Islamic State fighters: "We will drown all of you in blood.''

[Occam's Banana]

Things are getting pretty violent down in Mexico, isn't it time we started bombing them?

Ferguson MO first. Mexico will just have to wait its turn. Priorities ...

 

[Muwahid]

Show me you have the ability to distinguish between a) facts essential to an argument, and b) supporting information for an argument which, if it turns out to be false, does not alter the validity of the argument in question.

I made a quite-cogent case many posts ago. You have chosen to focus on elements that are not essential in any way to the argument, and yet here you still demand an case be made that has already been given.

I also note that if your terms were applied to your own arguments, you would fail them utterly.

I've asked you a simple question, which is do you agree to my defined criteria of a strong inductive argument? I'll quote myself so you can answer the question:

Do you believe my criteria is reasonable or do you think we should allow unsubstantiated claims from unqualified authorities (who wouldn't ordinarily be privy to the financial transactions of Qatar) as evidence for an inductive argument?

Also, I would challenge you to take a post of mine where I've made a weak inductive argument, and explain in logical terms why.

Unlike you when I claim your argument is weak I explain why I believe so, you simply just tell me my argument is weak. That helps no one.

 

[Natural Citizen]

We're not talking about science or mathematics...

You said that "As an example, citing a large body of medical experts to prove something is dangerous to your health..." So...yes you were.

We can go further into discussing logic and philosophy, but it appears people on RPF need a serious refresher course.

Let's go.

 

[thoughtomator]

Trollspotter Level: Expert

 

[thoughtomator]

I've asked you a simple question, which is do you agree to my defined criteria of a strong inductive argument? I'll quote myself so you can answer the question:

Also, I would challenge you to take a post of mine where I've made a weak inductive argument, and explain in logical terms why.

Unlike you when I claim your argument is weak I explain why I believe so, you simply just tell me my argument is weak. That helps no one.

To be perfectly straightforward with you, your trollery bores me to tears and I've wasted way too much time with you.

You do not belong here. This is not the place for people like you. Find someone else willing to listen to your arrogant boasting and shout-from-the-rooftops ignorance.

 

[Muwahid]

You said that "As an example, citing a large body of medical experts to prove something is dangerous to your health..." So...yes you were.

Let's go.

A medical consensus is reason to come to a logical conclusion regarding a subject. And that's not the topic either way, the topic is whether or not a legitimate argument from authority can help create a cogent inductive argument.

Ironically you seem to have quoted a perceived authority (Carl Sagan?) to prove a point regarding the invalidity or weakness of using authorities to prove a point. Furthermore my entire debate with the conspiracists who have (for whatever reason) been vehemently challenging my claim that arguments from authority can create cogent inductive arguments, are all guilty of using arguments from authorities themselves.

My challenge here is, where have I even used an argument from authority? The only allusion to it is my statement regarding my ethnic origin, but I wasn't even claiming to be the authority I was refuting a statement that I'm obtain all my news from filtered corrupt US sources.

But the conspiracists have made their whole argument on authorities (Maliki saying GCC funds IS, Hezbollah claiming the same, a German minister claiming Qatar funds IS, I've seen Ibtimes cited as an authority for IS being trained by the US)

Those are all appeals to [unqualified] authorities, yet the ultimate irony, half of this debate has been me defending argument from authority in the realm of inductive argumentation.

No thoughtomator, I'm not a troll, but I am slightly amused with how this debate turned out Will you deny you're using arguments from authority?

 

[alucard13mm]

Here we go... going into things half cocked. Stay out or kill them all. Seems half cocked is on purpose because it leaves survivors. Survivors will hate the aggressors and come for revenge. Those survivors will probably have a family later on, and then you kill the survivor, but some members of the survivor's family will survive and will come for revenge.

Survivors coming for revenge = more money for MIC.

 

[Muwahid]

To be perfectly straightforward with you, your trollery bores me to tears and I've wasted way too much time with you.

I apologize for making you cry.

 

[thoughtomator]

I apologize for making you cry.

You can show me your apology is sincere by taking a hike.

 

[Muwahid]

You can show me your apology is sincere by taking a hike.

It wasn't sincere.

 

[69360]

You can show me your apology is sincere by taking a hike.

Why? The guy brings a different perspective to the forum and is spot on about all the intricacies of the various middle east countries factions, sects and groups. I find his posts interesting.

 

[thoughtomator]

Why? The guy brings a different perspective to the forum and is spot on about all the intricacies of the various middle east countries factions, sects and groups. I find his posts interesting.

That information is available elsewhere without needing to ingest poison to acquire it.

 

[navy-vet]

This situation seems ripe for Marque and Reprisal. If I were POTUS, I would deploy priority intelligence against the threat, once we have stopped a few live attacks (if they choose to make them), then draw up and make a case before Congress for Marque and Reprisal to eradicate their entire network, surgically. As in knives over guns, and make a bounty chart for private militia and private bounty orgs to collect up the network and bring them to our Marines alive or dead in exchange for cash payment of six to seven figure bounties each value depending. Run it like a well defended business with a mobile and hidden HQ. We support and pay the locals on the ground bringing us high value network associates.

Completely absorb the network creating the attacks, and only that network. Just vanish all of them in as quick a period as possible using local assets and international private militia (privateers) and then leave, preferably leaving as little if any trace of your presence ever having been. Take the network out as clean as possible and go home.

A subcontinental size operation would likely be just one platoon of MARSOC, maybe augmented with one squad each of Army SOF, Navy SOF, Air Force SOF or second Navy SOF element (depending on mission), a heavy Intell detachment operating hand in hand with CIA assets on the ground, and a heavy command element containing (probably) a Lt Col Accountant, in charge of the M&R accounts and disbursements. Payouts for captured or killed targets. It would have to be commanded by the Marines or Navy (therefore MARSOC being the primary, Could possibly also be SEAL operated Constitutionally...) for Constitutional reasons in situations short of a Declaration of War. Marque and such always go through Navy Branches for a reason.

The point being, if it is a legitimate threat, focus all those googlebillion dollar intelligence assets on the threat as necessary to intercept a live threat, if the live attacks do materialize, then make the case for terror-piracy and cut half a billion to a drawing account for a certain LtCol paying bounties for (preferably) living members of a terror network.

When we refuse to make their propaganda for them, there is less blowback. If a group actively attacking the US just kinda disappears leaving vacuum behind, well, it makes a hell of a lot less blowback.

Don't know how I missed this, but this seems more plausible than any other ideas I have heard or thought of.

 

[Natural Citizen]

... the topic is whether or not a legitimate argument from authority can help create a cogent inductive argument.

The topic is Islamic State fighters: "We will drown all of you in blood.''

And I've already demonstrated by example and in the first person that argument from authority can help create a cogent inductive argument a few pages ago. How do you think you got to where you are in the discussion now?

 

[navy-vet]

I propose the first thing we try is to stop funding and training them.

I agree.

 

[navy-vet]

If by "we" you mean me or my children or my bank account, then the answer is NO! Go do it yourself. I happen to be convinced that the US government is corrupt and cannot be trusted to do much of anything, especially not fighting "evil". I also don't see much difference between decapitating children with a knife and decapitating them by firing a missile into their school room. Do you? And that makes us "evil" by your definition.

Thinking that what the middle east needs is MORE US bombs is like thinking that what Chicago needs for its violence problem is more gun control. How many times do we need to fail at Plan A before we stop repeating it? Hey, it didn't work the twenty times we tried before. We must need a bigger hammer!

I think there is a huge difference between intentionally slaughtering children and doing it accidentally in an effort to save some. I also have not heard that we have been targeting school rooms. You have taken your stand and I have taken mine, and I doubt it has any effect one way or the other except to make us enemies.

 

[Brett85]

So go do it, you bunch of murderous bastards. And pay for it out of your own pockets....and if there is a hell, expect to rot in it.

Hoping that someone rots in hell for all eternity is a lot worse than wanting to kill people. There's no excuse whatsoever for that comment.

 

[navy-vet]

Who's payroll are you on?
I am an American and I am paid by the US government for services previously rendered. A contractual agreement of sorts.



Iv'e never heard that line before.......

I think Amy's contribution can stay, and it's telling that you want somebody else to give the five bucks.

In reference to my remark concerning Amy, that was a rhetorical remark. In other words it was not intended to be taken literally.

 

[Origanalist]

In reference to my remark concerning Amy, that was a rhetorical remark. In other words it was not intended to be taken literally.

Is that what that word means? Huh.

 

[navy-vet]

Is that what that word means? Huh.

Wasn't quite sure how fluent you are in the English language. No offense was intended.