Replies

"Huh? Now you're beginning to commit logical fallacies. Try reading up on foreign policy journals and articles. The recommendations almost always involve either some financial aid or intervention. Do you really think that these experts are *all* wrong but you with your overly simplistic idealism are correct? LOL. Talk about insane..."

You accuse me of logical fallacies, employing as your counter-argument a couple of textbook Appeal To Authority and Appeal To Bandwagon fallacies as your attempt at "refutation"?

LOL.

Give it up guy. You've just commited another fallacy. You're beginning to fall apart. My original objection *still* stands. I may have commited a logical fallacy but that does *not* negate your logical fallacy. Surely you are bright enough to understand this?

That's not even offensive; it's embarassing.

Yes, you are becoming embarassing. You bluster on, yet never quite making a cogent argument. I let this go on for quite a while, but it seems to be a characteristic of your replys.

If you were even past the level of Freshman Logical Analysis, I would tell you to be ashamed of yourself.

Yawn...more bluster. Where are your cogent arguments? How have you answered the original issue that started this debate? Yet, you continue posting non-sequitur after non-sequitur.

It's pitiable. You want me to respect your argumentative talents, OP, not to pity you.

Sigh.

Look, watch this: "Well, Golly-Gee, Uber, I don't think all experts are Wrong; I think that only the Foreign Policy Journal Interventionist (so-called) 'experts' are Wrong, and the Foreign Policy Journal Isolationist Experts are Right!!"

Yawn.

Actually you miss the original point. The point is that pragmatism is built on the contributions of many foreign policy experts, including no doubt contributions from isolationists. However, a strict policy of isolationism involves almost *no* decision making whatsover. It's a rigid criteria that can only be justified by a general argument -- an argument that you have failed to produce and an argument that is contradicted by the reality of global politics.

Huh, wouldja look at that -- all of a sudden, I have my very own Appeal to Authority and Bandwagon fallacies with which to counter your "arguments" -- and you have no leg to stand on

It's getting worse. First of all, as stated above, if I have commited a logical fallacy, that says nothing concerning the logical fallacy I pointed out previously. Secondly, it would not "counter" my arguments except possibly the one in context. Finally, you seem to have misunderstood my point so there may not actually be a fallacy. I see nothing wrong with you pointing out possible fallacies of mine. If the arguments are invalid, why not point it out?

That's the problem with Logical Fallacies, Uber -- they gain you nothing when debating someone who is familiar with the science and practice of Logic.

Ironically it's just the opposite. An argument based on a fallacy is typically *invalid*. Depending on the relevance of the argument this could be critical to a general discussion. I would expect you to understand what fallacy I am referring to, otherwise how would you understand what I am saying.

Sheesh, you should already know that.

LOL.

You seem to think that fallacies are some kind of debating point, but if your "arguments" are based on fallacious reasoning they will be invalid.

Oh, heck, I'll say it any way -- for that blatant argumentative blunder, you should be ashamed of yourself.

But the point is getting to the truth, not some kind of argumentative point system.

Try harder next time. I was enjoying our debate, but now you are just disappointing me.

LOL.

The point still stands. You seem to be getting desperate in trying to argue for something that is unsupportable.

Sigh. Try harder next time OP -- don't disappoint me.

LOL. Give it up guy. You've just commited another fallacy. You're beginning to fall apart. My original objection *still* stands. I may have commited a logical fallacy but that does *not* negate your logical fallacy. Surely you are bright enough to understand this?

Your "objection" was a Logical Fallacy, Uber.

Let's try a little exercise:

Try reading up on foreign policy journals and articles. The recommendations almost always involve either some financial aid or intervention. Do you really think that these experts are *all* wrong but you with your overly simplistic idealism are correct? LOL. Talk about insane...

Now: Identify the portion of your "objection" which is not a Logical Appeal to Authority/Bandwagon Fallacy.

Hint: Your whole "objection" here was a a Logical Appeal to Authority/Bandwagon Fallacy, so you did not even provide an "objection" to debate.

Your initial "point", if you care to grace it by that name, was this:

Do you really believe that foreign aid would still be taking place if it *didn't* work? It doesn't work perfectly but it still works. It sounds like you're criticizing specific implementations, but *not* the general policy.

To which I answered, that your claim of authenticity was predicated upon an Appeal to Common Practice Fallacy: "Whatever is, is Right" (and which incorporated a rather novel Inverse Biased Sample fallacy)

C'mon, Uber, that's inane. That's like saying that Corporate subsidies would not exist if they "didn't work".

Ergo, how could your initial "point" possibly stand?

You are telling me that I should respect your preliminary Appeal to Common Practice fallacy....

Do you really believe that foreign aid would still be taking place if it *didn't* work?

....But that is absurd.

Your preliminary Appeal to Common Practice was a fallacy in itself, no matter how much you believe that you bolstered your "point" (and now you admit, oh, gee, maybe it really didn't bolster your point at all, howzabout that) by a subsequent Appeal to Authority/Bandwagon fallacy.

Given that you began with fallacy, how can I even begin to respect your initial "point" as vaild?

Advance a point which is not predicated upon an Appeal to Common Practice/Inverse Biased Sample fallacy, and bolstered thereafter by a subsequent Appeal to Authority/Bandwagon fallacy, and I will entertain it. But not the drivel you have posted above.

You started a little better than this. Now, as it is, you are just trying to dig yourself out of a hole. And it ain't pretty.