decisions

[sheepshead]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzii4t7JlMk&eurl=http://ace.mu.nu/

[packinpatland]

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/261455

[sheepshead]

Trivial objections (also referred to as hair-splitting, nothing but objections, barrage of objections and banal objections) is an informal logical fallacy where irrelevant and sometimes frivolous objections are made to divert the attention away from the topic that is being discussed. This type of argument is called a "quibble" or "quillet". Trivial objections are a special case of red herring.

The fallacy often appears when an argument is difficult to oppose. The person making a trivial objection may appear ready to accept the argument in question, but at the same time they will oppose it in many different ways. These objections can appear in the form of lists, hypotheticals, and even accusations.

Such objections themselves may be valid, but they fail to confront the main argument under consideration. Instead, the objection opposes a small, irrelevant part of the main argument. The fallacy is committed because of this diversion; it is fallacious to oppose a point on the basis of minor and incidental aspects, rather than responding to the main claim.

[packinpatland]

Trivial objections (also referred to as hair-splitting, nothing but objections, barrage of objections and banal objections) is an informal logical fallacy where irrelevant and sometimes frivolous objections are made to divert the attention away from the topic that is being discussed. This type of argument is called a "quibble" or "quillet". Trivial objections are a special case of red herring.

The fallacy often appears when an argument is difficult to oppose. The person making a trivial objection may appear ready to accept the argument in question, but at the same time they will oppose it in many different ways. These objections can appear in the form of lists, hypotheticals, and even accusations.

Such objections themselves may be valid, but they fail to confront the main argument under consideration. Instead, the objection opposes a small, irrelevant part of the main argument. The fallacy is committed because of this diversion; it is fallacious to oppose a point on the basis of minor and incidental aspects, rather than responding to the main claim.

You so remind me of that great scene/quote from the Big Chill......

"Michael: I don't know anyone who could get through the day without two or three juicy rationalizations. They're more important than sex.
Sam Weber: Ah, come on. Nothing's more important than sex.
Michael: Oh yeah? Ever gone a week without a rationalization?"

[sheepshead]

That's good.

But you guys are obsessed with Palin, if she made 1/10 th of the Gaffes Biden's made she'd be out on a rail.

[mraynrand]

That's good.

But you guys are obsessed with Palin, if she made 1/10 th of the Gaffes Biden's made she'd be out on a rail.

No. They are totally objective. That cunt doesn't know anything. You just can't see it, probably because you are not president of the Senate. You'd be better off just masturbating when you look at her.

[sheepshead]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8m3AjBBfg4&eurl=http://www.redstate.com/

[HowardRoark]

That's good.

But you guys are obsessed with Palin, if she made 1/10 th of the Gaffes Biden's made she'd be out on a rail.

No. They are totally objective. That cunt doesn't know anything. You just can't see it, probably because you are not president of the Senate. You'd be better off just masturbating when you look at her.

That, and the fact that her daughter is a whore.

[sheepshead]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/27183176#27183176