Some people may not believe the man who claims that
his head-butting of Mr Abbott had nothing to do with
the YES campaign for same-sex marriage. That he saw the
opportunity and simply took it because he held a
personal grudge against Mr Abbott. Be that as it may.

However, to quote in part from the link given earlier -

"What is certain is that the offender almost certainly didn't
jail men, women, and children seeking asylum, he didn't
send troops to foreign countries to carpet-bomb them, and
he probably didn't punch a wall behind the head of a
woman at Sydney University a few years back."

Foxy,

I can't believe that you are condoning violence?

Firstly TA didn't report the incident, but a number of witnesses did if you'd care to read other sources than the absolute crap from NM. who don't have a competent journalist amongst the lot. Neither did Tony Abbott jail asylum seekers nor sent soldiers to carpet bomb anyone nor hit a wall next to a political opponent. I suppose mentioning that Juliar killed 1200+ asylum seekers and labor set up all these camps is forgotten?

I guess that the only reason the intellectually retarded author didn't post her name on the article is to avoid a defamation suit.

Dear Shadow Minister,

You might enjoy the following link:

http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/scott-marsh-mural/8893108

Foxy,

That the Yes campaign managers were not involved in or condone the incident does not mean that the individual did not use the SSM as a pretext to attack Abbott.

In much the same context that a man stabbing someone whilst yelling Allahu akbar has nothing to do with Islam.

Time after time it is the left whingers that are by far the most violent.

Dear phanto,

Your definition of the word 'fallacy' is correct. At least where logic specifically is concerned.

<<A fallacy is a failure of logic.>>

Such a belief or insinuation, that this one thug’s actions say anything about the ‘Yes’ campaign as a whole, would be a failure in logic. A good Venn diagram illustrating why, can be found at the Wikipedia article on the Association fallacy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy#/media/File:Venn-diagram-association-fallacy-01.svg

<<If you can demonstrate dishonesty then why would you bother to look for failures in logic?>>

Because, as I have alluded to above, the two can indeed overlap.

<<Why would anyone entertain any post which was so obviously dishonest if that is what you claim it to be.>>

Because not everyone (note that I did not say everyone else apart from me) would necessarily understand that.

<<Why not just point out the dishonesty of it?>>

By pointing out the fallacy committed, this is precisely what I had done. Whether the intended target is oneself or everyone else, dishonesty is being employed when the Association fallacy is committed.

<<What did he say that was dishonest?>>

The Association fallacy is, in and of itself, dishonest. The links I have provided, regarding the fallacy, should adequately explain why.

<<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.>>

I hope the above clears this up, then.

Words from radical YES voter.

"I was thinking: 'there's Tony Abbott, I'm going to headbutt him'," he said.

“I decided I was never going to get the opportunity to head-butt that c** again, so I seized the moment."

“I believe in human rights and that's largely why I hate Tony Abbott because he doesn't. It has absolutely nothing to do with marriage equality,” he told 7 News.

He will be able to test his rights in jail.

If he gets a slap on the wrist it will be open season on EX & current politicians.