If you like your Ebola, you can keep it

[TysonLPrice]

Who woulda thunk that Faux News would be the voice of reason... so far this is the best report I've seen on the issue.
http://fox13now.com/2014/10/16/news-...needs-to-hear/

-tg

I can't watch that at work...

Have they blamed Obama for it yet

[techgnome]

I can't watch that at work...

Have they blamed Obama for it yet

Of course... that's why he now has an Ebola Czar... I kid you not.
https://www.google.com/webhp?q=ebola%20czar

-tg

[TysonLPrice]

I'll view the link at home tonight...I'm not surprised. I don't know if the member is still active but one got mad at me for insulting Faux news as a sub standard "news" show for democrat\liberal haters. I could accept his\her points that just because I feel that way is no reason to slam other people. I left it at we agree to disagree.

[SJWhiteley]

I'll view the link at home tonight...I'm not surprised. I don't know if the member is still active but one got mad at me for insulting Faux news as a sub standard "news" show for democrat\liberal haters. I could accept his\her points that just because I feel that way is no reason to slam other people. I left it at we agree to disagree.

When someone refers to Fox News as Faux News, repeatedly, it does come off as very childish and pedantic, essentially an Ad Hominem attack. While it can be used humorously, it does undermine any argument about an issue.

Back on point, what the heck is going on when we have a whole governmental department dedicated to this sort of thing, but we now need to appoint another individual to oversee the situation?

[TysonLPrice]

When someone refers to Fox News as Faux News, repeatedly, it does come off as very childish and pedantic, essentially an Ad Hominem attack. While it can be used humorously, it does undermine any argument about an issue.

Back on point, what the heck is going on when we have a whole governmental department dedicated to this sort of thing, but we now need to appoint another individual to oversee the situation?

I had to look up ad hominem...I'm embarassed to say I'm guilty of that quite a bit. I'll need to watch that. Right after this post

Maybe it has something to do with the Republicans not allowing a surgeon general to get through the process?

[dilettante]

When someone refers to Fox News as Faux News, repeatedly, it does come off as very childish and pedantic, essentially an Ad Hominem attack. While it can be used humorously, it does undermine any argument about an issue.

Fans of Faux News and its negative agenda like to parrot things they've heard but do not actually understand:

Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact or when used in certain kinds of moral and practical reasoning.

Thus such things don't necessarily undermine an argument at all.

[TysonLPrice]

Fans of Faux News and its negative agenda like to parrot things they've heard but do not actually understand:



Thus such things don't necessarily undermine an argument at all.

I’m new to the term “Ad Hominem reasoning” but the concepts can be seen in day to day arguments. It seems that you are using a piece of information that can be true, “Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact or when used in certain kinds of moral and practical reasoning”, and applying it to something unrelated to prove a point.

I can parrot 2 + 2 = 4 all day long without understanding why it is true, but it is still true. Fans of Faux News and its negative agenda can parrot things they've heard but do not actually understand all day long, but that doesn't make them untrue.

[Shaggy Hiker]

We live in a world of shorthand discussions. Technically 2+2 does NOT equal 4, except in certain situations where it does. However, we use the phrase as a shorthand for something everybody knows to be true. This shorthand approach, where we leave out the conditions necessary for the statement to be true (the lawyer-speak), makes it possible to communicate without being too boring, yet it makes a definitive statement out of things that aren't definitive.

I read a fundamentalist christian cartoon that attacked science using the phrase "opposites attract", as if it were an absolute rule in the world rather than a shorthand description (not complete) of how electromagnetic forces behave. They weren't being argumentative, they just didn't understand that the shorthand wasn't "THE LAW!", and built there argument on the assumption that it was.

Essentially, shorthand rules like that are convenient, but they also fail to communicate as well as we might hope. As long as people are a bit fuzzy with their understanding, it's fine, but those misunderstandings can cause mischief.

I'm not suggesting anything here, just musing. In the last post I tried to be a-musing, in this one I dropped the a.

[TysonLPrice]

Of course... that's why he now has an Ebola Czar... I kid you not.
https://www.google.com/webhp?q=ebola%20czar

-tg

I missed something you saw. That seemed reasonable and fair. I honestly believe it was a good piece.