To settle the latest argument here you will have to keep score.
As far as I can see the YES vote has the highest score.
This is especially so if you count dismissiles and demands for doctors to be struck off.

Philips:

The most casual reader would have deduced that you were involved in a tit-for-tat with TTBN. Then you realised how bad that looked and decided to make a blanket denunciation of all such examples. You were virtue-signalling to try and cover your own behaviour instead of just owning up to the fact that you also indulged in that same behaviour. That would be the honest thing to do.

Dear phanto,

Yes, it was a tit-for-tat of sorts, and I have explained my actions twice now. I did not feel that it looked bad at all, however. To the contrary, I believe what I had done was rather effective. Indeed, the tit-for-tat can be very effective communication strategy, depending its utilisation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat

<<Then you realised how bad that looked and decided to make a blanket denunciation of all such examples.>>

Unfortunately, you cannot have read my mind, and, as I have already explained, my actions and the circumstances do not support your hypothesis. But since you have shown an interest in what I was thinking, I will tell you:

I was considering just how dishonest the technique utilised by ttbn was. I then thought to myself that there simply HAD to be a fallacy to describe it. It did not even take me a second to then realise that what ttbn had done was commit the Association fallacy. At least this is what his actions suggest, given the hastiness with which he reported the incident and did not accompany the revelation with a rational argument against same-sex marriage.

But thank you for taking an interest in my motives. I am always happy to confirm or clarify your interpretations of them.

Philips:

How is TTBN’s ‘technique’ dishonest? Is he lying about the facts of the incident? He merely presented an example of bad behaviour by a member of the YES group. He is not suggesting that we vote NO because of this one individual’s behaviour - that would be absurd. He wasn’t presenting it as an argument and yet you claim to be responding to it as if it were an argument. If that is what you call an argument then you need more study about arguments.

Why would you respond to it as if it were an argument unless to cover up your own response which was equally invalid as an argument? Why would you go off to Wikipedia in search of a fallacy definition when it wasn’t a fallacious argument because it wasn’t even an argument to begin with?

hehehehe
The hypocrisy of the bigots.
One week screaming that business owners can do as they please with their own business.
The next week screaming because a business owner did as they pleased with their own business.
LOL.
Its nearly over bigots.

phanto,

While I appreciate that you still believe that it is possible to reason with a person like AJ Philips, I have tell you that it is not possible; he is best ignored.

It is a long time since I read the garbage he posts. The only reason I know that he referred to me in any way is because I read your posts. I told the fool several months ago that I was not prepared to to read or respond to his arrogant, ignorant bullying nonsense, and I meant it. I scroll bottom up, and when I see his moniker, I keep right onto scrolling. He has nothing to say that interests me or affects me in any way at all. If you have the patience to deal with the rabbit, good luck!