Get off my property

[Redleg]

Redleg, you are a real piece of work. Are you and Fred Phelps related by any chance?

The pot calling the Kettle Black - lots of fun there. I know who my relatives are - can you say the same thing. Notice how you are calling me a piece of work - when you fit more in that category then I. Have a nice day with your feeling superior.

Until now, any statements which I've made in this thread against others have been made indirectly at no one in particular, except in the case of some politicians, and a drunk yahoo in a pickup. That means they can't, by definition, be ad hominem attacks; because they weren't used against someone else in the debate. You, on the other hand, have called me and others hypocrites directly as well as other directed personal attacks. That is ad hominem. Perhaps you need to look up the meaning of the phrase.

Actually again - you might want to check definations. You made a rant - an emotional appeal - which I responded to. The emotional appeal ie the rant was directed at others within this forum - inother words it was an ad hominem arguement . Here let me refer to your words exactly, which you posted here in the .Org - knowing that President Bush, and others are not reading posts here, but members of the .Org Community. So by ranting here you are ranting at members of the .Org Community.

As a disabled vet, I feel it should be mandatory for all able-bodied jingoistic, slogan-mouthing, war-loving, pseudo-patriotic, nationalistic, flag-draped chicken hawks to get their butts down to the local recruiter and join up. Tell them you want to be a scout in the Army or a forward observer in the Marines. If you're a pro-war American of the right age, then shut up and put your life where your mouth is. Or you could just be a 5 time deferment like Dick Cheney and just send other people off to die for your oil. What are you waiting for? Go on! We're waiting...

Yeah, I didn't think so.

Now lets see Panzer supports the war - and by his own words can not enlist because of medicial reason. So are you addressing it at him. Again try checking out how the defination came about and what it means.

I realize that you just don't get the difference; because you also seem to think my comments about chicken hawks were directed at you, in spite of my very specific categorization, into which you don't fall. I even went out of my way to exclude Rumsfeld as a chicken hawk when he was mentioned; because he doesn't fit the definition. As for the rest, your defensive attitude speaks pretty eloquently all by itself. I don't need to make accusations while you're chewing on your own logical toenails with both feet planted firmly in your mouth.

Please feel free to include yourself in that comment. Again you made a rant - an emotional appeal - then attempt to claim the high ground when you yourself are at fault. Notice in your orginal rant - quoted above to refresh your memory - that you did not exclude Rumsfeld - you actually were including all here in the .Org because of the language you used. Again an emotional appeal arguement - which indeed is an ad hominem arguement.

Since you seem to be confused on what an ad hominem arguement is - here let me help you understand.

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument to the man"), is a logical fallacy that involves replying to an argument or assertion by addressing the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself.

The initial phase and using the label of Chickenhawk does indeed fit the description of ad hominem where are you attacking the people who support or arueme for the war with Iraq, not the arguement concerning the war. However you are attacking those who support (the Man) the war (the arguement).

Futhermore in your rant - which is ad hominem you meet one of the criteria for it to be such an arguement.

Ad hominem circumstantial involves pointing out that someone is in circumstances such that he or she is disposed to take a particular position. Essentially, circumstantial ad hominem constitutes an attack on the bias of a person. The reason that this is fallacious is that it simply does not make one's opponent's arguments, from a logical point of view, any less credible to point out that one's opponent is disposed to argue that way. Such arguments are not necessarily irrational, but are not correct in strict logic. This illustrates one of the differences between rationality and logic.

Now who has their foot in their mouth.

Here's the definition for chicken hawk by WordSpy.com:

chicken hawk (CHIK.un.hawk) n. A person who now advocates war but who once took special measures to avoid military service.

Again try reading the defination provided by Wikepedia - it includes more spefics along the lines of what Chichenhawk means - well besides being a bird of prey . Then again how can any member of .Org be shown to take special measure at avoiding going to war - since most here are young. Again you made a rant - an emotional appeal directed at who knows what - but one must assume it was at the general audience of the .Org since you posted it here verus somewhere else.

Do you see a specific requirement that it be politicians in that definition. I've been exacting in more than one post about my usage of the phrase. and yet, others, yourself included, got your panties in a wad and took offense at something that wasn't even directed at you in the first place. But if you're going to claim that something is tailored to fit you, then you'd best be prepared to like the cut.

No I saw your little post for what it was - a rant. However don't let that distract you from taking pot shots at others for calling you on the rant. Actually try reading the Wikipedia one - it gives a spefic defination. And again look at your own provided defination. Who here in the .Org meets the conditions to be a "Chickenhawk."

Now, if your defensiveness over the phrase, which can't be because of the above definition, is instead the result of some pent up emotional distress because you fit one of the other definitions of the phrase, then I suppose we had best hope you have feathers and can fly.

Maybe so - but you first. Maybe its because I recoginzed your rant for what it was - and decided to play a little logic game with you. I am not the most intelligent person in the world - but I recoginzed your rant for what it was. To bad you didn't.

The above post is an ad hominem argument. It is used to directly attack another person in a debate. Behavior in which you've chosen to behave in this thread by specifically insulting other posters. Would you like it explained to you again? I'll be more than happy to further enlighten you.

No - I understand it very well - maybe you need to understand what the nature of your initial rant is - an attempt to demonize those who you disagree with. You placed a label on people in which disagree with you - not because of who they are - but because of opinions they express on an internet forum. Those people who might meet the defination of "Chickenhawk" are few and far between. Now if you would of stated in the Rant that Bush, and several politicans where chickenhawks - I would of just chalked it up to another baised opinion because you disagree with the war with Iraq - however since you made it a general rant direct at the general audience of the .Org - I called it what it was and still is - nothing more then an ad hominem arguement directed at members of the .Org who do not agree with your politics or postion.