POLL: Simple Question

[duke_john]

You're a typical, cowardly liberal, 1965Hawks, too afraid to take a stand when the dnc doesn't tell you what to think.

[1965hawks]

You're a typical, cowardly liberal, 1965Hawks, too afraid to take a stand when the dnc doesn't tell you what to think.

Calling me a cowardly liberal doesn't change the fact that you're too stupid to spot the fallacy in Jivin' Jim's phoney poll.

[Jim]

Calling me a cowardly liberal doesn't change the fact that you're too stupid to spot the fallacy in Jivin' Jim's phoney poll.
 
If you think my poll is incorrect then why don't you reword it for me?
 

[1965hawks]

Jim,
 
I've already pointed out the logical fallacy in the wording of your question--your use of an undefined term--and someone else pointed out the logical fallacy of demanding a single yes or no response to a question with more than one possible answer. And if (or when) you rephrase your question, make sure it isn't an argumentative question, like it is now.
 
 

[duke_john]

Come on, Hawks, find something from Mad magazine to prove how Jim's simple question, to which you can qualify your answer, is a bad one.

[1965hawks]

Mad Magazine, huh?
 
Since you couldn't spot the logic fallacy of ambiguity in Jivin' Jim's survey question, it's not surprising that you're using another logic fallacy here--the Appeal to Ridicule, in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence. But, needless to say, your mockery doesn't provide any evidence to refute my argument that Jivin' Jim's use of the ambiguous term "properly vetted" in the survey question makes the results of his so-called poll meaningless.
 
Go back and try again, dj.
 
 
 
 
 
 

[duke_john]

You call the board's moderator "Jivin' Jim" and accuse me of appealing to ridicule?

Hell, no, I'm just telling the truth about the way you operate.

[1965hawks]

You call the board's moderator "Jivin' Jim" and accuse me of appealing to ridicule?

Hell, no, I'm just telling the truth about the way you operate.

And I'm telling the truth about the way this board's "moderator" acts--just like when I call you DUMBO_john.

[duke_john]

I'm telling the truth about you when I call you 666ChickenShit.

You can answer a simple question posed by Jim and add any qualifier you wish, or just look like the chicken shit moron you are.

[Jim]

Jim,
 
I've already pointed out the logical fallacy in the wording of your question--your use of an undefined term--and someone else pointed out the logical fallacy of demanding a single yes or no response to a question with more than one possible answer. And if (or when) you rephrase your question, make sure it isn't an argumentative question, like it is now.

 
The question is straight forward as it stands.  "Should "Anyone" in (or applying for) a High Level Position - Be Vetted? "

You can vote Yes or No, or you can vote Yes or No and add a qualifyer.  Its that simple. 

OR you can do as I asked.  YOU reword it. Why are you afraid to even do that?
 
 

[duke_john]

You know that answer: he is too chickenshit to do otherwise.

[1965hawks]

Jim,

I've already pointed out the logical fallacy in the wording of your question--your use of an undefined term--and someone else pointed out the logical fallacy of demanding a single yes or no response to a question with more than one possible answer. And if (or when) you rephrase your question, make sure it isn't an argumentative question, like it is now.


The question is straight forward as it stands.  "Should "Anyone" in (or applying for) a High Level Position - Be Vetted? "

You can vote Yes or No, or you can vote Yes or No and add a qualifyer.  Its that simple. 

OR you can do as I asked.  YOU reword it. Why are you afraid to even do that?

Jivin' Jim,
 
The "straightf forward question" you just asked is not your original question. The original question asked if someone should be properly vetted. But when I asked what you meant by being "properly" vetted, you could not define "properly vetted." Thus, the obvious question was this: How could the results of your so-called poll be accurate if the survey question included an ambiguous term? I argued that the result of your "poll" would be meaningless, because the survey question was meaningless. Your illogical reply was that the poll's respondants could use their own definition for "properly vetted." I pointed out that allowing respondents to define the ambiguous term as they saw fit would make the result of your "poll" even more inaccurate and even more meaningless. (The logical fallacy of ambiguity)
 
Respondants to your original question could only answer "yes" or "no." But I (and another discussant) pointed out that the survey question itself was a compilation of several questions, and, therefore, could not be answered with a simple yes or no. (The logical fallcy of the false choice)
 
I (and others) pointed out that your original survey question is based on logical fallacies. But rather than appreciate the benefits of being able to change one's mind through better understanding, your response (of course) was to invent ways to cling to your debunked belief that your original survey question is logically sound. So you moved the goalposts (attempting to rephrase the original survey question every time it was shown to be a fallacy of logic) and made up an exception (discussants can use their own definition of "properly vetted") when the premiss of your original survey question was shown to be false. (The logical fallacy of special pleading)
 
Now you've presented yet another attempt to rewrite your original survey question. You think you've corrected it by omitting the ambiguous term "properly," but your lack of communication skills (reading comprehension and clear, concise writing) has failed you again. Your latest revision moves the goalposts again. Go back and try again.