LOL. Give it up guy. You've just commited another fallacy. You're beginning to fall apart. My original objection *still* stands. I may have commited a logical fallacy but that does *not* negate your logical fallacy. Surely you are bright enough to understand this? Your "objection" was a Logical Fallacy, Uber.
Huh? The "objection" I am referring to was to point out the logical fallacy in one of your replies.
Huh? The "objection" I am referring to was to point out the logical fallacy in one of your replies. 130 posted on 2/27/02 9:32 PM Pacific by UberVernunftNo, in your #94, you claimed that there was a Logical Fallacy in my following challenge:
But it has worked. Do you really believe that foreign aid would still be taking place if it *didn't* work? It doesn't work perfectly but it still works. It sounds like you're criticizing specific implementations, but *not* the general policy.C'mon, Uber, that's inane. That's like saying that Corporate subsidies would not exist if they "didn't work".
You
identified nothing.
Merely claiming Logical Fallacy in my response is without value. You must identify my Logical Fallacy.
Therefore, consider the following:
That's like saying that Corporate subsidies would not exist if they "didn't work"
This response of mine identified an Appeal to Common Practice/Inverse Biased Sample Fallacy in your post.
You claim that there is a Classic Logical Fallacy therein.
Okay, then; identify the Classic Logical Fallacy herein:
That's like saying that Corporate subsidies would not exist if they "didn't work"