Author Topic: Patton- Crazy? (Read 1535 times)

Thrawn · « **Reply #60 on:** August 30, 2002, 03:45:12 PM »

scum Pronunciation Key (skm)
n.
A filmy layer of extraneous or impure matter that forms on or rises to the surface of a liquid or body of water.
The refuse or dross of molten metals.
Refuse or worthless matter.
Slang. One, such as a person or an element of society, that is regarded as despicable or worthless.

Toad - "Patton was "scum"?

Put down the shovel."

Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule
1. X, which is some form of ridicule is presented (typically directed at the claim).
2. Therefore claim C is false.

Toad - "But Scum? Patton, Rommel or Yammamoto? No, I don't think so; far from it in fact. You've got three really fine military minds in this group."

Inductive Argument

Premise 1. Most fine military minds aren't scum.
Premise 2. Patton was a fine military mind.
Conculsion. Patton was not scum.

Toad - "Like both Rommel and Yammamoto he was an "achiever" and a "leader". But perhaps your definition of "scum" is quite different than mine. "

Inductive Arguments

Premise 1. Most achievers and leaders aren't scum.
Premise 2. Patton was an achiver and a leader.
Conculsion. Patton was not scum.

Toad - "Holes: let's see if this helps clear it up:

Stop Digging

""If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging." "

And once again.

Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule

Pongo - "Animal cornered......"

"None of the above idiot.." (sigh)

"my attack on you wasnt an ad homimem, I didnt say you were wrong..I just flamed you. I know its your word of the day but you are over using it a bit."

Which is correct. As he never actually says anything, and makes no arguments.

Slang. One, such as a person or an element of society, that is regarded as despicable or worthless.

The tern "Scum" is subjective. Animal thinks he scum. Therefore to Animal he is scum. Toad doesn't think he scum. Therefore to Toad he is not scum.

Toad, I only have one link in my favorites folder. Thanks.

Animal · « **Reply #61 on:** August 30, 2002, 03:50:17 PM »

LOL Thrawn, I had to read that twice
Quite original style of writing

And its true (if I understood correctly?)

Man, you think like an android

Toad · « **Reply #62 on:** August 30, 2002, 03:55:17 PM »

Nice analysis Thrawn.

Don't agree with you either

"Put down the shovel" Advice, take it or leave it. He left it.

"three fine military minds" Toad's opinion. Worth as much as yours or Animals.

"Definition of scum": Patton dispicable? Not in Toad's opinion.

"Find yourself in a hole": Advice, take it or leave it. He left it.

Thanks for making my day though! It isn't a real thread without your cheerful presence! It's nice.

Here's a test for ya Thrawn... I'll say "on" and you say ________

I'll say "black" and you'll say ________

Pongo · « **Reply #63 on:** August 30, 2002, 04:10:23 PM »

Ya..Im one of those pathetic people that read this bbs and remember what they read…
I’m not interested in you Animal, but I am interested in the BBS, that’s where I remembered the little domestic tidbit from. Its not so strange that I remember it, although It’s a little strange that you posted it, and that the story is changing from you loafing at home doing your dads laundry for a living to you saving your dad.
You really don’t get the ad homimem thing, Ill make it clear for you, as you’re evidently used to being around people that are so stupid that they let you redefine words at your leisure.
Lets say someone thought Patton was the best general in US history.
Another guy disagrees with him saying that his uncle served with Patton and thought he was an idiot,
Then the Patton fan says that the uncle must have been squeak slapped by Patton for cowardice and there for his opinion on Patton does not matter..
That is an ad homimem. Its not the insult it’s the fact of saying the other person is wrong because of it.
Its kind of funny that you use the term so much.
But I am free to remind you of your previous domestic posts without committing an ad homimem as long as I don’t try to win the debate by doing so. As I am just flaming you and not really participating in the debate, your use of the word in relation to my post is incorrect. You will have to find a new big word to use I think.

When I say you can be Patton’s valet and you say that I am saying that because your black..that’s the race card. You play it to portray any criticism of you as racially based and the person who says it as prejudiced. Even though they said nothing about your race at all.
You know..race card.
As you have said you can make up anything you like about yourself on the BBS. But it seems a lot of work to go to for something you maintain you care so little about. Stange to start such a flame fest when you are so sensitive, strange to post such stuff about yourself if you are so sensitive about it..
Strange to use the term ad homimem incorrectly so often in your own defence when you started this mess with the most blatant example of one.
Just strange. But I love a good flame so thanks bud.

Thrawn · « **Reply #64 on:** August 30, 2002, 04:12:41 PM »

Believe it or not Toad, I'm a great admirer of your posts. For the most part, your arguments are well thought out and well presented. If I had done a discourse analysis on most other posters in most other threads, I would still be writing it up.

I wouldn't have been able to attempt it if you hadn't posted a link to this site http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html#index, a while ago. I think it should be required reading for everyone on this board.

Animal · « **Reply #65 on:** August 30, 2002, 04:21:23 PM »

Quote

Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.

I hope that brings some closure to your stupidity, it perfectly suited your first post in this thread. I didnt even care to read your whole last post just the begining. This thread is dead anyways so if you want to keep any personal vendetta against me for some reason then start a new one or do it in private (though that would lose the whole point why you do it (people who love flames are obvious attention potatos))
If you do start a new thread or if you email me, please link to the thread where I said I was 'loafing around doing my dads laundry' or when someone else said it, cause I sure want to read that because you obviously have some information about me that I dont

(LOL)

Cya Pongo, xoxoxo

Quote

Originally posted by Pongo
Ya..Im one of those pathetic people that read this bbs and remember what they read…
I’m not interested in you Animal, but I am interested in the BBS, that’s where I remembered the little domestic tidbit from. Its not so strange that I remember it, although It’s a little strange that you posted it, and that the story is changing from you loafing at home doing your dads laundry for a living to you saving your dad.
You really don’t get the ad homimem thing, Ill make it clear for you, as you’re evidently used to being around people that are so stupid that they let you redefine words at your leisure.
Lets say someone thought Patton was the best general in US history.
Another guy disagrees with him saying that his uncle served with Patton and thought he was an idiot,
Then the Patton fan says that the uncle must have been squeak slapped by Patton for cowardice and there for his opinion on Patton does not matter..
That is an ad homimem. Its not the insult it’s the fact of saying the other person is wrong because of it.
Its kind of funny that you use the term so much.
But I am free to remind you of your previous domestic posts without committing an ad homimem as long as I don’t try to win the debate by doing so. As I am just flaming you and not really participating in the debate, your use of the word in relation to my post is incorrect. You will have to find a new big word to use I think.

When I say you can be Patton’s valet and you say that I am saying that because your black..that’s the race card. You play it to portray any criticism of you as racially based and the person who says it as prejudiced. Even though they said nothing about your race at all.
You know..race card.
As you have said you can make up anything you like about yourself on the BBS. But it seems a lot of work to go to for something you maintain you care so little about. Stange to start such a flame fest when you are so sensitive, strange to post such stuff about yourself if you are so sensitive about it..
Strange to use the term ad homimem incorrectly so often in your own defence when you started this mess with the most blatant example of one.
Just strange. But I love a good flame so thanks bud.

Pongo · « **Reply #66 on:** August 30, 2002, 04:33:56 PM »

No, its not bud..your using the term incorrectly..must be a reflex.

Rude · « **Reply #67 on:** August 30, 2002, 04:49:58 PM »

Standing in judgement over folks who fought wars, all while the copier needs a new toner cartridge.

Cobra · « **Reply #68 on:** August 30, 2002, 07:51:32 PM »

Rude, I want my Zarda's BBQ sandwich!!

When is the KC Chapter of the AH Brethren getting together again?

Cobra

fdiron · « **Reply #69 on:** August 30, 2002, 08:00:43 PM »

Quote

Define help?

And.... are you saying that the "brave Jews" stayed in Germany to die? C'mon!

Einstein refused to contribute to the making of the atomic bomb. He was a pacifist.

midnight Target · « **Reply #70 on:** August 30, 2002, 10:49:36 PM »

IIRC Einstein wrote a letter to Roosevelt at the beginning of the war explaining that a bomb could be built and expressing concern that the Germans may already be working on it. It was Einstein who really got the ball rolling that led to the Manhattan Project.

fdiron · « **Reply #71 on:** August 31, 2002, 06:54:08 AM »

Dear President Bush, time travel is possible [probably]. Someone could already be building a time machine.

PS- I am against time travel and I wont help you design, test, or fund your project.

I just contributed as much as Einstein did.

Cobra · « **Reply #72 on:** August 31, 2002, 09:05:42 AM »

Actually you didn't fdiron.

You are not a noted and respected scientist in the field of time travel so your contribution carries no weight.

You are not from a country that is waging war on half the world's populace and therefore your information carries no weight.

The reality of time travel is much further off than the reality of the atom bomb was at the time of Einstein's warning, so therefore your warning carries no weight.

But I think you already knew that.

Cobra

fdiron · « **Reply #73 on:** August 31, 2002, 12:13:09 PM »

Einstein Schmeinstein, heres the guy who really did the work.

In 1933, a Hungarian scientist working in England, Leo Szilard, first theorized that enormous amounts of energy could be released by a nuclear "chain reaction."

In December 1938, German scientists Otto Hahn, Fritz Strassmann, Lise Meitner, and Otto Frisch discovered nuclear fission in uranium, the heaviest natural element. The fissioning produced a tremendous release of energy; because a very small amount of uranium was involved, no one was endangered.

Szilard, who had come to America to conduct chain-reaction research, was convinced that Hitler would attempt to build an "atomic" bomb. He believed that the United States ought to do it first. However, Szilard lacked the clout to get a bomb project going. He and fellow Hungarians working in the States, Eugene Wigner and Edward Teller, persuaded Albert Einstein, the world's most famous scientist, to write a letter to President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Dated August 2, 1939, the letter said that it was conceivable that "extremely powerful bombs of a new type might be constructed." Einstein urged the government to help university scientists with their research into chain reactions. He also implied that Germany might be working on chain reactions.

From: http://www.bullatomsci.org/research/qanda/invent.html

midnight Target · « **Reply #74 on:** August 31, 2002, 12:20:45 PM »

"Albert Einstein, the world's most famous scientist, to write a letter to President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Dated August 2, 1939, the letter said that it was conceivable that "extremely powerful bombs of a new type might be constructed." Einstein urged the government to help university scientists with their research into chain reactions. He also implied that Germany might be working on chain reactions."

No help at all.