Gotta love the wacko far left's respect of Freedom of Speech...

[kethnaab]

indeed. what is so sickening is that her son enlisted TWICE while the US was involved in Iraq/Afghanistan, so obviously he supported what the US was doing.

nice how she shames his memory. nice how she thinks she deserves to talk to Pres Bush twice when many mothers haven't had the chance to speak to him once. nice how she thought Pres Bush was all fine and dandy shortly after her first talk with him and has done a 180.

*puke*

I told my mother that if I die, I want her to make DAMN SURE my frickin' name doesn't end up being used by Sheehan like the other guys there.

 

[75th]

indeed. what is so sickening is that her son enlisted TWICE while the US was involved in Iraq/Afghanistan, so obviously he supported what the US was doing.

nice how she shames his memory. nice how she thinks she deserves to talk to Pres Bush twice when many mothers haven't had the chance to speak to him once. nice how she thought Pres Bush was all fine and dandy shortly after her first talk with him and has done a 180.

*puke*

I told my mother that if I die, I want her to make DAMN SURE my frickin' name doesn't end up being used by Sheehan like the other guys there.

Ya, the far left always seems to forget here prior meetings with Bush. And the fact that her son re-enlisted. And the fact that her husband and other children knew without a doubt that Casey was proud of what he was doing and are so sickened by her display that she is now divorced and her family refuses to deal with her.

 

[AristotleBC]

Are you arguing an irrelevant premise?

Appeal To Ignorance (Ad Ignorantiam).

The appeal to ignorance is "the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa."

No, your understanding is wrong. An example of appeal to ignorance would be


"No one has proven God does not exist, therefore, God does exist."

That is an incorrect way of attempting to prove something.




My post says:


If the question is, "do the majority of violent protests in the US and perhaps elsewhere come from people with left-wing idealogies?"


My answer is, statistically, it appears to be so, because it does seem that most violent protests in recent times have been by left-wingers.


As I said, numerically, if the majority of protests over the last few years/decades come from left-wingers, than by default, left-wingers commit violent protest acts more (within this period) than right-wingers.


Appeal to Ignorance does not apply to this situation. It's an issue of statistical majority.

 

[UA_Iron]

No, your understanding is wrong. An example of appeal to ignorance would be


"No one has proven God does not exist, therefore, God does exist."

That is an incorrect way of attempting to prove something.




My post says:


If the question is, "do the majority of violent protests in the US and perhaps elsewhere come from people with left-wing idealogies?"


My answer is, statistically, it appears to be so, because it does seem that most violent protests in recent times have been by left-wingers.


As I said, numerically, if the majority of protests over the last few years/decades come from left-wingers, than by default, left-wingers commit violent protest acts more (within this period) than right-wingers.


Appeal to Ignorance does not apply to this situation. It's an issue of statistical majority.

Produce the statistics.

 

[AristotleBC]

I see you are trying to avoid the fact that you were wrong on the ad ignorantiam issue

Re-read my post (again.)

I said that "if the majority of protests over the last few years/decades come from left-wingers, than by default, left-wingers commit violent protest acts more "

In my judgement, it appears that most of the violent actions committed are done by people with left - wing political ideas. I say "if" because I don't have hard data.

But "if" it were true, than statistically the case would be that people with left-wing views commit most of the violent protests

If you disagree with this, obviously you have the option to say so, and explain why.

 

[UA_Iron]

I see you are trying to avoid the fact that you were wrong on the ad ignorantiam issue

Re-read my post (again.)

I said that "if the majority of protests over the last few years/decades come from left-wingers, than by default, left-wingers commit violent protest acts more "

In my judgement, it appears that most of the violent actions committed are done by people with left - wing political ideas. I say "if" because I don't have hard data.

But "if" it were true, than statistically the case would be that people with left-wing views commit most of the violent protests

If you disagree with this, obviously you have the option to say so, and explain why.

I was wrong with the irrelevant premise argument and its application to the argument. Perhaps it was a hasty decision, or a misunderstanding of what you were trying to say that led to using it.

 

[AristotleBC]

Indeed