Again, while an accurate characterization of "Appeal to Authority" it is an inaccurate use of that fallacy.

It is legitimate to question an "authority" when that "authority" is being invoked to support of a debate.



Ohhhh?

Anyone can publish something. That's a fact.

With the right marketing and name recognition, it can even sell. Look at all the books "written" by celebrities who write simply to "write a book". Look at diet books written by people with no knowledge of nutrition. In fact....you can some it up quite easily with Bush's quote: "You can fool some of the people all the time. Those are the one's you need to concentrate on."

Let me fix it for you - I understand that as an irrational member of the right, you have trouble understanding the difference between fallacies and legitimate queries:


#1What are this guys credentials that I should take his word over that of established historians and political scientists on this subject...

#2Well, he's written a book on the subject...and besides all those historians and political scientists are fascist biased leftwingers.


Now, isn't that what you really meant?

Not at all. Please refer to my comment above: anyone can publish.

It's a fallacy to assume there is automatically a link between writing a book and knowledge of one's subject. A simple look at all the garbage masquerading around as literature ought to tell you that.

Nope. The facts are down on the table and you are unable to show that fascism is leftwing except by distorting the definitions of right and left and invoking Goldberg...."Goldberg says..." etc.


I hope that helps...

__________________

I'm a leftwing fascist, disease spreading, devil worshipper!

I don't think that nothing serves liberty like massive federal entitlements. In fact I am quite convinced you have no idea what my political opinions are. This thread is the only interaction we have had. I actually have a very strong libertarian streak in me.

But you would assume things about me with no knowledge about what you are talking about, because you are a fascist. Just like all other right-wingers, fascists the whole lot of you. The destruction that you and your lot have created with your time machine is disgusting.

I have now won this argument with my brilliant time machine analogy. I accept your concession speech, which you have already given in my mind, happily and with great honor.

I am now planning on stealing the republican's time machine and using it to bring back stalin. The obvious hero of all the leftists in the world, including me. Another leftist hero is hitler, since he was obviously a left-wing fascist, we all love him. I think I am going to bring him back too. I will take hitler and stalin to couples therapy to work out their differences. Hopefully by the end of the session, the 2 will go to Massachusetts and get married. Since gay marriage is the ultimate goal of all leftists.

Non sequitur!

__________________
R.I.P. Molly, I miss you every day!!

Im a Tarte, what! you want some of this?


To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. Thomas Paine

Yep... That's a non sequitur alright. Congrats... ya nailed one.

I do hope you realize, that was a joke!! In fact, except for the first part, it was all a parody of 1 of your posts!!!!!!! Fun isn't it?

__________________
R.I.P. Molly, I miss you every day!!

Im a Tarte, what! you want some of this?


To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. Thomas Paine

Ok Thanks... that's all I was waiting for. You claimed that your query was merely to establish the author's authority... << Don't look at that, it's not going to help you. (Author... authority... AUTHOR.... AUTHORITY... Oh nooo, that can't be good! But I digress.)

Anywho... so you advanced an innocent query to determine the authority of Goldberg. I advance the theory that this query is a last desperate attempt to distract from Goldberg's argument and your chosen means was to cast doubts on his authority... that you were running a multifaceted fallacious attack of the person bringing the argument, through an appeal to authority; in this case appealing to the projected authority of those that support you... and then pointed out that Goldberg was an AUTHOR on this subject and that as a general rule, AUTHORS were considered AUTHORITIES on their relevant subjects...


But... alas... you've run to deny it... and in doing so you prove my point by rejecting the authority of an author.


Goldberg doesn't even attempt to indict you people as little Eichmanns... he merely points out the indisputable history of Fascism and that this history is leftwing from soup to liberal. To which all you've managed to bring in contest of that is Mussolini didn't gut Italian industry by "cleansing" the culture of the bourgeois capitalists... as Rousseau did in the Terror following the French Revolution and as Lenin did following the Bolshevik uprising; and as Stalin did in the passing of Lenin, only the Bourgeois then were just socialists that were not crazy about his new job as Supreme Soviet... And as Mao did when he was voted most likely to murder 100 million Chinese Socialists who just wouldn't LISTEN!

So Mussolini MUST BE A RIGHT WINGER...

This despite the indisputable fact that Mussolini was a vociferous socialist his entire life, leading the Italian Socialist movement for over 25 years and was the equivalent of an Socialist Rock-star for most of the early 20th century, whereupon shortly thereafter he became a Fascist Rock-star... As Editor of Avanti! Mussolini was an even more widely known leftwing version of Rush Limbaugh in his day... all you can bring is 'Mussolini didn't run the Catholic Church out of the Italy, like Lenin, Stalin, Mao and the other socialists did...' and wouldn't let the Socialist vote... SO HE MUST HAVE BEEN A RIGHT WINGER...


It doesn't matter WHO Goldberg is... what matter is WHAT Goldberg said.

Now I hope you don't think ill of me by my pointing out that HAD YOU FOUND A VALID CONTEST OF WHAT GOLDBERG SAID<<< YOU WOULDN'T NOW BE INTERESTED IN WHO HE IS...

Well yeah... It's a joke alright... but sadly, the hilarity is found in your inability to recognize a non sequitur when you write one. But I will say, if you do not cease this pathetic litany of denials it will soon turn quite sad...

Ignorance is nothing to be ashamed of Frodster... except where one refuses to sweep it out... Frod, you're intellectual house is a mess... grab a broom.

How dare you insult my intellectual house!!! You're lucky you aren't here or my intellectual house would punch you in the face!! My intellectual house is one of the toughest intellectual houses around!!

And actually the hilarity is found in my posts! I especially liked the one where I claimed that republicans killed Jesus, Ghandi, and martin luther king with a time machine they invented in 1993. Or that I would use that same time machine to get hitler and stalin gay married, since that IS the goal of all liberals!!

__________________
R.I.P. Molly, I miss you every day!!

Im a Tarte, what! you want some of this?


To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. Thomas Paine

So...tell me...is Brittany Spears an authority on children since she wrote a children's book?

The topic is "Liberal Fascism" and the author of it. You apparently feel he is some kind of "authority". At the same time you apparently feel that the views of other historians and political scientists that hold a differing opinion are not valid. You question their "authority" by the act of labeling them "leftist fascists".

So, now you are saying it is inappropriate or fallacious to question upon what does this Goldberg's "authority" rest?

I think it's perfectly appropriate. I think it's interesting that rather than answering the question you rant on and on about it.


To query is not to reject.

That's all just a bunch of bombastic rightwing verbage that still manages to evade the query.


blah blah blah blah

Quite correct. Numerous examples have been previously given that show many of his policies have rightwing characteristics...well, that is unless we use your sharply truncated version of what constitutes "rightwing".

I presented the valid contest. It's not my fault you keep ignoring it.


I think the reviewer I quoted earlier summed it up quite well:

__________________

I'm a leftwing fascist, disease spreading, devil worshipper!

ROFLMNAO... Oh GOD! Now that's precious...

Do I really need to explain what children’s books are? Are you really ignorant of the fact that 'children’s books' are books written FOR children, not one reporting ABOUT children? DO you really believe that B. Spears has advanced a book offering conclusions which stem from her analysis of Children?

LOL… how old you Coy? I mean… REALLY? <<<PERSONAL ATTACK.

Let's just go back over this elementary problem once more...

Author... Authority. Authority... Author. <<< Anything registering? Anything at all?



Ahh... so the best you can do is attack the person, in the total absence of a valid argument wherein the argument he brings is contested?

Hey, that's fine... It's what leftist DO!


I'm saying your query is not valid because you already know he is a person who has studied the relevant subject matter and published his conclusions. Your query is not legitimate. This is not a circumstance where the conclusion has been advanced and the individual responsible for it sourced, where one could reasonably question: Who is the Jonah Goldberg, who has advanced this conclusion? Answer: He's a historian who published a book on the subject.

At that point the authority has been established. You're question answered. You're free at that very point to begin to attack his conclusion... Your problem is you tried that and failed; so now you have to attack the author bringing the argument. It's classic leftwing distraction...
I think it's perfectly appropriate. I think it's interesting that rather than answering the question you rant on and on about it.


False. Ya see if this were true, you wouldn't have ended up here. Ya see Coy you've already advanced a collasal failure, which inevitably landed you here clawing ad homs... but questioning the authority.

Great example of your failure... It demonstrates your obtuse style and your complete lack of substance. BRAVO! (Folks I don't know him and I am not paying him to say these things...)


Ahh more demonstration? Well that's fine! Great work here...

To the point however, you're saying that 'if we define rightwing to include leftwing, then Mussolini can readily be seen as a right-winger? In other words, you desperately need to focus on precisely what I described above; wherein Mussolini was not an international socialists, thus he was a Right-winger...

Hmm... I see what you're saying. But what you don't seem to be capable of accepting is that defining leftwing traits as rightwing, purely because the differ slightly with some preferred leftist model is basically how you girls revised history and THAT IS THE POINT OF THIS BOOK! There are no leftwing 'rightwing traits.'

See your problem is you confuse the moderate, independent, centrist, progressives who lend lip service to liberty but spend most of their time advocating leftism to 'improve liberty.' These people (you people) aren't right-wingers... They're leftists without the courage to commit.

No, Coy... ya didn't. What you advanced was fallacious nonsense wherein you declare that because Mussolini was not approved by the Communist Party, he was a right winger. Not being approved by the communist party does not a right-winger make... Not erasing all sense of private ownership does not make one a right winger... Disallowing the means of one’s enemy to cast a ballot to oust one, does not make one a right-winger.

Perhaps Coy; but you exhibit very little evidence of it.<<<PERSONAL ATTACK.

Actually, it is what you do! You have attacked every source I have offered! this really is the most hypocritical argument in the world! It is the argument of some one who completely lacks self awareness! I have offered half a dozen definitions of fascism and liberalism, which completely undermine your argument, and you responded to every one by attacking the source! You are a funny character Pubi my love, I can't imagine how your mind works!

__________________
R.I.P. Molly, I miss you every day!!

Im a Tarte, what! you want some of this?


To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. Thomas Paine