US Presidential Election Poll

[DHKold]

Knowledge production is inherently political. You cannot produce knowledge without being political.

Well, like everything related to citizen. That's the root of the word "politics"

[Ace Rimmer]

So, since we're (supposed to be) talking about the Presidential race... How will Sandy and it's aftermath affect the results?

[xander]

The guy gives 30% of his income.

http://www.salon.com/2012/10/31/how_rom ... _tax_bill/

xander

[Ace Rimmer]

Ah, now you're just pulling one story from one tabloid, expecting us to believe them.

[Feud]

The guy gives 30% of his income.

http://www.salon.com/2012/10/31/how_rom ... _tax_bill/

In other words, he neither broke the law nor contributed to the trust in twelves years, during which time he donated tens of millions of dollars to charity.

[xander]

The guy gives 30% of his income.

http://www.salon.com/2012/10/31/how_rom ... _tax_bill/

In other words, he neither broke the law nor contributed to the trust in twelves years, during which time he donated tens of millions of dollars to charity.

So your notion of moral is "doesn't break the law?"

xander

[Feud]

I did not say that. Do you know something of his motivations, use of the gain from it, or any other material fact that speaks to an immoral purpose? In otherwords, what are you accusing him of, and what is your evidence?

[xander]

I did not say that. Do you know something of his motivations, use of the gain from it, or any other material fact that speaks to an immoral purpose? In otherwords, what are you accusing him of, and what is your evidence?

You asserted that Romney is a good leader in part because he is a moral person, and claimed as evidence of his morality is charitable giving. Here is an instance where Romney is, on paper, making a charitable donation. However, the mechanism through which he is making this donation profit him more than the charitable organization. This is not the act of an ethical or moral person. It also underlines the very real possibility that the majority of Romney's giving is not done out of strength of character, but out of a avarice.

xander

[AIRburst95]

I did not say that. Do you know something of his motivations, use of the gain from it, or any other material fact that speaks to an immoral purpose? In otherwords, what are you accusing him of, and what is your evidence?

What your're doing

What he asked : So your notion of moral is "doesn't break the law?"

[Feud]

I did not say that. Do you know something of his motivations, use of the gain from it, or any other material fact that speaks to an immoral purpose? In otherwords, what are you accusing him of, and what is your evidence?

You asserted that Romney is a good leader in part because he is a moral person, and claimed as evidence of his morality is charitable giving. Here is an instance where Romney is, on paper, making a charitable donation. However, the mechanism through which he is making this donation profit him more than the charitable organization. This is not the act of an ethical or moral person. It also underlines the very real possibility that the majority of Romney's giving is not done out of strength of character, but out of a avarice.

One instance of conduct, that is not illegal, and arguably isn't immoral even if it was done for investment and not charitable reasons, does not suggest that a majority of a lifetime of giving is done out of avarice. Numerous people use charitable donations for tax purposes, it's why Salvation Army and virtually every other charity of note will give you a receipt when you donate if you so desire.

What your're doing

What he asked : So your notion of moral is "doesn't break the law?"

I answered him, then responded with a question. That's not an ad hominem attack. An ad hominem attack would be me saying that your responses are silly, and demonstrate a lack of understanding of the material and foresight. But I'm not saying that.

[AIRburst95]

I answered him

Sure you did. Just like the answer to the question "whats 2+2=?" could be "yes"

[Feud]

Not that I agree with that interpretation of what happened, but even if I did, answering "yes" to "what's 2+2" and then asking for clarification of a previous statement is not an ad hominem attack.

[AIRburst95]

Not that I agree with that interpretation of what happened, but even if I did, answering "yes" to "what's 2+2" and then asking for clarification of a previous statement is not an ad hominem attack.

"what's 2+2?"

"yes, what evidence do you have that 2+2 equals anything anyway? whats your proof huh?"

This is not an attack on the person himself, however lets replace "yes" with

So your notion of moral is "doesn't break the law?"

I did not say that. Do you know something of his motivations, use of the gain from it, or any other material fact that speaks to an immoral purpose? In otherwords, what are you accusing him of, and what is your evidence?

note how you A didn't answer the question and B attacked his evidence on romneys stance on morality without telling your stance
[/quote]

[Feud]

This is getting funny.

First, slow down some, maybe edit a bit.

Next, I did answer his question. I just didn't give the type of answer you wanted. His question was asking about a point I was not making, and one that I have never advocated. I felt no reason to pursue that line of questioning.

Third, attacking evidence is not an ad hominem attack. An ad homminem attack is a personal attack, questioning evidence is fundamental to critical discussion and thought.

Fourth, I've already told my stance on Romney's morality, which xander directly quoted.

Anything else?

[NeatNit]

Not that I agree with that interpretation of what happened, but even if I did, answering "yes" to "what's 2+2" and then asking for clarification of a previous statement is not an ad hominem attack.

"what's 2+2?"

"yes, what evidence do you have that 2+2 equals anything anyway? whats your proof huh?"

This is not an attack on the person himself, however lets replace "yes" with

So your notion of moral is "doesn't break the law?"

I did not say that. Do you know something of his motivations, use of the gain from it, or any other material fact that speaks to an immoral purpose? In otherwords, what are you accusing him of, and what is your evidence?

note how you A didn't answer the question and B attacked his evidence on romneys stance on morality without telling your stance

someone gonna get stabb[size=0]iti[/size]ed