Autolykos,
if i am a troll, then follow your own advice and dont feed the trolls.
actually there must be a name for someone who calls someone else a troll to avoid debate.
that seems to be a popular ‘debate’ style on radical forums , just call someone a troll instead of debating them and get them booted.
it happens all the time on fascist, islamist, and communist websites
remember dont feed the trolls!
autolykos: Wrong you are. Try actually understanding what an argument from ignorance is, next time. Here’s a helpful link in case you have trouble searching for it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Have fun!
yeah my kid is going to have fun with this one. Every time some adult tells him that santa doesnt exist, he can just throw this at them.
you know what is really funny. the very act of saying that anarchism is possible cuz it hasnt been disproven by history is in itself an argument from ignorance.
from your source autolykos:
wiki - Argument from ignorance: It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not been proven false
anytime an anarchist tells you that anarchism is good to go, it just takes time, is committing a fallacy since he is basically saying that the fact that it (anarchism) hasnt been proven false (by history) means that it is still possible in the future (like santa claus or unicorns or sex with megan fox).
although, I think i am on far more sturdy fallacious grounds by using argument from ignorance to refute something that never existed, then autolykos to support something that never existed. funny he is using the same fallacy but his house of cards is made out of wet noodles, at least mine stands on something tangible.
oh well, just a little rumination from your friendly neighborhood troll .
btw autolykos, i dont know if you have ever been to college or if your still in high school, but between me and you, wiki aint a credible source. but it is cool between us though.
What exactly did you mean here; that it does require empirical support? Or, did you mean: Nothing more than that empirical support would be nice in addition to the requirement, of which empirical support is not one?
Where did I present such advice?
So do tell: where exactly do you think I’m avoiding debate with you? (That, of course, assumes that you’re really interested in actual debate at this point.) As far as I can tell, you’re the one who keeps trying to avoid it by ignoring many of my points.
Perhaps you’d like to explain how our debate regarding anarchism is analogous to Santa Claus? Until then, it seems to me that you’re actually assuming what you then set out to prove - that anarchism is just as impossible as the existence of good ol’ Saint Nick.
Actually, if something hasn’t been proven impossible, it is (by definition) possible. Argument from ignorance doesn’t concern possibility, it concerns truth/falsehood. The argument from ignorance still rests entirely with you.
How have you refuted anarchism, exactly? I’ve seen no refutation of it from you. Furthermore, you can’t even logically claim that anarchism never existed, because you don’t know. Fun Fact: belief and knowledge aren’t necessarily the same thing.
Also, to concede that you’re employing a logical fallacy, but that somehow your fallacious “argument” is still stronger than your opponent’s, completely betrays your real motivations here. It’s obvious to me, and to anyone else who’s paying attention, that your motivation is simply to win at all costs. Hence you employ this measure of extreme desperation. I don’t know who you’re trying to impress with this - as far as I can tell, your behavior will earn you nothing but derision and contempt from most people in this forum. But hey, maybe you don’t care (unlikely IMO). Be that as it may.
Perhaps you’d like to explain just what makes you think that Wiki “aint [sic] a credible source”? Or are you too afraid to do even that?
Autolykos: Perhaps you’d like to explain just what makes you think that Wiki “aint [sic] a credible source”? Or are you too afraid to do even that?
Dude I will humor you this last time with a response, however I dont have time to deal with this nonsense in future posts.
the reason why wiki is not a credible source is because my 5 year old can and has edited content on it.
the rest of your ‘argument’ is less worthy of my time.
Thanks and good luck to you and yours on your quixotic quest to promote anarchism and related conspiracy theories.
Translation: “I don’t have any logical counter-argument for anything you wrote, so I’m implicitly conceding, but I can’t explicitly concede because that would make me look bad, and I can’t stand looking bad, so I’m trying to make it look like I’m still winning the debate.”
Please support this claim or I’ll judge it to be baseless.
Whatever lets you sleep at night.
There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
So, to sum up my “exchange” with Centinel in this thread:
First I asked, in this post, whether Centinel considered the presence of a military-industrial complex to enhance or diminish economic freedom. Instead of answering me honestly, Centinel went on a trollish rant accusing me of making an argument from ignorance with my question. Unfortunately, he strawmanned the concept of “argument from ignorance”. When I called him out on this, he ran away from this thread entirely.
Here’s why I think Centinel avoided actual debate with me. It’s obvious to me that his support for the US military-industrial complex contradicts his support for maximizing economic freedom (“more economic freedom = good”). Furthermore, I think he realizes this contradiction himself. Of course, admitting to such a contradiction would, in his apparent view, make him appear weaker in the forum. As an apparent neocon, the last thing he wants is to ever appear weak.
In the final analysis, I think we can readily see that Centinel isn’t concerned with logical validity. He’s concerned with manipulating people into siding with him on these issues. This apparently means to him that he must appear stronger than all others in a forum, as he seem to believe that the “sheeplike” masses always side with whoever’s strongest. A good Straussian he is indeed!