took control of everyones wealth and centralized it. Then they cut away fromt he gold standard to help with fluctuations of the value of the dollar but that sucks because now we people don't hold anything that has any value. the bill only has value cause they say it does, it's not tied to anything. so when they decide to devalue the money they'll be the o nly ones left with any actual physical thing that is worth something.
thats the basics, its not about warlocks or leprachauns...shedana!!
nasha next thing you're gonna tell me is that osama and the arabs actually planned and executed 9/11 on their own!!! crazy talk!
baklawa
New member
Alucard said:
There had never been a Catholic president until Kennedy, and many people at that time thought there never would be. There had never been a female Prime Minister in Pakistan until Benazir Bhutto, and many people thought there never would be. Just because it's never happened doesn't mean it never will.
baklawa said:
Of course not. But, considering the racial history of the United States (and especially, the racial laws which were abandoned in the 1960's), I'm not expecting a black president any time soon. That's not to say I oppose Obama, just saying, you guys should try to understand how politics works before you try to sound so certain about it.
Oh and, by the way, Kennedy was white. Catholic is not a race; it's a creed. That said, your parallel isn't up to par.
senecaCHGI
New member
This is so telling. You offered a faulty argument. It was an inductive argument, which, when broken down, is a tautology (or circular argument). "It has never been the case, so it will never be the case." That is a bad argument.
Baklawa's counter is valid, because she is pointing out how your ARGUMENT is flawed.
So then you appeal to your authority--"we" need to figure out how politics work (the assumption is that you do understand). Catholicism may be a creed, but that actually makes it a more explicit case. Because being black doesn't imply any value structure--being a practicing Catholic, does. Americans were particularly worried about the fact that Catholics, theoretically, must accept the authority of the Pope. So would the Presidency become a proxy for the Papacy?
Your childish reference to "racial laws" (I assume you mean "racist" laws?) seems to indicate that if we are to "figure out how politics works" we shouldn't look to you for instruction. Because there were anti-Catholic laws in many parts of the country (particularly the Methodist South) up until the 1920s. In fact, the Ku Klux Klan was organized against two primary principles: anti-Black and anti-Catholic ideology. So that element of your (already circular and worthless) argument also holds no water.
When you say "your parallel isn't up to par" I assume you mean that the analogy doesn't work--"up to par" usually means you're comparing it to some standard which you didn't--but, actually, as demonstrated by the fact that anti-Catholicism ("anti-Papism" it was called, or "anti-Popery") the analogy is sound.
Your argument is faulty and your flimsy supporting evidence contradicted by facts--ie., "Kennedy is not a counter-example because Catholicism was more permissible in 1960 than being Black is in 2007, and besides Catholicism was not weighted as heavily in electing a President in 1960 as race is in 2007".
Why do you insist on pursuing it?
Oh, because you hold the secret true knowledge you won't reveal to us:
Please, if we are on the precipice of Warlockracy, why won't you warn us!?
I have no idea why I bother to answer this, because you seem to be some kind of troll, but anyway:
I never said because it hasn't happened, it will never happen. You're obviously putting words in my mouth here. Nice going with your straw man argument.
Baklawa's counter isn't at all valid. You can't compare Catholicism with this.
I can't say I'm the best expert at politics, but I am obviously not as indoctrinated as you are, into believing that America has a flawlessly working democratic system.
Again, this isn't about Catholicism. You should stop bringing up such a flawed example.
It seems like you didn't know about these racial laws (yes, racial laws). Here, have a read about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_segregation_in_the_United_States
Though these racial laws have been abandoned today in the official politics of the U.S., believe me, there are still some remnants left of them in the U.S. politics, and don't get surprised if there won't be any black presidents in the next 20 years to come.
Seriously dude, this is not the same thing.
This has nothing to do with Catholicism. What are you, completely dense?
Why do you keep on mentioning "warlockracy"? Is that some new buzzword over there?
senecaCHGI said:
I never said because it hasn't happened, it will never happen. You're obviously putting words in my mouth here. Nice going with your straw man argument.
senecaCHGI said:
Baklawa's counter isn't at all valid. You can't compare Catholicism with this.
senecaCHGI said:
I can't say I'm the best expert at politics, but I am obviously not as indoctrinated as you are, into believing that America has a flawlessly working democratic system.
senecaCHGI said:
Again, this isn't about Catholicism. You should stop bringing up such a flawed example.
senecaCHGI said:
It seems like you didn't know about these racial laws (yes, racial laws). Here, have a read about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_segregation_in_the_United_States
Though these racial laws have been abandoned today in the official politics of the U.S., believe me, there are still some remnants left of them in the U.S. politics, and don't get surprised if there won't be any black presidents in the next 20 years to come.
senecaCHGI said:
Seriously dude, this is not the same thing.
senecaCHGI said:
This has nothing to do with Catholicism. What are you, completely dense?
senecaCHGI said:
Why do you keep on mentioning "warlockracy"? Is that some new buzzword over there?
senecaCHGI
New member
Yes, you did. That was the basis of your argument, or at least we have to assume it is, because you didn't provide one (presumably because the rest of us wouldn't "understand" it). You said:
. "There has never be X; therefore, why should there be X?" is the form of your rhetorical question there. It is clear as day.
See...my response to you demonstrated why she could make that comparison, with several points (Catholics were discriminated against, popularly and legally; Catholicism was seen as a serious liability to running for higher office, as being Black, presumably, is now). Your response back is to just say, "But you can't do that." Why not? Just saying "You can't compare" is not an argument.
For a guy who seems to hate Straw Man fallacies, you commit a textbook example of one here--and I mean that almost literally. Show me where I said that America has a flawlessly working democratic system. Never said it. If you were to look up Straw Man fallacies, you would find an example almost identical to your use of the fallacy here: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html "Senator Jones says that we should not fund the attack submarine program. I disagree entirely. I can't understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that." Saying America is in some form a democracy is hardly akin to saying it is a flawlessly working system.
I will...when you demonstrate, in some way other than just asserting your authority to say so, that it is, in fact, a flawed example.
See, a law stating, "There shall be no discrimination based on race" is a "racial" law. You mean to say "racist" laws. Yes, there is plenty of racism in America. No doubt. Um...is that your whole point? No, your point was that Barack Obama couldn't be elected president (because there has never been a black president).
Since you're suddenly in love with logical fallacies, how about the fallacy of ad hominem you commit in that second one, and the fact that in neither of these statements do you provide a counter example to why the Kennedy and Obama situations are not at least in some way analogous. Both belong to groups that were, at the times of their candidacies for President, discriminated against, and in decades prior to their campaigns, legally discriminated against. Both will have to overcome those prejudices, naturally, but as the Kennedy example shows, individuals who belong to discriminated-against groups can be elected to high office.
Oh, I'm making fun of the fact that you do that thing people who are insecure about their lack of knowledge do: insist nobody else knows "the truth", but they do, but they won't share it with people.
I urge you to simply admit you made an error in reasoning and move on.
senecaCHGI said:
Assuming that was the basis of my argument, is where you set up your straw man fallacy.
The entire basis of my argument was that America is not going to get a black president, not because there never has been one so far, but because Americans are too much racists to elect a black president. Of course, needless to say, the very indisputable fact that there hasn't been a single black American president in history, is because Americans are (generalizing of course) too racist to elect one. Believe me, this is not going to change anytime soon. Perhaps in 200 years, maybe. But not in the next election.
And you just had to bring up Catholicism into this. As if it actually mattered.
senecaCHGI said:
Again, Catholicism has nothing to do with this. Race and religion are not the same thing.
I can imagine you're the kind of guy who thinks "Islamophobia" is "racism."
senecaCHGI said:
Go explain this to someone else.
senecaCHGI said:
Racial laws, racist laws, what's the difference, seriously? It's grammatically correct, to call it racial laws, because that's what it is. Never mind that racial laws are inherently racist; they are called racial laws in proper English.
Unbelievable.
senecaCHGI said:
Obama is not going to get elected just because Kennedy was. For you to assume so, is a logical fallacy in itself. You're presuming that simply because Kennedy succeeded, Obama will too.
Sorry, but that's a logical fallacy.
Oh and by the way, I did not commit any ad hominem fallacy. I did not attack Obama's personality and/or character. I'm just stating the reality here: he's black; Americans are not known for electing black presidents. You can't ignore this fact because of an assassinated Catholic.
senecaCHGI said:
I realise of course you're trying to ridicule me. It's just that it's lame.
senecaCHGI said:
Forget about it.
senecaCHGI
New member
I'll keep this one short and quick, because it's becoming self-indulgent.
Did you know that polls have been releases showing Obama competing with, or beating any potential Republican challenger, even in close swing states (former Confederate states, too, like Virginia--one of the largest Confederate states; source: http://surveyusa.com/2008H2HVA0907.htm)? That is an example of "evidence" (or a "premise"). You're arguing with unsupportable generalities and inductive reasoning, which you insist you are not doing, but you are. ("Why do you think there wasn't one?" is still no type of argument; dressing it up by saying "There is a reason there never was one, therefore" is still saying, "There never was one, therefore...")
So clearly, statistical data refutes your already fallacious argument. Drop it.
Besides nonsensical, this is wrong. A law that PROHIBITED discrimination based on race would be a "racial law." Obviously, on its face, it's not racist. This is self-evidently correct, meaning your statement is self-evidently wrong. Drop it.
Another straw man. Apparently you did need that primer. I said this nowhere. What I said was individuals from groups that are discriminated can be elected--for example, Kennedy. Where did I use the "argument" (which is necessary for it to be a fallacy) "Because Kennedy was elected, Obama will be." I'm beginning to think maybe you're only fourteen or fifteen years old.
Yes, you did. The person you're arguing with is me, not Obama. You committed an ad hominem fallacy when you said,
For the record, I am not making an ad hominem attack when I say I think you're fourteen or fifteen, because I actually think you are.
Did you know that polls have been releases showing Obama competing with, or beating any potential Republican challenger, even in close swing states (former Confederate states, too, like Virginia--one of the largest Confederate states; source: http://surveyusa.com/2008H2HVA0907.htm)? That is an example of "evidence" (or a "premise"). You're arguing with unsupportable generalities and inductive reasoning, which you insist you are not doing, but you are. ("Why do you think there wasn't one?" is still no type of argument; dressing it up by saying "There is a reason there never was one, therefore" is still saying, "There never was one, therefore...")
So clearly, statistical data refutes your already fallacious argument. Drop it.
Besides nonsensical, this is wrong. A law that PROHIBITED discrimination based on race would be a "racial law." Obviously, on its face, it's not racist. This is self-evidently correct, meaning your statement is self-evidently wrong. Drop it.
Another straw man. Apparently you did need that primer. I said this nowhere. What I said was individuals from groups that are discriminated can be elected--for example, Kennedy. Where did I use the "argument" (which is necessary for it to be a fallacy) "Because Kennedy was elected, Obama will be." I'm beginning to think maybe you're only fourteen or fifteen years old.
Yes, you did. The person you're arguing with is me, not Obama. You committed an ad hominem fallacy when you said,
For the record, I am not making an ad hominem attack when I say I think you're fourteen or fifteen, because I actually think you are.
KhIgGaAaAaAa
New member
senecaCHGI said:
Is that the stuff they make hominy grits out of? like on My Cousin Vinny.
senecaCHGI said:
It doesn't matter what those polls say. He's not going to get elected either way. Haven't you understood yet, America is not a democracy? I mean, did you not get it the first time Dubya "won" the election?
senecaCHGI said:
It is called racial laws.
senecaCHGI said:
What a cheap shot.
senecaCHGI said:
That is not an ad hominem. It's obvious you don't even know what ad hominem is.
senecaCHGI said:
Yet another cheap shot.
senecaCHGI
New member
I can lump all of your garbage under one response: How do you know? What is your proof? Where is your argument? This pertains to:
It's over. Knock your king over. You resign.
Okay, so statistically valid polls don't prove it; reasonably analogous situations form history don't prove it...so what is your evidence or proof? Oh, "I say so." That's good argumentation right there.
"...cuz I say so." No, "it is" (you meant "they are") not called that; or in any case, not exclusively.
Just cuz you say it, doesn't make it true. Yes, it is an ad hominem attack. An ad hominem attack is avoiding engaging your opponent's argument by attacking them personally ("ad hominem" is Latin for "at the person"). You called me (the person you're arguing against) dense (an insult). That makes it ad hominem. Words mean things. This is intrinsically true, no matter how much you plug your ears and cry. Calling the person you're arguing against "dense" is an ad hominem attack.
It's over. Knock your king over. You resign.
senecaCHGI said:
Let me put it this way: what makes you so sure about Obama taking this home?
senecaCHGI said:
Racial laws is racial laws. That is what it's called. Singular or plural, it is called racial laws. You know, racial laws, those laws which are legislated in order to prohibit miscegenation.
senecaCHGI said:
And ad hominem attack, is just that, avoiding the argument and somehow attacking the person behind the argument. Doesn't have to be insults though. Either way, I wouldn't call this ad hominem, because:
"This has nothing to do with Catholicism. What are you, completely dense?"
I told you several times over, this has nothing to do with Catholicism. The very fact that you didn't get it, made me curious if you actually are stupid or not. So I had to ask, considering how many times you kept bringing up the Catholicism issue despite it being totally beside the point.
Again, this is not ad hominem.
This is ad hominem:
# Person A makes claim X.
# Person B makes an attack on person A.
# Therefore A's claim is false.
Source: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
I did not render your argument void because of you in particular. I told you, several times, that argument has nothing to do with the case we're discussing right now. Over and over again, I kept repeating it, you didn't get it. So it's perfectly valid to ask if you are dense or not.
senecaCHGI said:
This is what makes you lame.