You two have committed the following logical fallacy:
AD HOMINEM (GUILT BY ASSOCIATION)
argumentum ad hominem
(also known as: association fallacy, bad company fallacy, company that you keep fallacy, they’re not like us fallacy, transfer fallacy)
Description: When the source is viewed negatively because of its association with another person or group who is already viewed negatively.
Logical Form:
Person 1 states that Y is true.
Person 2 also states that Y is true, and person 2 is a moron.
Therefore, person 1 must be a moron too.
Example #1:
Delores is a big supporter for equal pay for equal work. This is the same policy that all those extreme feminist groups support. Extremists like Delores should not be taken seriously — at least politically.
Explanation: Making the assumption that Delores is an extreme feminist simply because she supports a policy that virtually every man and woman also support, is fallacious.
Example #2:
Pol Pot, the Cambodian Maoist revolutionary, was against religion, and he was a very bad man. Frankie is against religion; therefore, Frankie also must be a very bad man.
Explanation: The fact that Pol Pot and Frankie share one particular view does not mean they are identical in other ways unrelated, specifically, being a very bad man. Pol Pot was not a bad man because he was against religion, he was a bad man for his genocidal actions.
Exception: If one can demonstrate that the connection between the two characteristics that was inherited by association is causally linked, or the probability of taking on a characteristic would be high, then it would be valid.
Pol Pot, the Cambodian Maoist revolutionary, was genocidal; therefore, he was a very bad man. Frankie is genocidal; therefore, Frankie must also be a very bad man.
http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/12-ad-hominem-guilt-by-association
lol- whatever liberal
Well for heaven sakes man why have you been keeping this chart a secret? Why haven't you shown it to the people of Los Angeles and to the people of Las Vegas begging for water? Why haven't you shown it to the people who are sitting in traffic jams in New Jersey for hours in commutes? The truth is there is very little habitable and attractive land with good climate where people want to live. The idea that you're going to put 9 billion people in the wastes of West Texas is too absurd to debate.
But let us consider the idea of installing 9 billion people in one state and I will show you a dystopia rivaling our worst prisons. State control of everything would be mandatory; there will be no liberty. Everything, and I mean everything including air, light, water and exercise space for children would be rationed. The more density the less quality of life, the more density the less liberty.
The absolute number of people competing for space on the highways, for public services, for a hearing in our courts, our fish stocks, our beaches, our waterways, our land-use, all compete against one another for these resources. Inevitably, the government must arbitrate among these competing claims. Inevitably, those free beaches will be denied you and you will lose that liberty, just as you have lost your liberty to freely fish, to hunt, to build on your own land, to visit our national parks, to maintain animals on your property, etc. Do you really think your right to drink soda from a 16 ounce cup is in jeopardy in sparsely populated North Dakota as it is in densely populated New York City? Do you really think in a society of 310 million people we can survive without zoning laws limiting your right to use your property? You just lost liberty. It was not so when I was a youngster with 140 million people.
This is not a conservative question, we don't have to deny that there is insufficient habitable and desirable land for the doubling of American population every fifty years in order to maintain our conservative credentials. I don't know where this notion that growing population is good comes from among conservatives. Is it because misguided conservatives do not want to admit a predicate that allows for abortion? Is it because there is a Roman Catholic tradition that does not want to admit a predicate for birth control? Is it to sustain the Wall Street Journal's editorial approach of open borders? Is it because there is a misguided conservative tradition that no land use controls can be accepted even when we need actual protection from our neighbors?
The idea of Jeffersonian democracy, the idea of the New England Cracker Barrel democracy, only works when there is sufficient space for man to live independent both of his neighbor and the government. Double your population and halve your liberties
Feel free to explain how you are not advocating abortion and birth control.
you can call yerself whatever you like to call yerself, but when you constantly defend liberal positions, it’s probably time to reconsider your affiliation, because your claims are not consistent with republican ideology-
Like I said before, I’ll let your liberal rant against population numbers and in favor of abortion *(and who knows what other liberal ideology you might subscribe to?) speak for itself
Have a nice day