You’re the one who’s claiming that “a priori reasoning” is inherently fallacious. That’s only when you’re dealing with purely empirical data.
But again, as previously stated: what’s informing dforest’s post? America’s recent performance in foreign wars over the last few decades, and the consequences that our meddling has had in other countries.
You may not agree with their conclusions, nor think that America’s actions have caused as much havoc as dforest may think. But it’s still empirical data.
Using recent history to determine ‘maybe America should back off and stop meddling and let other countries deal with their own conflicts’ is hardly fallacious thinking, no matter how much you lambast others for having “pedestrian intellects.”
what’s informing dforest’s post?
***It is as simple as: There’s this foreign conflict over there, and we shouldn’t get involved in foreign conflicts, no matter how unique nor prevailing nor consequential they might be, regardless of learnings from history such as Sudetenland, it doesn’t matter because it’s a foreign conflict and we shouldn’t get involved in foreign conflicts.
I see no evidence of sound reasoning being brought to bear on the facts of the case. He has an opinion and facts be damned. Same with Alberta. It is a logical fallacy, as obvious as an invasion from Russia is a violation of the Budapest Agreement.