Quote:
Originally Posted by Truth-Bringer
No, you're simply describing them as false and misleading. You're misinterpreting and mischaracterizing my statements.
...
LOL. This is a complete mischaracterization.
In post 38 You said:
Then in post 39 he said:
This shows he disagrees with your position. Then he goes on to say:
|
No, your comments are false and misleading as I've laid out in detail. Like when you tried to make it seem that a bunch of people supported you on this thread, when in fact only one member of this forum commented, and he agreed with my comments about how the Founders wanted a standing army. He said that I had not made the case for the Founders "war mongering", which I went on to do after he posted. So you made a misleading comment there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truth-Bringer
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?
|
No, but most often (to use your analogy) banned people argue 2+2=5. So you attempt to draw credibility from someone with such a reputation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truth-Bringer
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.
|
No, you misrepresent the poster whom you are drawing support from. His argument is not an appeal to novelty fallacy. He's not arguing that our policies are superior to the Founder's policies because they're new. He implies that they are superior because of what the Founders
"were limited in what they could know." The correct interpretation of his remarks were sitting there right in front of you, in plain and simple English and you chose to distort them anyway. Typical of most of what you posted on this thread.
WEB