Btw, Z wasn’t conducting ad hominem. When Dg tries to use an authority, like Sullivan, in order to pass through Dg’s little “arguments”, it becomes perfectly acceptable and reasonable to point out the logical fallacy that “authority doesn’t mean truth” and “Sullivan ain’t the authority you claim he is”.

Dg’s arguments fail by the logic, not because of ad hominem, but because of an appeal to authority that was false and illogical even if it was true to begin with.

But DG chose to argue about personal attacks with Zhombre, as if Dg doesn’t like personal attacks.

If that was true, why was dg ignoring Deana but giving Zhombre his attention? WHy give the character assassin more attention but not the honest arguer? Cause of what Dg claims, that Dg is out for honest arguments and debate?

I think not.

Do you really think you get to command that a debate must occur simply by posting? A debate occurs when both sides are interested. If one side (on this topic, that means, you) wants to continue and the other doesn’t… well then, the conversation simply goes quiet. At least for a while.)

I was at a family get-together up in cabins in northern Michigan this summer. Someone mentioned the Israel/Palestine issue. My brother in law stated that he was absolutely certain and had proof that Israel stole Palestinian lands and that Israel was completely in the wrong. I couldn’t help myself, I countered immediately that I had darn good information myself that Israel did not steal Palestinian land. He responded with some hostility and was raring to go at it, and everyone around the table started to get very uncomfortable. I cut off the debate immediately, saying this is not the time nor the place – at a summer cottage – to get into a debate that’s been raging among partisans for years. We peacefully agreed to stop.

Sometimes debates stop simply because one party simply doesn’t want them to continue. At times with one of my liberal friends I complain that we’re rehashing the same tired topic again, and we should just stop and move on. He almost always agrees with me (at least, about stopping!).

I used to find Sullivan interesting. He was one of Bush’s biggest proponents on the GWT and the attack on Hussein’s Iraq. However, then something happened that caused Sullivan to do a 180-degree change in his positions and he became violently anti-Bush.

What was it that raised Sullivan’s ire so? Bush would not support gay marriage.

Sullivan is unbalanced, in the full sense of the word.

http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/09/10/when-you-put-a-dipstick-in-an-empty-suit-its-still-a-dipstickand-an-empty-suit/#comments