"It ain't what they call you, it's what you answer to." - W. C. Fields
You certainly claimed to know in the other thread.No, it doesn't, in regards to me.
I ask the question because I don't know and obviously don't have all of the data regarding it.
Ergo, I ask here because all ya'll are the supposedly intelligent and argumentative type.
I can help in trying to answer the question, but don't think I'm going to have all the answers because that's not the nature of the inquisitive one who doesn't know.
"I do not claim that every incident in the history of empire can be explained in directly economic terms. Economic interests are filtered through a political process, policies are implemented by a complex state apparatus, and the whole system generates its own momentum."
I can't wait to see this.
In that other thread, it was a question with an argumentative twist in order to drill out some credible info from both sides.
I don't believe either way, because I don't know. I just don't like the feeling of being expected to believe one way, even though there's a scientific possibility of it being the other way.
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
It's not a fallacy to ask for terms to be defined, but it is a fallacy to have undefinable terms in a premise.
If you wish to limi tthe descriptions ot the source you used earlier, though the fallacy youare guilty of is:
"Failure To State:if you make enough attacks, and ask enough questions, you may never have to actually define your own position on the topic."
A List Of Fallacious Arguments
Last edited by Tucker Case; 09-15-11 at 01:37 PM.
So what are your guys's philosophies on race? I mean, are they black when they look sort of black? Are they black when they're still 1/16?
What genetic parameters would you use to distinguish between races? Which races are actual races? As if this were even a valid discussion.
To say that's fallacious is to say that all questions of dubious scientific background are fallacious.
Not sure where my question suddenly changed its meaning.Equivocation:
using a word to mean one thing, and then later using it to mean something different. For example, sometimes "Free software" costs nothing, and sometimes it is without restrictions. Some examples:
"The sign said 'fine for parking here', and since it was fine, I parked there."
All trees have bark.
All dogs bark.
Therefore, all dogs are trees.
"Consider that two wrongs never make a right, but that three lefts do."
- "Deteriorata", National Lampoon