Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: "Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.uncle-davey
Subject: Re: A moment of Thought for Jason Gastrich
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:09:15 +0100
Organization: www.usenetposts.com
Lines: 53
Message-ID: <csmbck$ikn$0@pita.alt.net>
References: <QodHd.71886$gd.63493@twister.socal.rr.com> <Xns95E277023BF33vicman@127.0.0.1> <Xns95E2C63B4E920GaryBohn@130.133.1.4> <Xns95E2C12FB50E0vicman@216.196.97.136> <csm3po$n5j$0@pita.alt.net> <Xns95E416F24C8E1GaryBohn@130.133.1.4> <Xns95E363D93BB16vicman@216.196.97.142>
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.fan.uncle-davey:3843
news:Xns95E363D93BB16vicman@216.196.97.142...
> on 19 Jan 2005 in alt.atheism, Gary Bohn dropped trou, farted, whirled,
> then shouted:
>
> >>> --
> >>> Vic Sagerquist
> >>> aa#2011
> >>> Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
> >>> chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
> >>> --------
> >>> Why is it that most of the people who are against abortion are people
> >>> you wouldn't want to fuck in the first place? --George Carlin
> >>>
> >>
> >> This Carlin geezer's obviously desperate if he normally does want to
> >> do that to "most people".
> >>
> >> Stating that abortionists are in the majority people he doesn't desire
> >> to have sexual intercourse with implies that he usually does want to
> >> have intercourse with the majority of people.
> >>
> >> Obviously some sort of perverted sexual maniac.
> >>
> >> Uncle Davey
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Nice try Davey. George is just an incredibly funny man. He didn't state
> > that the majority of people are against abortion, he said that *of*
> > those who are against abortion, (and he didn't make a quantitative
> > statement there,) he wouldn't want to have sex with most of them( place
> > relative quantative statement here).
> >
>
> We have to come up with a new logical fallacy here. When the poster has
no
> comment on your post, so he attacks your sig. Any ideas?
>
> Ad sigmata?
Ad subscriptem, possibly.
What about the logical fallacy that says if you can't fault the common sense
in what someone has just said you make it look somehow wrong by claiming it
is a fallacy and giving it a latin name? Argumentum ad Clausen?
Uncle Davey
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 |
|