Obama puts pressure on Great Britain not to leave the EU.

[Ephiral]

Ephiral, this is the last time I'm going to address one of your posts if you keep this up. I have no desire to turn this into a debate of my character, if you want to do that then open a new thread.

As the final word, I'll save you the scrolling up and show you where I did explain that I believe I overblown it and admit my mistake: https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=166656.msg7782054#msg7782054

"I didn't know personally the feelings of the citizens and sense this is a non-issue for you[The citizen who said it was a non-issue] then perhaps I allowed it to get overblown."

At a later point, I did change my position when someone else brought a new light into the situation:

"...taking out the context of the EU, a president who tries to do his best by his country would be someone we should hope for."

If you are quite done with the off topic character assassination, can you offer anything in relation to the topic?

Mmm... the first point I still disagree on, but that's because firm ownership of errors is important to me. Which brings me to your second point. I completely missed that post, and in so doing I got the facts wrong in an aggressive line of questioning. I'm sorry.

What do I have to offer to the topic? The very post you're responding to contains an analysis and rebuttal of your assertions re: a) the 'threatening' nature of the statements, and b) the US-Russia info-sharing agreement being a response to the British move away from the EU. Pretending that it doesn't exist is insulting and transparent.

[Monfang]

I got this from the sticky on the debate forum. Following the link there, I found this:

Genetic Fallacy

Attacking the history of a claim rather than the claim itself is called a genetic fallacy. This is the most generic such fallacy - ad hominems are the most common genetic fallacies. "Fox News reported on an Earthquake last night, but it's Fox News, therefore it probably never happened." Note that this doesn't apply when the discussion is about the quality of the source itself - if someone has lied habitually in the past, using that as a basis for calling them a liar is not a fallacy.

Ad Hominem - 'Against the Person' is where an element of the person is used to discredit the argument itself. It can be true, and it is not necessarily even an attack - though it can be. For example, "Vekseid runs Elliquiy, therefore statements he makes in favor of it are false," is an ad hominem, however true the first phrase may be.

Following the links for Genetic Fallacy and Ad hominem found these:

Description of Genetic Fallacy

A Genetic Fallacy is a line of "reasoning" in which a perceived defect in the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence that discredits the claim or thing itself. It is also a line of reasoning in which the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence for the claim or thing. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

The origin of a claim or thing is presented.
The claim is true(or false) or the thing is supported (or discredited).
It is clear that sort of "reasoning" is fallacious. For example: "Bill claims that 1+1=2. However, my parents brought me up to believe that 1+1=254, so Bill must be wrong."

It should be noted that there are some cases in which the origin of a claim is relevant to the truth or falsity of the claim. For example, a claim that comes from a reliable expert is likely to be true (provided it is in her area of expertise).

Examples of Genetic Fallacy

"The current Chancellor of Germany was in the Hitler Youth at age 3. With that sort of background, his so called 'reform' plan must be a facist program."
"I was brought up to believe in God, and my parents told me God exists, so He must."
"Sure, the media claims that Senator Bedfellow was taking kickbacks. But we all know about the media's credibility, don't we."

Description of Ad Hominem

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Example of Ad Hominem

Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."

Sources: https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=24136.0
https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=24133.0
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/genetic-fallacy.html

Let this be the end of it.

[Ephiral]

I have very specifically avoided making statements about you or your character, keeping strictly to the facts at hand and the statements you have made. I apologised and retracted my statement when you showed me that it was incorrect. I tried to continue discussion of the actual topic, which you ignored twice now; if you don't want to, fine. This will be my last post in this thread unless I am called out to respond. But please don't sling baseless accusations.

[Avis habilis]

I got this from the sticky on the debate forum...

Copy-pasting definitions doesn't count as a response. If you have a point to make, make it & be ready to support it. That goes for everyone reading this or any other debate-oriented thread in this section.

[owen84]

I think the point of this thread is lost a bit.

BUT HAY I'M FROM WALES (UK)

Ill throw my 2 pence worth.

This is the first place I have heard of this. So I guess it is not getting much publicity in the UK. But I don't mind its good to see America taking an interest in Britain future. I like politics and its something I have spoken to lodes with people from all over Europe.  And I find the general feel is America is very use and them. So it's nice to see america wanting to join the rest of the world and show an interest.

[Elias]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with President Obama and the American government giving their opinions to another government, ally or enemy. My problem is the hypocrisy of so many of those people posting here. If a Republican president were doing this I could just see all the ranting and raving coming from everyone as they scream about how the Republicans are trying to force their ideals on others, but when Obama does it, its just an opinion. Kind of funny.

Fact is America has a right to try and use any means to ensure its own interests everywhere and that includes Europe, Obama even has the right to pressure Cameron economically if he so chooses, I just hope that we all remember this when that pressure is something a little more confrontational or flies in the face of their ideology.

[Ephiral]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with President Obama and the American government giving their opinions to another government, ally or enemy. My problem is the hypocrisy of so many of those people posting here. If a Republican president were doing this I could just see all the ranting and raving coming from everyone as they scream about how the Republicans are trying to force their ideals on others, but when Obama does it, its just an opinion. Kind of funny.

Fact is America has a right to try and use any means to ensure its own interests everywhere and that includes Europe, Obama even has the right to pressure Cameron economically if he so chooses, I just hope that we all remember this when that pressure is something a little more confrontational or flies in the face of their ideology.

(Disclaimer: I am not American, but their politics affect me, given the 8900 km border and huge volume of trade we share.) I draw a distinction between the two actions, personally. I wouldn't care if this had happened in the Bush years. All it is is being unusually frank and honest. "This is the situation that would be ideal for the US." Economic pressure would be crossing the line, because it is actual action taken against foreign interests. I'll be first in line to condemn such an action. The US is entitled to do so, but that does not make it anything but a dick move.

So no, it's not hypocritical. This is not even an action taken; it is a diplomatic statement, nothing more, regardless of who says it.

[gaggedLouise]

I'd agree it's essentially just a diplomatic statement, even if Cameron probably felt it to be a bit obtuse. When it's your closest and most important ally speaking, you have to listen, especially when that ally is much stronger than yourself in many ways.

People around the world are used to the U.S. sometimes giving advice or making assessments in public about what other countries ought to do, or need to do. So it's sort of a funny sidelight when other major countries do the same thing at the U.S. - I remember how some Chinese bigwig, if it was Wen Jiabao or somebody close to him, spoke up during one of the rounds of American senate budget talks last year, and the gist of what he said was (paraphrase) "You need to get your act together on Capitol Hill - we the world can't have it like this, can we?" I'm sure the Chinese (and many other people around Asia, or in Latin America) loved hearing the Peking top brass making that kind of punchy advice talk in return after people in those countries had been looking up into the sole of a western - sometimes U.S. - boot at many times in the past.

[Elias]

In the end every country wants a say in foreign policy and those with power will always speak out. China is growing and will inevitably begin to force their opinions down the throat of the world. That is their right and the US should also fight them tooth and nail, because that is their right.

[Dashenka]

It won't change a damn thing when Obama leaves. The US (politicians) will always feel that the US is the world's leading country and they can dictate how the rest of the world should rule their country. Bush sr did it, Clinton did it, Bush jr. did it and now Obama does it. And so will the next president, and the next and the next.

They just don't see that the US have lost their status in the world as leading country and wildy flail their arms about in a desperate attempt to be taken seriously, something half the world has stopped doing years ago.

I don't mean to insult American people because I know there are more than a few who do actually know about a country called 'rest of the world' but that small of group of imbeciles like Palin, Romney and the likes are a danger to not only America but the whole world.

Just my two cents.