IS Hillary Clinton just insane?

[big_ole_jpn]

HRC and Ben Carson during this campaign are the two most blatantly substance abusing politicians I have ever witnessed. Not a conspiracy theory, just simple observation. Speaking of which, Hitler's legendary oratory was done with the aid of significant quantities of methamphetamine.

[AzzarTheGod]

Originally Posted by big_ole_jpn [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

HRC and Ben Carson during this campaign are the two most blatantly substance abusing politicians I have ever witnessed. Not a conspiracy theory, just simple observation. Speaking of which, Hitler's legendary oratory was done with the aid of significant quantities of methamphetamine.

Should be noted JFK was also unfortunately not au naturale either, and was propped up on a good amount of amphetamine and who knows what else.

His doctor was called "Dr.Feelgood" (the original Feelgood, incase you plebs didn't know where that term came from, this was the guy)

Many law school students also do not have the capability to be interested in reading 100000000000000 volumes of law precedent and procedure ( Go figure, right?? Who woulda thought that its hard to "focus" on shit that you will NEVER use in the practice of law) and its an open secret most successful lawyers have taken amphetamine salts for various points of their career (mostly to start their career and/or during law school specifically).

Hillary is a lawyer first and foremost. Most lawyers use amphetamine as a function of life during law school and during their internship. Hillary has used controlled substances and is likely still using controlled substances if other public figures are anything to go by (JFK, Ben Carson)

[Csihar]

Originally Posted by Raev [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You wrote a long inflammatory post about conspiracy theorists, a derogatory label that you (and me, and pretty much everyone else) have mentally assigned to the people who made the video, and your only defense is that because you didn't mention them explicitly that your post was somehow entirely unrelated. This would be a reasonable defense if you had been quoted out of context from a blog or even another thread, but anyone reading this thread will conclude that you were thinking about the video and Daywolf when you wrote this. It kind of reminds me of this

Defense against what exactly?
Daywolf claims I was using an ad hominem attack. I wasn't and I explained why. Daywolf simply isn't applying the concept correctly.

I was indeed thinking of Daywolf when I wrote it. What gave you the impression that I was denying that? I even stated I was in my previous post.

What's your point? Don't see how the video relates but alrighty.

[R Flair]

What you said was 100% an ad hominem couched in a psychoanalysis of people who follow conspiracy theories.

Instead of responding to the topic discussion, you leveled an accusation against him concluding by way of implication that he "wasn't as smart as he thinks he is" among other things.

[Daywolf]

Originally Posted by AzzarTheGod [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Should be noted JFK was also unfortunately not au naturale either, and was propped up on a good amount of amphetamine and who knows what else.

His doctor was called "Dr.Feelgood" (the original Feelgood, incase you plebs didn't know where that term came from, this was the guy)

Many law school students also do not have the capability to be interested in reading 100000000000000 volumes of law precedent and procedure ( Go figure, right?? Who woulda thought that its hard to "focus" on shit that you will NEVER use in the practice of law) and its an open secret most successful lawyers have taken amphetamine salts for various points of their career (mostly to start their career and/or during law school specifically).

Hillary is a lawyer first and foremost. Most lawyers use amphetamine as a function of life during law school and during their internship. Hillary has used controlled substances and is likely still using controlled substances if other public figures are anything to go by (JFK, Ben Carson)

Yay must mean I passed the "I'm not a pleb" quiz hehe. It was due to pain... back pain I think it was (I'm in the process of brewing a bold aromatic mental powe-up *sip*). I mean JFK got so strung out by the Doc, he had an incident one time in a hotel where he threw off all his clothing and ran screaming down the hallways [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Originally Posted by big_ole_jpn [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

HRC and Ben Carson during this campaign are the two most blatantly substance abusing politicians I have ever witnessed. Not a conspiracy theory, just simple observation. Speaking of which, Hitler's legendary oratory was done with the aid of significant quantities of methamphetamine.

No comment on Carson, but yeah Hitler did that stuff. In fact his SS were ordered/encouraged to as well. They did mountains of the stuff, and many/most of them were masculine homosexuals. We hear of them killing gays, but no, just the feminine homosexuals.

When I was a teen to early 20's, I had a lot of friends that got into meth. Oddly enough most of them turned gay/bi not long after they started using. It's hard to ignore the claims of Hillary being a lesbian in this case, if true she has a problem with any such stimulant. I mean in that it really messes with the brain, to the point where there may be a loss of identity, or sudden shifts in outlook.

[Daywolf]

Originally Posted by R Flair [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What you said was 100% an ad hominem couched in a psychoanalysis of people who follow conspiracy theories.

Instead of responding to the topic discussion, you leveled an accusation against him concluding by way of implication that he "wasn't as smart as he thinks he is" among other things.

Yes that is correct, because it pushes me into defending myself personally, from my position, rather than the debate of the actual topic or accusations being true or false. I don't mind people taking snipes at me calling me out as just a conspiracy theorist or what have you, even a little name calling is fine (I deserve it sometimes), but that was a bombing run hehe... then came back to strafe, and still added completely nothing to the debate of the topic other than to try to derail it.

Is she is or is she aint? That's the matter at hand, the purpose of the thread, that and entertainment value. I'm fine with people defending her, if they defend her, preferably with some logical discussions outside of just some pure opinion on her with nothing else. Though at least that still has entertaining value if only just opinion, this aint formal debates after all.

But trying to lay waste to the topic by attacking 'conspiracy theorists' alone... or people that believe in conspiracies as the poster put it, is just a lame ad hominem derail attempt. Especially due to the fact that everyone has believed in some conspiracy theory and no one has believed in them all.

[Csihar]

Originally Posted by R Flair [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What you said was 100% an ad hominem couched in a psychoanalysis of people who follow conspiracy theories.

Instead of responding to the topic discussion, you leveled an accusation against him concluding by way of implication that he "wasn't as smart as he thinks he is" among other things.

Nope. And you fail to explain how it's an ad hominem. All you're saying is that I didn't respond to the topic (which is true) but instead attacked him (which is true). That is not the definition of an ad hominem.

If I in any way claimed or even implied that the validity of the video was affected by my assertion of his character than that would have been an ad hominem. It's a logical fallacy. Attacking someone is not a logical fallacy.
I have seen his posts and decided today to simply post my opinion of him. Unrelated to the thread.

It wasn't against people who follow conspiracy theories (note how I said 'so-called') persay. It was about a specific subsection of the people who do. I explained it in more detail in my second (I think) post. But if you think you know what I meant better than I do then that's perfectly fine for you to believe. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my first post but even if that's true I explained my position later on and now you know what I mean. This part has nothing to do with it being an ad hominem.

Interestingly enough it's almost becoming an ad hominem to accuse me of using an ad hominem.

[R Flair]

Search Results
ad ho·mi·nem
ˌad ˈhämənəm/
adverb & adjective
adverb: ad hominem; adjective: ad hominem

1.
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.




had you posted that same thing in an independent thread, yes it wouldn't have been an ad hominem but whether you like it or not, in the context of this thread, it was.


just stop

[Csihar]

Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

still added completely nothing to the debate of the topic other than to try to derail it.

No. Not my intent. Just another conspiracy theory (get it? hehe).

Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

But trying to lay waste to the topic by attacking 'conspiracy theorists' alone... or people that believe in conspiracies as the poster put it, is just a lame ad hominem derail attempt.

I'll put it much more plainly. I had my opinion of you, you posted something, I was in a dickish mood, you're often not a pleasant person to other people on this forum (contributed to me making the decision) so I posted my opinion of you. It was an off-topic post.

I don't know if Hillary is going crazy. I don't really care either. I will say that my opinion on it doesn't matter regardless because I'm simply not familiar with the topic enough. I am too ignorant of the topic to hold any valid opinion.

That's a very clear explanation.

In line with your argument: you are shifting the focus away from my criticism of you by focusing on an apparant logical fallacy that I made. It pushes me into defending myself personally, from my position, rather than the actual accusations being true or false. Therefore you are using an ad hominem*.

*Note: I don't think you are.

[Csihar]

Originally Posted by R Flair [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Search Results
ad ho·mi·nem
ˌad ˈhämənəm/
adverb & adjective
adverb: ad hominem; adjective: ad hominem

1.
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.




had you posted that same thing in an independent thread, yes it wouldn't have been an ad hominem but whether you like it or not, in the context of this thread, it was.


just stop

Poor argumentation. It's like trying to catch someone on a technicality. I will follow your advice to stop though.