Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: False Accusations

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    3,525

    False Accusations

    Arch angel is accusing me falsely of saying he argued something he did not.

    http://www.4forums.com/political/sho...8&postcount=38

    He is claiming that he never argued that printing large sums of money and throwing it into the economy doesn't raise inflation.

    However, he stated the following about my argument which directly argued that Reagan's policies which flooded the market with currency extended inflation:

    And as usual you must support your ignorant and fact-less arguments with insults and attacks on my intelligence in order to buffer the shear stupidity of your claims
    http://www.4forums.com/political/sho...0&postcount=11

    Therefore, Arch is wrong in his accusation as he directly stated that my argument which was that flooding market with currency raises inflation was WRONG. Therefore he must believe the opposite, that flooding the market with currency doesn't cause inflation to rise.
    "You are, of course, free to make your own calls on how much rationality you want to impose upon yourself." - Kronus

  2. #2
    Archangel Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by obvious_child View Post
    Arch angel is accusing me falsely of saying he argued something he did not.

    http://www.4forums.com/political/sho...8&postcount=38

    He is claiming that he never argued that printing large sums of money and throwing it into the economy doesn't raise inflation.

    However, he stated the following about my argument which directly argued that Reagan's policies which flooded the market with currency extended inflation:

    http://www.4forums.com/political/sho...0&postcount=11

    Therefore, Arch is wrong in his accusation as he directly stated that my argument which was that flooding market with currency raises inflation was WRONG. Therefore he must believe the opposite, that flooding the market with currency doesn't cause inflation to rise.
    Why do you quote statements I make that have absolutely nothing to do with the claim being made? And here is the meat of what i said in post #11, where do I say anything at all about printing money, or not printing money at all? Once again you dishonestly attribute statements to me that i never even made.

    Quote Originally Posted by AA post11
    And as usual you must support your ignorant and fact-less arguments with insults and attacks on my intelligence in order to buffer the shear stupidity of your claims. Reagan lowered taxes on the middle and lower income wage earners, while raising the taxes on the rich who paid the majority of the taxes each year. And as usual you have preferential memories where inflation and your so called stagflation exists because our Economy under Reagan was the strongest that it had been in decade.

    What your parents will remind you of kiddy boy is that it was under Carter, the President that preceded Reagan who drove the PRIME INTEREST RATE UP TO 21%. ARE YOU CAPABLE OF FIGURING OUT WHAT THAT MEANS LITTLE CHILD?
    Where did I say that Reagan never printed money? It wasn't even an issue in my argument because I was focussing on the fact that Reagan turned a depressed economy around that Carter and 40 years of Democratic Congressional tax and spend domination had created. That is an historical fact whether you like it or not.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,660
    I get the feeling sometimes that me (and perhaps a few others) helped inspire this new forum. So first off I'd like to say I hope to frequent this forum and make decisions about these kinds of things (granted I have no authority ha).

    So I have reviewed this "case" and I have some background behind it from that forum topic.

    obvious_child is claiming that Archangel is "is accusing [obvious_child] falsely of saying he argued something he did not." In this obvious_child means that Archangel is claiming he never made a certain argument and therefore obvious_child is making fallacious arguments and is "trolling".

    The facts here from the linked posts (and only the linked posts) are that obvious_child didn't have the argument as direct as "which directly argued that Reagan's policies which flooded the market with currency extended inflation" but this does seem to be a good summary of the argument being made. Archangel then refuted this with by claiming Reagan did lower taxes and went out to continue the bickering among you two.

    Basically those are the only two things that matter here. It seem very obvious at this point that obvious_child was arguing one point and Archangel responded to another. Obvious_child was emphasizing that inflation was the result of Reagan's policies while Archangel took it a level above that to assume obvious_child was just arguing Reagan's polices were bad overall. Archangel responded with saying Reagan's policies did x,y, and z instead of addressing what obvious_child wanted the argument to be. Because of this it doesn't really seem like Obvious_child's complaint holds up given the two linked posts.

    Now I have read some of the thread on this and obvious_child has asked numerous times what Archangel thinks about this. Archangel hasn't responded well to the direct question and if Archangel didn't say or imply those things then one would only need to say "you misunderstood what I was saying" when the question first came up. Instead we got a threatening post from Archangel which was fallacious by itself in that it was not trolling but a true example of someone who might of misunderstood your position and you just never tried to clear the water.

    It seems both of you are getting way to bitter in arguments which lends themselves to "False Accusations" or fallacies. Archangel, you have been making a habit of this while obvious_child seems to be more sucked into it as opposed to it being a normal debate method. Perhaps you should both be big about it and stop terrible arguments like "ARE YOU CAPABLE OF FIGURING OUT WHAT THAT MEANS LITTLE CHILD? ".

    Hope this helps

  4. #4
    Archangel Guest
    Unfortunately steeve, you're not helping at all. You seem to be missing a few facts which makes me question your objectivity. For example, in his first post on that thread, this is his approach to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by child
    It just stupid and malevolent. Here's a great big hint: not understanding economics and not fact checking leads to particularly BAD arguments.
    Quote Originally Posted by child
    Your argument is as always, based on ignorance and a serious lack of education.
    Quote Originally Posted by child
    Perhaps if you got a education, your arguments wouldn't be historically full of ####?
    And this doesn't even deal with the fact that every claim he made about Reagan was wrong and really applied to the Carter administration. Now why don't you notice that every single one of his and his boyfriends posts are littered with similar insults before I have even responded to one post of theirs in any given debate, just as in that debate.

    I don't start out attacking these punks, I just respond to them as they insult and attack my intelligence before I have even said anything to them directly on a debate yet. Here's his first post in that thread. Now follow the debate and you will see that he demands answers from me about issues I never even raised, with threats if I don't answer him. That is the very definition of trolling. Can you tell I'm angry steeeeve?

    http://www.4forums.com/political/sho...5&postcount=10

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,660
    Quote Originally Posted by Archangel View Post
    And this doesn't even deal with the fact that every claim he made about Reagan was wrong and really applied to the Carter administration. Now why don't you notice that every single one of his and his boyfriends posts are littered with similar insults before I have even responded to one post of theirs in any given debate, just as in that debate.
    The question was NOT regarding the strength of argument or who is bickering more but whether or not you falsely accused obvious_child of something. The answer, in my opinion, is no because it seemed to be mistaken understanding by both parties.

    This forum is for you to prove you didn't do something in a specific instance. Not about who is going to win the argument.

  6. #6
    Archangel Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve View Post
    The question was NOT regarding the strength of argument or who is bickering more but whether or not you falsely accused obvious_child of something. The answer, in my opinion, is no because it seemed to be mistaken understanding by both parties.

    This forum is for you to prove you didn't do something in a specific instance. Not about who is going to win the argument.
    That's Fine about what this forum is designed to accomplish, but if you're going to claim to be an objective observer and define the debate we were having, then i would appreciate some objective accuracy by pointing out childs original attack and my response to him, rather than just pointing out my statement to child as you did at the end of your post above.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    4,930
    Quote Originally Posted by Archangel View Post
    That's Fine about what this forum is designed to accomplish, but if you're going to claim to be an objective observer and define the debate we were having, then i would appreciate some objective accuracy by pointing out childs original attack and my response to him, rather than just pointing out my statement to child as you did at the end of your post above.
    Steeeeve's and my job is not to defend or help any one's position; it's to make sure things stay on track. It's up to you to point out any flaws in OC argument, if such exist.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,660
    Quote Originally Posted by Archangel View Post
    That's Fine about what this forum is designed to accomplish, but if you're going to claim to be an objective observer and define the debate we were having, then i would appreciate some objective accuracy by pointing out childs original attack and my response to him, rather than just pointing out my statement to child as you did at the end of your post above.
    I asked you both to stop the bickering... I just happen to use your attack as an example. Stay on track and either respond to the accusation or don't post.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    3,525
    There's a argument that Archangel didn't actually understand what I wrote and thus in his normal kneejerk reaction called everything I wrote "stupid" "factless" and "ignorant." However, his deliberate avoidance of just admitting he did this would seem to indicate that he indeed mean that all of my arguments were "stupid" "factless" and "ignorant."

    Since as you stated that I summed up my argument well and that AA called those arguments ""stupid" "factless" and "ignorant" my point is correct that he is indeed making a false accusation.

    And he didn't refute anything. He was quite wrong on numerous parts, particularly arguing that Reagan taxed the rich more, along with alleged repeal of non-existent taxes, and the extent of volcker's war on inflation.

    true example of someone who might of misunderstood your position and you just never tried to clear the water.
    I entirely disagree with this. If that was true, he would have not only mentioned he never meant that in the thread where Daewoo is currently grinding AA into powder, but he would have stated so the first time I asked him that question.

    He DIRECTLY stated that my position of Reagan's fiscal policies and how they related to inflation were wrong.

    How is that wrong to assume that since he stated my position was wrong that the opposite is true?
    "You are, of course, free to make your own calls on how much rationality you want to impose upon yourself." - Kronus

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,660
    I still believe my original assessment is correct given the links you posted (and nothing more).

    I only look at the claim you posted and as such I find that it was a more of a misunderstanding among parties. Whether this was complete ignorance by one party is irrelevant to me and while I agree you were not "trolling" it doesn't seem like AA did a completely false accusation.

    You could also state it as AA didn't flat out say you lied (or other similar terms).

    Again, this is not an opinion on the debate style or the strength of the arguments in that debate.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    3,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve View Post
    I still believe my original assessment is correct given the links you posted (and nothing more).

    I only look at the claim you posted and as such I find that it was a more of a misunderstanding among parties. Whether this was complete ignorance by one party is irrelevant to me and while I agree you were not "trolling" it doesn't seem like AA did a completely false accusation.

    You could also state it as AA didn't flat out say you lied (or other similar terms).

    Again, this is not an opinion on the debate style or the strength of the arguments in that debate.
    My argument is simple:

    I claimed A, AA claimed that my argument, A, is "ignorant" "stupid" and "factless" therefore AA must believe that the opposite of A is true.

    How is my pressing of him to answer the subject of the opposite of A fallacious?

    Given the quality of AA's argument there, I'm close to accepting that he didn't actually understand anything I (or anyone else) wrote and just made a post in the attitude of a knee jerk reaction.

    He may have not understood what he was calling wrong and his ego for admitting he didn't properly go through what he was calling wrong prevented him from clarifying what he actually meant. This wouldn't be the first time. It would be more like the 50th time.
    "You are, of course, free to make your own calls on how much rationality you want to impose upon yourself." - Kronus

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •