Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : WHO IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT IN 2004 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: American Spirit who wrote (10504)	2/26/2004 12:15:55 PM
From: MrLucky	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10965

Nothing is lower than the Bushies now calling McCain and Kerry traitors and murderers Show me the post where I said McCain and Kerry were murders and traitors. Having trouble finding it? You know damn well what Kerry testified to before Congress. Any finger-pointing against the GIs in Vietnam was by your "major war hero" not by your so-called "Bushies" on this thread. I'll repeat what I stated to you a few days ago. When people run out of viable arguments on an issue they start calling names. Naughty, naughty.

To: American Spirit who wrote (10504)	2/26/2004 12:42:40 PM
From: PROLIFE	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10965

HEY, how about this: Thursday, Feb. 26, 2004 12:07 PM EST Military Record of Teresa's First Husband Mirrors Bush's If first lady-wannabe Teresa Heinz Kerry hasn't said much about her current husband's attempts to demean President Bush's National Guard Service, it may be because her first husband, the late Sen. John Heinz, did very much the same thing during the early phase of the Vietnam war. Turns out, the heir to the Heinz Foods fortune - whose ketchup jackpot transformed Sen. Kerry into the richest man in the Senate - joined the Air Force Reserves in 1963, just as the Vietnam war was heating up. While in the Reserves, Heinz was based in Texas [just like you know who] - and was briefly activated for four months in 1963. But Teresa's first husband never got any closer to combat than a desk job at San Antonio's Lackland Air Force Base. According to an online biography complied by the Carnegie Mellon Library, Sen. Heinz had something else in common with the man Sen. Kerry wants to replace. Turns out, Heinz took time away from the Reserves to work on a political campaign - just like President Bush did when he requested temporary reassignment to an Alabama Guard unit. The Carnegie Mellon bio reveals: "From March to December 1964, Heinz had his first taste of politics . . . as assistant campaign manager in Senator [Hugh] Scott's successful reelection bid." [Heinz didn't receive his honorable discharge from the Reserves until 1969] But if Mrs. Heinz Kerry's first husband missed any Reserve drills while dabbling in politics, the Kerry campaign has been mum about it - especially since DNC chief Terry McAuliffe has famously described such career detours as "going AWOL." "For the remainder of his enlistment, [Heinz] served with the 911th Troop Carrier Group based at the Greater Pittsburgh Airport," Carnegie Mellon says. None of this is meant to demean Sen. Heinz military record, which is just as honorable as the president's. But it does raise questions about Sen. Kerry, who, when he insinuates that service in the Guard and Reserves is somehow second class, is taking a potshot at both Bush and his own marital predecessor - the man whose Heinz Foods' fortune bought the Beacon Hill townhouse Kerry recently mortgaged to save his presidential campaign.

To: American Spirit who wrote (10504)	2/26/2004 2:33:42 PM
From: Don Pueblo	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 10965

Please add this to your Reference Files: Fallacies of Distraction False Dilemma: two choices are given when in fact there are three options From Ignorance: because something is not known to be true, it is assumed to be false Slippery Slope: a series of increasingly unacceptable consequences is drawn Complex Question: two unrelated points are conjoined as a single proposition Appeals to Motives in Place of Support Appeal to Force: the reader is persuaded to agree by force Appeal to Pity: the reader is persuaded to agree by sympathy Consequences: the reader is warned of unacceptable consequences Prejudicial Language: value or moral goodness is attached to believing the author Popularity: a proposition is argued to be true because it is widely held to be true Changing the Subject Attacking the Person: 1.the person's character is attacked 2.the person's circumstances are noted 3.the person does not practise what is preached Appeal to Authority: 1.the authority is not an expert in the field 2.experts in the field disagree 3.the authority was joking, drunk, or in some other way not being serious Anonymous Authority: the authority in question is not named Style Over Substance: the manner in which an argument (or arguer) is presented is felt to affect the truth of the conclusion Inductive Fallacies Hasty Generalization: the sample is too small to support an inductive generalization about a population Unrepresentative Sample: the sample is unrepresentative of the sample as a whole False Analogy: the two objects or events being compared are relevantly dissimilar Slothful Induction: the conclusion of a strong inductive argument is denied despite the evidence to the contrary Fallacy of Exclusion:evidence which would change the outcome of an inductive argument is excluded from consideration Fallacies Involving Statistical Syllogisms Accident: a generalization is applied when circumstances suggest that there should be an exception Converse Accident : an exception is applied in circumstances where a generalization should apply Causal Fallacies Post Hoc: because one thing follows another, it is held to cause the other Joint effect: one thing is held to cause another when in fact they are both the joint effects of an underlying cause Insignificant: one thing is held to cause another, and it does, but it is insignificant compared to other causes of the effect Wrong Direction: the direction between cause and effect is reversed Complex Cause: the cause identified is only a part of the entire cause of the effect Missing the Point Begging the Question: the truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises Irrelevant Conclusion: an argument in defense of one conclusion instead proves a different conclusion Straw Man: the author attacks an argument different from (and weaker than) the opposition's best argument Fallacies of Ambiguity Equivocation: the same term is used with two different meanings Amphiboly: the structure of a sentence allows two different interpretations Accent: the emphasis on a word or phrase suggests a meaning contrary to what the sentence actually says Category Errors Composition: because the attributes of the parts of a whole have a certain property, it is argued that the whole has that property Division: because the whole has a certain property, it is argued that the parts have that property Non Sequitur Affirming the Consequent: any argument of the form: If A then B, B, therefore A Denying the Antecedent: any argument of the form: If A then B, Not A, thus Not B Inconsistency: asserting that contrary or contradictory statements are both true Syllogistic Errors Fallacy of Four Terms: a syllogism has four terms Undistributed Middle: two separate categories are said to be connected because they share a common property Illicit Major: the predicate of the conclusion talks about all of something, but the premises only mention some cases of the term in the predicate Illicit Minor: the subject of the conclusion talks about all of something, but the premises only mention some cases of the term in the subject Fallacy of Exclusive Premises: a syllogism has two negative premises Fallacy of Drawing an Affirmative Conclusion From a Negative Premise:as the name implies Existential Fallacy: a particular conclusion is drawn from universal premises Fallacies of Explanation Subverted Support (The phenomenon being explained doesn't exist) Non-support (Evidence for the phenomenon being explained is biased) Untestability (The theory which explains cannot be tested) Limited Scope (The theory which explains can only explain one thing) Limited Depth (The theory which explains does not appeal to underlying causes) Fallacies of Definition Too Broad (The definition includes items which should not be included) Too Narrow (The definition does not include all the items which should be included) Failure to Elucidate (The definition is more difficult to understand than the word or concept being defined) Circular Definition (The definition includes the term being defined as a part of the definition) Conflicting Conditions (The definition is self-contradictory) Fallacies of Distraction Each of these fallacies is characterized by the illegitimate use of a logical operator in order to distract the reader from the apparent falsity of a certain proposition. The following fallacies are fallacies of distraction: False Dilemma (misuse of the "or" operator) Argument From Ignorance (misuse of the "not" operator) Slippery Slope (misuse of the "if-then" operator) Complex Question (misuse of the "and" operator) The fallacies in this section have in common the practice of appealing to emotions or other psychological factors. In this way, they do not provide reasons for belief. The following fallacies are appeals to motive in place of support: Appeal to Force Appeal to Pity Appeal to Consequences Prejudicial Language Appeal to Popularity hhhknights.com