Still using ad hominem, eh? You give no evidence that corporations want to "poison us faster than they do now." By the way, the newer fluorescent light bulbs are more hazardous to the environment than traditional incandescent light bulbs.



The act of calling something "garbage" doesn't make it garbage. You simply haven't proven your point.



Now you are making a valid counter-argument. People pay taxes so that they can receive services from the government. In my own critique, I say that Hawkins has a weak argument.



Again, the act of calling something "garbage" doesn't make it garbage. You didn't make a counter-argument.



You make a valid point. I said earlier that I do not agree with everything that Hawkins says.



Again, you have not proven your point. Also, there is statistical evidence that supports the claim being made by Hawkins, which I provide in my own critique.



Here you make a counter-argument by promoting separation of church and state. For what it's worth, both on this site and on a blog that I write for, I have criticized conservatives for trying to equate liberalism with an anti-God philosophy. Plenty of liberals are devout members of various theistic faiths.



Although I say so in reference to another of Hawkins'claims, I have stated that conservatives have contributed to the fiscal mess that the U.S. government is in. So, it is wrong to lay the blame for the mess at the feet of liberals alone.



Sadly, you have proven Hawkins' point. You did so in your first post on this thread. In your above-quoted statement, you cry "Bigotry!" without actually proving bigotry. I wouldn't call you a liar because you believe what you say.



Saying "Untrue" isn't a good counter-argument. I would say that Hawkins has not proven his statement to be true. In this case, you don't have to prove him wrong. Instead, you can insist that he prove himself right.



Hawkins is addressing the misogyny that has been aimed at female conservative commentators. Liberal political commentator Kirsten Powers has openly criticized her fellow liberals for allowing such misogyny.



Hawkins makes a bad argument, and you respond by making a worse argument. The conservative alternative isn't "to let them die". You have to get out of a liberal echo chamber to know what the conservative alternative is.



On the contrary, alleged "racist" remarks are indeed disputed. All too often, liberals cry "Racism" when there is no racism. You have not proven your racism claim that you make against conservatives.
I will grant that Hawkins does not prove his point with any statistical evidence.



Hawkins does make a messy argument with different topics in it, as you have pointed out. No, he doesn't prove his point at all.



Egads! I do a better job of defending liberals in my own critique. Until now, I had not encountered any gun-control advocate who wanted guns taken away from law enforcement officers such as Secret Service agents. Despite past assassinations and assassination attempts, the use of armed guards to protect the President of the USA has worked, which is why assassinations and assassination attempts are very rare.

I don't know about ya'll but i'm headin for China's Northern Heibei Province. Just watch out for the cars..

as far as freedom, I feel fairly unrestricted

If I head someplace else, it will be because america has become too 'free' in its culture (translated as too loose/amoral),,,,

I Agree !

I started this thread in part to see if liberals could argue with conservatives without resorting to the use of ad hominem. Sadly, I discovered that ad hominem is the rhetorical weapon of choice of some people.

Since certain language is being used, and since you've now more or less issued a challenge for a 'liberal' to argue with conservatives without resorting to ad hominem type fallacies, allow me to gladly accept that challenge. I mean, I've read through the thread and have been rather unimpressed. So let's get started, shall we Dodo?



To begin, I must ask:

Where IS the argument in the OP that you would like for me to counter? Nothing looks like what an argument is supposed to look like. To quite the contrary, it all looks like fallacy on parade. If need be we could go through all of them one at a time. So, once again...

Where has an argument been given here?

Can you offer a rebuttal to the claims that conservative blogger John Hawkins made? I already critiqued his claims, and I didn't support everything that he said.

All fifteen are unjustified. All are gross overgeneralizations. And as I was hinting at, since you're talking in academic/formal terms here, there is nothing that warrants a "rebuttal", for they are all gratuitous assertions. In other words, nothing stated has been argued for. The burden of proof lies on the shoulders of s/he who is making statements about the world.

He needs to show how he's arrived at these 'conclusions'. He needs to provide some sort of argument.

I suppose that threre is a certain amount of irony in play here as well.

I mean, if the OP is designed to see if 'liberals' can argue against conservatives without resorting to ad hom, and must accomplish this feat by arguing against what has been written by this fellow, then it seems that what he's arguing ought be void of it. That is not the case. There are at least four cases of ad hom contained within his remarks.

Except that isn't what happened.

Truthful, honest, straight to the point answers were given.

You choose to call them whatever you want....doesn't make them less true or honest or disproving of the garbage.


In truth it is a waste of any intelligent mind to even have to read the garbage offered on this OP as something of value.


I did lower my mind and morals to answer it.

So I should be thanked for that much trouble.

Hi, Creative Good to see you.

Thank you! You did exactly what I wanted someone to do. Hawkins doesn't offer evidence to support anything that he says. However, in my critique I offer evidence supporting a few of things that he says.

You have demonstrated that the claims of a so-called "conservative" can be rebutted without resorting to use of ad hominem.

I am going to borrow from creativesoul and give the following reply to the above-quoted claim.

The above-quoted claim consists of gratuitous assertions. In other words, nothing stated has been argued for. The burden of proof lies on the shoulders of the one who is making the claim. Thus, I can dismiss the above-quoted claim as being nothing other than garbage.

Yep, you can.

It is still truth, more truth than the OP offered.

You are begging the question. You are assuming something that you have yet to prove.

It is a source of comfort for people who get their feeling of self worth by identifying with political positions.

One could write an essay on how to spot dubious presuppositions 'in the wild' based solely upon the content of the OP. That may be an interesting avenue.

Hello. Thanks. Dragoness in cognito?