Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
17. Oh good golly....
Tue Sep 4, 2012, 01:42 PM
Sep 2012


If an article is entitled:

"Why did the children put beans in their ears?"

And the text of the article is:

"Children put beans in their ears for several reasons. We surveyed 100 children who put beans in their ears to determine why they did it. The primary reason why children put beans in their ears is due to oppositional behavior in response to being told not to. Such oppositional behavior in children - i.e. doing things for no reason other than they have been told not to - is an important milestone in testing and developing an independent identity."

Again, the larger point here is that the article title is a descriptor of the content of the article. You have not made one comment on the contents of the article in question, but dismiss the title as a "logical fallacy".

What went wrong with WikiLeaks [View all] struggle4progress Sep 2012 OP
Is your question based upon a "loaded question" fallacy or a "begging the question" fallacy? AnotherMcIntosh Sep 2012 #1
What question? jberryhill Sep 2012 #2
This message was self-deleted by its author AnotherMcIntosh Sep 2012 #3
The article supports the "question" jberryhill Sep 2012 #4
This message was self-deleted by its author AnotherMcIntosh Sep 2012 #5
"Quelle horreur! Somebody posts something I disagree with! Whatever shall I do?" struggle4progress Sep 2012 #6
This message was self-deleted by its author AnotherMcIntosh Sep 2012 #7
Yep... truth2power Sep 2012 #25
Yes, but... jberryhill Sep 2012 #10
This message was self-deleted by its author AnotherMcIntosh Sep 2012 #12
Regardless jberryhill Sep 2012 #13
This message was self-deleted by its author AnotherMcIntosh Sep 2012 #15
Oh good golly.... jberryhill Sep 2012 #17
"Apparently, in your view, all readers should assume that as well" jberryhill Sep 2012 #11
"...daily anti-Assange post..." just about covers it. truth2power Sep 2012 #23
I find it amazing that people fasttense Sep 2012 #8
Why is this moron speaking in the past tense? bemildred Sep 2012 #9
when does the flood of these kind of posts add up to a PR firm troll? yurbud Sep 2012 #14
Maybe you should rethink your support for Wikileaks if global warming deniers embarrass you struggle4progress Sep 2012 #16
you don't like that one particular leak so the principle of transparency is bad? yurbud Sep 2012 #18
Since you mentioned PR firm trolls and global warming deniers, I thought I'd point out the struggle4progress Sep 2012 #22
nothing.. woofwoof01 Sep 2012 #19
Not a "Good Read". More like a concern troll on DU, or a planted disinfo story unc70 Sep 2012 #20
It is peculiar how support for Wikileaks has become, in some quarters, a surrogate struggle4progress Sep 2012 #21
Thanks for taking the time to flesh this out, unc70. truth2power Sep 2012 #24
This message was self-deleted by its author AnotherMcIntosh Sep 2012 #26
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Editorials & Other Articles»What went wrong with Wiki...»Reply #17