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.
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. Unless you wish to attempt to make the claim that there is no a surge in christian-based fascism in the United States (Please, make my day and do so).
Quoting my signature as an argument against my attacks constitutions an argumentum ad hominem - something about pot and kettle.
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
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!
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
the USA invasion of Iraq turned Iraq into a breeding ground for terrorism in the following ways:
1) Collapsed the economy of the country
2) Destroyed the infrastructure (electricity, water, gas distribution) of the country
3) continued the situation in which citizens were not gauranteed security of their persons or posessions
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.
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.
Logical fallacy. Proof of absence is not absence of proof.
i was prompting for proof
Considering you speak in very general terms, one would be inclined to believe you don't know because you aren't paying attention. Unfortunately, I know this for a fact. I haven't been paying much attention myself, but it's been in the newspaper a few times. Guess you don't read the LA Times.
I follow the news very closely, I've see nothing to substantiate
And even the fundamentalists that speak out against them end up dead.
however I have seen substantiation of
Currently you have groups basically butchering and a general reign of terror in Iraq.
so your error was one of context, but an excusable one since I overquoted
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
that leaves only one option in this trinary possibility
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
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.
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.
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.
