Quote:
Originally Posted by W.E.B. Du Bois
No, most of your comments here are false and misleading.
|
No, you're simply describing them as false and misleading. You're misinterpreting and mischaracterizing my statements.
Quote:
|
You got support from one banned poster. I view that as irrelevant, you view it as relevant, which is no different than the normal cherry-picking that you've done.
|
Again, does a violation of the rules policy on a forum affect validity of the arguments on a political subject made by the poster? If a poster says 2+2=4 and later gets banned, does that invalidate his assertion that 2+2=4?
Quote:
|
He disagreed with you on an argument where you developed your argument and I developed mine. He disagreed with me on an argument that you developed but that I did not develop until after he posted. So essentially, he disagreed with you on the issue where he was most qualified to disagree.
|
LOL. This is a complete mischaracterization.
In post 38 You said:
Quote:
|
"We can consider the opening post de-bunked and falsified."
|
Then in post 39 he said:
Quote:
Huh? I think you have presented good evidence that not all of the founding fathers were against a standing army, but that's not what the opening post was about.
He claimed that the founding fathers would be against pre-emptive wars and foreign intervention. The quotes he showed certainly do suggest that, and there is nothing in those quotes that would suggest this was only because America was weak at the time. The quotes all seem to suggest war as a terrible last resort to defend America's liberty or security - not to go around invading other countries for their own good.
|
This shows he disagrees with your position. Then he goes on to say:
Quote:
|
But I suppose the point is moot anyhow because the founding fathers were very limited in what they could know. Hundreds of years of experience separate us from them. The American Constitution was more of a proto-type for more democratic republics and we cling to it as if it were some sacred thing."
|
His statement "I suppose the point is moot anyhow because the founding fathers were very limited in what they could know" does nothing to refute my argument because it is a form of Appeal to Novelty fallacy and is also close to Chronological snobbery.