Thoughts on Today's Political Landscape

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

So what this shows is that you can identify gang behavior, but deny it exists when it applies to some members of the occupy movement.

The conclusion you draw from this particular exchange is so illogical as to be laughable. Your clever use of rhetorical devices from the Sophists has failed you this time, on an epic level.

Further, it's notable that you only respond to one of the many aspects of the post. But it's okay, I get it.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

The conclusion you draw from this particular exchange is so illogical as to be laughable. Your clever use of rhetorical devices from the Sophists has failed you this time, on an epic level.

Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule.

The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an "argument."

Example of Appeal to Ridicule
"Sure my worthy opponent claims that we should lower tuition, but that is just laughable."

Since you use this method so often, I assume you teach it to your beloved rhetorics class.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule.

The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an "argument."

Example of Appeal to Ridicule
"Sure my worthy opponent claims that we should lower tuition, but that is just laughable."

Since you use this method so often, I assume you teach it to your beloved rhetorics class.

Why don't you show some courage and deal with the substance of what I wrote?!

You painted the occupy MOVEMENT as a gang. I countered that your generalization was false and inappropriate. I also do not believe that exercising your legal right to assembly, even if it happens to be on the public sidewalk outside of the private home of a Wall Street banker, represents "gang" behavior. I may not agree with the tactic -- in fact, I think it is a waste of time -- but I will not characterize it as the behavior of a "gang."

The occasions of gangism I cited stand on their own.

Instead of addressing the substance, you try to shift the terrain. It's so transparent as to be laughable, and you can call it whatever rhetorical device you want. Time after time, you reveal your unwillingness to engage in a real discussion when you have no answer to justify your previous provocations.