note: i didn't address everything in chronological order - but went and tried to insert some things i addressed later in proper order - excuse any out-of-order errors
you are incapable of recognizing or admitting error.
factually false, and the fallacy of poisoning the well
I already know you won't listen.
factually false, and another attempt to poison the well.
Posioning the well is not a logical fallacy; it's a concept. I can list the informal fallacies for you if you want, I've got my Philosophy book right here. And need I remind you of numerous threads where you fought on beyond all reason against such varied opponents as myself, aldo, and Black Wolf? Hell, let's dig out the Clangers while we're at it. That's always good for a laugh.
You realize, I hope, you do your arguments incalcuable injury with statements like that.
demonstrating how a statement is factually dubious does not damage my arguement.
You make me laugh. Quite a bit. That statement right there is just about the stupidest thing I've ever heard. You must have facts to have an argument. If they're dubious, you're ****ed. End of story.
Quoting my signature as an argument against my attacks constitutions an argumentum ad hominem - something about pot and kettle.
No, it's not. I suppose I shall get out my Philosophy book after all.
Ad hominem can be divded into three types; abusive, circumstantial, and
tu quoque. What did I do? I demonstrated your penchant for
ad hominem attacks. How did I do it? I gave examples. At no point did I offer abuse, circumstantial evidence you were predisposed to this behavior (though arguably you are) or present you as a hypocrite...
...which, funnily enough, is what you did with me just now. However, my hypocrisy, whether it's real or not, is irrevelant to the argument. Whether or not I practice what I preach has no bearing on whether or not what I preach is correct.
Tu quoque, Kazan?
You can't persuade, you can only piss. Both off, and in terms of argumentative quality.
for someone complaining about me making statements that you claim are ad hominem, but cannot be considered ad hominem, you're sure making blatant ones
Tu quoque again. That's twice now. Let's keep a running count of the formal and informal fallacies, shall we? More to the point, I chose emotive, evocative langauge, which I later substantiated as correct. Not polite, but correct. You deny you can't argue. Fair enough, but I've got that one nailed down I think. Do you deny you're going to piss people off with your argumentative style? Go on. Do it. I could use the stress relief.
PS: my statement could not even been considered implied argumentum ad hominem because I did not suggest that my opponant was a christofascist, nor did I make an argument against his based upon any attempt to label him as such!
Your statement can be taken as such an implication. I did after all. So, whether you meant it or not, it's there. Regardless I'll give you this one.
Iraq was a breeding ground for fanaticism before the US came.
this is factually incorrect
neither is it a "Post hoc ergo prompter hoc" error
I believe I've already covered this in a previous post. We'll let it stay there.
People who come with fanatical will are one in a million, quite literally.
factually incorrect- demonstrably incorrect by the law of very large numbers
6 billion times 1/1 million = 6,000 - there are far more extremists of every type around the world than this right now at this instant and you very well know it. Maybe I misunderstand you and you are only refering to LEADERS of extremist movements, not followers.
Ignoratio elenchi. Three now. There are more extremists then that. But how many of them were born that way, hmm?
For most it has to be instilled, and you can't instill anything with chaos.
quite correct, but you're failing to make certain logical steps. In an environment of chaos people will latch onto whatever order or security they can find - that makes it easier for the leaders of extremist movements to recruit because they are offering a form of order to people desperate for any form of order.!
Ignoratio elenchi again. Four. They can recruit, certainly. But they can't make fanatics out of them in Iraq. It isn't breeding ground for the fanatics, it's a mine for the raw material. They make them into fanatics elsewhere.
Logical fallacy. Proof of absence is not absence of proof.
i was prompting for proof
You made a statement. You did not ask a question. This is, at best, poor technique. And at worst you're scrambling to cover your ass right now. We will however off you the benefit of the doubt for the moment and write it off as poor technique.
so your error was one of context, but an excusable one since I overquoted
Not hardly. I knew what you referred to, despite the overquote; the killing of those who speak out against the violence on both sides.
suggesting that someone needs to think about something more indepth then they already have and then giving them examples of what they missed does not qualify as argumentum ad hominem - because the list of things they missed substantiates it as an attack against the argument not the person
You list things that are painfully self-evident, however, so either you think redmenance is a total dolt, or you think he can't read/listen/see. Or you are attempting to portray him that way to the audience (which is somewhat more subtle then I'd expect from you). Or all of the above. So it's still there. Sorry.
There's an interesting element of schizophrenia here. You've insulted him already, several times, now you're pleading.
pot meet kettle.
pleading is an example of rhetorical argumentation not logical argumentation. Both have a place in politics.
There's that nasty
tu quoque again; worse then that, unsubstantiated. I've been insulting the whole time, perhaps somewhat politely and rationally, but then again, my whole premise is that you can't argue worth a damn, and if that's not insulting then I don't know what is. Five and a formal fallacy. The point also stands.
I can make two assumptions here. No, three actually. Either you support the fanatics (reasonable, I suppose, you're pretty fanatical yourself),
incorrect assumption based in factual error
i am not a fanatic by any definition of the term. Though I would be curious as to upon what basis you attempt to claim that I am.
See my first response. In any case the correctness of the assumption is irrevelant to the larger argument. Your assertion of christofascism the first time you used the term, in the face of massive opposition, well thought out, and considerably more articulate then you...well, that should be enough proof to convince most people.
you're agreeing with redmenace and your wording sucks, or your wording sucks period. I will assume the last, because it makes the most sense.
or the fourth option
You are merely unfamiliar with my usage and failed to successfuly parse a statement that anyone familiar enough with my writing and speaking style would be able to parse.
Let me lay it out for you.
"how is it
not positive for the fanatics to have a breeding ground for fanaticism that is providing them recruits faster than they can kill each other and be killed by the USA army?"
There are only a few
reasonable assumptions which can be made based on your placement of that "not". These involve it either being a mistake (which I have covered) or your believing that the fanatics having what you say they have is a
good thing (in which case you support them, which I have also already covered). The only possible fourth assumption, which I chose not to invoke (giving you the benefit of the doubt...should I cease to do so?) is that your grasp of the English langauge is below the level of the average high school student. Perhaps it is; your failures of capitalization and punctation are rampant. There's one in that very sentence.
If your English really is that poor, that can only add weight to my thesis that you could not logically argue your way out of a paper bag.
Again with the same argument, again unsupported. One might wonder who you're really trying to convince, us, or yourself? You're making an unsupportable claim too; recruiting faster then they're being killed? That's great. Prove it. Wait...YOU CAN'T! I doubt they even know their recruitment figures and casuality rates. Certainly nothing they'd tell anyone else is trustworthy.
if they were recruiting slower than they are being killed they would have been eliminated or significantly weakened - so this option is eliminated by exlcusion
Incorrect. They began with something, not nothing, so they have a core over and above recruitment...who would by the same token be the better ones. Also assumes that the casuality rate is fixed; this is so blindingly obvious as to begger the imagination how you missed it. They would have spent some time in the beginning building up a core force, and for a time after they moved surprise, and the need on the US part to assemble information to strike at them, would give them lower casualities then the current rate. Also ignores the fact that attrition comes in several scales. If they already have 5000, say, recruit 100 a month, and lose 101 a month, it will take some time for the results to be evident, will it not? In five months their force levels will be down by five men; not significant, but more have been killed then were recruited.
Five and two.
if they were recruiting at an equal pace to being killed they'd be neither weakening or strengthening - this option is eliminated by exclusion due to their attacks becoming more common
This is also false reasoning. There are many reasons why they could maintain the same force levels but attack more often. Most of them boil down to being unable or unwilling to use their total force before that point. Morale, equipment, information, training time, defensive assignment of force, etc.
Five and three.
that leaves only one option in this trinary possibility
It would. If you were right. But you're not.
furthermore the last option makes logical sense due to considerations of what provides a breeding ground for violent extremism: economic collapse/stagnation, little or no hope of improvement (from the POV of the people there), little gaurantee of being secure in their persons and possessions
Irrevelant to the discussion.
blah blah blah
the rest of your argument is merely a pointless diatribe as an attempt to dismiss me merely because you disagree with me.
Quite the opposite. You have failed to refute me in points, you cannot hope to refute me on the argument as a whole. Consider it an attempt to explain why even your political allies feel the need to argue with you.
I do not know what got you all riled up ngtm1r - but I suggest next time you attempt to take me out to the woodshed you bother to stick to the facts, refrain from engaging in hypocracy and do not willfully misrepresent my statements.
Have,
tu quoque again that's six and three, abusive that's seven and three.
Go troll some other thread if you don't mind. I don't have time for people engaging in hypocritical attacks upon me out of some unexpliciable hatred of me.
Abusive that's eight and three,
tu quoque nine and three, abusive ten and three.
Ten informal and three formal logical fallacies. Your argumentative skills have not improved; perhaps they have not gotten worse, this was a longer post. But again, even a cursory examination of your argument shows that you are not to be taken seriously.
