Quote:
Originally Posted by silverbear
The way he included the comments on Dubya, when they were really irrelevant to the subject, tells me what his agenda was...
I've been an "iceberg shill" for a long time now, but reject the lackey charges... 
Well, it wouldn't be the first time the neocons paid off a black commentator, would it?? But I don't have any evidence that happened here...
However, I don't think getting paid is essential to being a "shill"... basically, the definition of shill is an accomplice of a hawker or swindler who acts like an enthusiastic customer of the hawker or swindler, to induce others to buy the goods being sold...
[View Full Quote]Shill, because Dubya had nothing to do with his basic premise, that premise being that it is insulting to black people to have a Hillary Clinton pander to them by mimicking what she perceives as their way of talking... in that context, the utterances of Kweisi Mfume and Jesse Jackson about Dubya and "Jim Crow" are a nonsequitur, one aimed at defending Dubya...
Insertion of that nonsequitur instantly changes this piece from a "black thing" to a "Republican thing"... |
You can see that there aren't very many philosophy people in here, but you've just schooled 'ol Iceberg in what they call logic... and you've demnostrated how an irrelevant premise will very much weaken the conclusion.
This article, or its argument, is garbage because it includes Bush as a premise when he has nothing to do with the conclusion of Hillary pandering.
This argument is very relatively weak.
Logic 101 - class dismissed.
Agenda sniffed.