Media Malpractice at March for Life

At the 2010 March for Life the media set new standards for journalistic fraud. [Get full video at www.thineeyes.org] In its lead photo, CNN showed five pro-abortion picketers, all that could be found, and ignored the 300,000 pro-life marchers. CNN's Rick Sanchez wondered out loud which group dominated. Newsweek claimed that most participants were in their 60's when, in fact, most were under 25. This video sets the record straight.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• March for Life
• media malpractice
• pro-life
• abortion
• CNN
• Newsweek

[payasoinfeliz]

@TheHardout2005 lol, you totally dont get what it is youre reading on that wiki page. its not enough to say humans are different/special because its generally accepted as a "rule."

[TheHardout2005]

@TheHardout2005 and not I. You see, you are trying to (going by wikipedia) cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule (that it is morally wrong to kill human beings). I, on the other hand, have not. I'm just applying the rule. Furthermore, I've given you a good reason why humans have moral value over beasts.

You have two options now: you can admit your fault, or keep digging yourself a hole. I will not pounce on you for being intellectually honest.

[TheHardout2005]

@payasoinfeliz Haha wow. What an incredible misunderstanding! Not only that, but you fail to see the position you've put yourself in. Having nowhere else to go, you have equated humans with beasts. By doing that, abortion is no longer morally wrong, and neither is rape, incest, other forms of murder, genocide, etc. After all - it's just on par with killing an animal, right? There's nothing special about humans, is there?

Now, special pleading is an example, in fact, of what you are doing CONT

[payasoinfeliz]

@TheHardout2005 no, it isnt--as i already explained to the other guy that tried to come to your defense. favoring one living thing over another just because its human is special pleading.

[TheHardout2005]

@payasoinfeliz I think you've committed many personal attacks against me - and that is what's called an ad hom. Now, I didn't necessarily claim they were fallacies, in the sense of you attacking me and not the argument (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt), but they are ad hom attacks.

As for special pleading, you think that claiming that humans have more moral value than beasts is a case of it. Who doesn't know what special pleading is, then?

[payasoinfeliz]

@carnivorousslushee23 baseless is crying ad hominem despite my having already addressed his arguments--ive been arguing with him for weeks. you shouldve had a wank instead of running in here like a virgin with a raging hard-on.

[carnivorousslushee23]

@payasoinfeliz An astute and impeccably reasoned reply. Might you mind presenting an argument instead of baselessly casting aspersions on my education? (Which, at least regarding philosophy and argument, seems to have been more comprehensive and/or effective than yours)

[payasoinfeliz]

@carnivorousslushee23 youre another guy who doesnt know what hes talking about. i hope you didnt pay for that education.

[carnivorousslushee23]

@payasoinfeliz Wrong. The ad hominem fallacy applies when you attack a person personally and not their argument, which is what you did. You implied that Hardout's arguments were useless and ought to be ignored because he "tell[s] lie[s]" and has no functioning brain. In other words, ad hominem.

Oh, and non sequitur is a specific fallacy; it applies to formal fallacies only. The ad hominem is not a formal fallacy; it's an example of a red herring.

Again, learn your philosophy before bloviating.

[payasoinfeliz]

@carnivorousslushee23 no, bro. fallacies are when conclusions do not follow from premises given in an argument. an ad hominem fallacy would be something like, "you like to eat nutella, therefore, your argument on us foreign policy is wrong." non sequitur. all fallacies are non sequiturs. common mistake. its not an ad hominem just to make fun of someone or call them names.