[Boris, O'Reilly didn't show boat it, the left did when they attacked this charity for taking help from Bill O'Reilly. Take your mindless hate somewhere else. - Editor]

This C person shows just how utterly ignorant and self serving that group happens to be. They itch to get into the big time but keep falling all over their lies and distortions.

Ad Hominem: an argument that attacks the person who holds a view or advances an argument, rather than commenting on the view or responding to the argument.

“You’ll learn that ad hominem arguments are fallacious, for example.”

Yes… your argument self-destructs.

“I dismissed you because I can clearly see there is no point wasting my time here on a site which is a flatliner, run by a rightwing zealot who uses twisted logic.”

Ad Hominem: an argument that attacks the person who holds a view or advances an argument, rather than commenting on the view or responding to the argument.

Bare assertion fallacy: premise in an argument is assumed to be true purely because it says that it is true.

Self-destructs again.

“Educational standards in Europe, where I studied, are much higher than those in the United States, after all. Rhetoric, indeed. The Sophists would have been proud of you. I prefer Socrates, myself.”

Appeal to ridicule: a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made by presenting the opponent’s argument in a way that makes it appear ridiculous.

I present the following definition:
Rudeness (also called impudence or effrontery) is the disrespect and failure to behave within the context of a society or a group of people’s social laws or etiquette.

Given the above definition, one of two conclusions can be drawn:

A: Your arguments are illogical and you are rude OR
B: Your arguments are illogical and the social laws of your society are rude.

I’m predicting the former, because I have met respectful people from Europe.

[Super Craig! - Editor]

Apparently your logic module wasn’t as good as the course I got an A in. Educational standards in Europe, where I studied, are much higher than those in the United States, after all. Rhetoric, indeed. The Sophists would have been proud of you. I prefer Socrates, myself.

[Actually this site gets good traffic. I see you abandoned even the attempt to engage the material on a substantive basis. You did not even bother to attampt to make a factual argument. This is typical behavior of the far left and your post causes me to wonder if there is an original thought in that community.

By the way, your newer posts have been deleted and you have been placed on moderation because your newer posts, in the spirit of Socrates no doubt, were hate filled outburts devoid of substance. If you can demonstrate that you are capable of having a substantive conversation without going on a mindless attack spree you will be removed from moderation. - Editor]

You get an “F”.

[Anonymous,

Also, do not apply an argument to me that I never made, you see in logic that is called a straw man argument. I know that because when I took logic in my classses in rhetoric I earned A grades in all of them. I never said that just because Media Matters or Keith Olberman says something it is false just because they said it. What I said, and I was quite clear, is that every time I have examined claims from those sources they proved to be false or misleading. Another term for that would be that what they say is very often not directionally accurate. To avoid having people like myself come to that conclusion, all they have to do is start quoting people in full and in context without the straw man arguments or misrepresentations. - editor]

One, it is not my site. I comment there occasionally and that’s it. Two, you respond with ad hominem attacks because you have nothing else. I challenge you to go research the facts I posted about O’Reilly and Murphy, and the comments and posts I refer to on the Newshound site and on ICN and prove me wrong. Everything I stated is factual.

[Dear Anonymous:

....."prove you wrong" you said.... it took 30 seconds of applied critical thinking and some previously researched knowledge and your argument is in shambles. - Editor]

To address a couple of points:

The petition, which has close to 900 signatures and comments so far, shows little (and possibly no, having not read every last comment) sign of having been signed by “left wing zealots”. On the contrary, most comments are quite restrained and many are from rape victims who are horrified that O’Reilly would be asked to speak at such a public function after making comments that imply that kidnapped sexual abuse victim Shawn Hornbeck, and raped and murdered Jennifer Moore, weere in some way complicit in or responsible for having been attacked. I find it interesting that even Mark Koldys, in discussion on the ICN site, was unable to stand over those comments.

Wendy Murphy has indeed blamed liberals, at least when it comes to issues regarding sexual assault. She has claimed, on O’Reily’s show, that the ACLU “don’t want any laws on the books … that make it a crime for a child to be abused by an adult,” – an outright lie – and that the Boston Globe “didn’t cover” the case of a man who was given a one-year jail sentence for the repeated rape of a 9-year-old girl due to the “classic LIBERAL LEFT ideology” of the media, saying of them,”It’s always bad to lock somebody up. Punishment is bad.” The Globe did, in fact, cover the story. The fact that she may have supported Biden does not mitigate the fact that she has gone on to O’Reilly’s show and used lies to bash liberals.

As far as Newshounds comments are concerned, they may have been approved for publication but that does NOT mean that they reflect the opinions of the Newshounds bloggers and moderators. How interesting that you failed to include a rather lengthy submission by a regular Dollar contributor calling authors Alex and Priscilla “coy” and “unethical”, or another one accusing the Newshounds of supporting opposition to Jessica’s Law. But that would have knocked your argument flat, wouldn’t it?

Finally: neither you nor Dollar have paid the slightest bit of attention to the commentary at the end of Alex and Priscilla’s March 6th post where they strongly emphasize that the Newshounds are NOT attacking the foundation:

Let us make one thing crystal clear: This issue is NOT about Keith Olbermann. It is NOT about damaging this fine organization. It is about Bill O’Reilly and his callous disregard for victims of sexual violence and their families…The It Happened to Alexa Foundation has every right to have Bill O’Reilly as a speaker…If O’Reilly remains as speaker, so be it…In no way do we at News Hounds condone any talk of hurting The It Happened To Alexa Foundation. They do, however, need to know that words do matter and that Bill O’Reilly’s hateful rhetoric is very, very damaging to victims of sexual assault.

That looks pretty reasonable to me.

I came here to tell the truth since you didn’t bother to.

[Bull, what you are trying to do is hurt Bill O'Reilly through a perfectly nice charity. Trying to rationalize it in your own mind is not going to help you. Say you aren't attacking them, and then attacking them is the height of self delusion. Fool yourself if you want to, we are not fooled. You dare to call Bill O'Reilly hateful when laughable hate speech is all over your site. Spare me. - Editor]