Dear phanto,

An excellent follow up question. I thank you for it. Prima facie, there is nothing dishonest about what ttbn had said.

<<How is TTBN’s ‘technique’ dishonest?>>

However, when the first contribution one makes to a discussion, such as this, includes a statement regarding the fact that someone from the ‘Yes’ camp assaulted Tony Abbott, with no expressions of regret or examples of violence from the other side, then one could be forgiven for suspecting dishonest intentions.

It is for this reason that I gave what ttbn had said some further consideration and, subsequently, realised the fallacy that had been committed - which is indeed dishonest. I then reported back with my realisation and noted that such tactics are not necessary when one has logic and reason on one's side.

<<Is he lying about the facts of the incident?>>

No, he is not. Nor does he have to be.

<<He merely presented an example of bad behaviour by a member of the YES group.>>

Not “merely”. See above.

<<He is not suggesting that we vote NO because of this one individual’s behaviour - that would be absurd.>>

That is correct. And indeed it 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.>>

The circumstances did indeed suggest that ttbn was implicitly presenting it as an argument. Or, at the very least, insinuating something. See above.

<<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?>>

The premises in this question are flawed and, as of yet, unfounded.

--

Dear ttbn,

If you can point me to anything I have said before that is ignorant, arrogant, or bullying, then that would be most appreciated.

Thank you.

Talking about the Tony Abbott head-butting incident.
I believe that there is no footage of it. A
witness has claimed that the man who police have
arrested did not say anything about same-sex marriage
to Mr Abbott. Which does raise quite a few questions
about Mr Abbott's motives in using the incident for
political mileage.
I dare say more may come out eventually as police
investigate this incident.

Here is a link that asks a few questions:

http://newmatilda.com/2017/09/22/is-tony-abbott-lying-about-getting-head-butted-for-marriage-equality/

Early days, but the ABC reports that support for homosexual 'marriage' has slipped 4% this week, linking it to the self-defeating YES thuggery.

And, the 38 year old moron who assaulted Tony Abbott after telling his victim that he wanted to shake his hand has been arrested by Tasmanian police and charged with common assault.

I wonder why the people always quoting the ABC have not mentioned this.

Possibly because the attack on Mr Abbott had nothing
to do with same-sex marriage. It was an attack by
an anarchist who had a long-standing grudge against
Mr Abbott and saw his opportunity and took it.
He made it quite clear that it was a sole action and had
nothing to do with the "YES" campaign as George Brandis
and others have confirmed to the media.

Just saw on 7News the half-wit who assaulted Tony Abbott. He has no regrets and probably would do it again, he said.

He was wearing a YES badge when he attacked Abbott. Given the fruit loops now regularly seen heckling and harassing people who don't agree with them, it will be very hard to convince anyone that the homosexual nonsense was not the reason for the attack. The assailant himself certainly would not be believed.

As someone in the media wrote a day or so ago, the YES camp seems to be doing everything they can to ensure that they fail.

Philips:

A fallacy is a failure of logic.

If you can demonstrate dishonesty then why would you bother to look for failures in logic? Why would anyone entertain any post which was so obviously dishonest if that is what you claim it to be. Why not just point out the dishonesty of it? What did he say that was dishonest?

You seem to be trying to excuse your search for a failure of logic when no such search is required if the post is dishonest.