Comments on: Where there’s smoke there’s fire

By: Bencard

Bencard — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 21:55:40 +0000

cvj, except your homespun “naghahanap ng kakampi”, you must be using wikipedia too much. it fits your level.

By: cvj

cvj — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 10:02:37 +0000

bencard, while we're at it, your comment above (June 2nd, 2007 at 9:57 pm) is argumentum ad hominem at the one that follows (at June 2nd, 2007 at 10:19 pm) is naghahanap ng kakampi.

By: Bencard

Bencard — Sat, 02 Jun 2007 14:19:48 +0000

“ignoratio elenchi” – the label cvj tags DJB’s argument with in a subsequent thread.

By: Bencard

Bencard — Sat, 02 Jun 2007 13:57:05 +0000

cvj, the way i see it, you are a master of using perjorative labels whose meaning you can research but which your intellect cannot grasp. sometimes you even invoke latin classification of spurious argument (as what you accused DJB of using in a succeeding thread) which you often rely on to wiggle out of an untenable point of view. too bad, this is only a free-wheeling blog and there,s no sanction for such transgression (not even shame because of the shield of anonymity).

By: cvj

cvj — Sat, 02 Jun 2007 07:49:33 +0000

Bencard, i’d refer you back to my comment above (June 1st, 2007 at 11:53 pm).

By: Bencard

Bencard — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 22:20:33 +0000

cvj, you have to have your eyes check, if not your head. you are reading something that isn’t there. you define “red herring” as irrelevant argument. i’m asking you: what argument did i advance on this thread? just answer the question then we can quit this childish exchange.

By: cvj

cvj — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 20:43:42 +0000

Bencard, to clarify, on this thread it’s still a Red Herring. It’s on the next thread where your comment is run-of-the-mill whiney. To repeat, the irrelevance has to do with your attacking the messenger(s) and not the message which should be the proper topic of discussion.

By: Bencard

Bencard — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 19:47:47 +0000

cvj, what in my post in question constitute an irrelevant “argument”. i was commenting on the “silence” of the usual “advocates of freedom” in this blog to what is happening in chavez’ venezuela wherein i asked about the reason for such silence. where is the “irrelevant” argument that you and your ilk call “red herring” (which now you have pompously upgraded to “run-of-the-mill whiney”?

By: cvj

cvj — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 15:55:46 +0000

sorry for the unclosed italics.

By: cvj

cvj — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 15:53:54 +0000

Red Herring is defined (in Wikipedia) as “a type of logical fallacy in which one purports to prove one’s point by means of irrelevant arguments”. It is a red herring on two levels. On one level, it can easily be seen that Hugo Chavez’s actions in Venezuela have nothing to do with Gloria’s actions here in the Philippines. They can both be despicable in their own ways. On another level, your accusation of the alleged (and subsequently disproven) ‘deafening silence’ on the part of Gloria’s critics is just another attempt to focus the discussion away from Gloria to matters of secondary concern (i.e. the commenters themselves). At both levels, your introduction of this topic, in this thread can be labeled a red herring in that it attempts to distract from the main subject of discussion.

Of course, since Manolo himself brought up the topic on the subsequent thread, your comments over there as far as this topic is concerned have improved from being a red herring, to being just run-of-the-mill whiny.