Actually, if you look at what I wrote, you'll see I'm paraphrasing Patriot4life's argument.
Well, if restating Patriot4life's own argument is a strawman, then I guess I'm guilty.
No. I said millions of people will hate us no matter what we do, not that nothing we can do will stop terrorism. Speaking of strawmen.
Yes, misstating your opponent's argument is the very definition of a strawman. Patriot stated that actions like GITMO were fueling this conflict.
You stated that Gitmo did not occur before 9/11. You ignored other actions America has undertaken in the past. This mischaracterizes his argument, and then attacks it. That is a strawman.
And please show where I said there was no solution. That's your second strawman in two paragraphs.
Simple:
There are people - probably millions of people - who will hate anyone and everyone in the U.S., no matter what we do, unless it involves conversion to fundamentalist Islam or mass suicide. No amount of making nice to them will change that.
You state flat out that no amount of making nice will make them not hate us. This is a false dilemma - we may reduce the number of people hate us, and the support for people hating us, without completely eliminating everyone who hates us.
Thus, the logical fallacy becomes obvious, even to you.
And I said this where? Strawman number three. You're on a roll.
No, strawman is where you mischaracterize your opponent's arguments. I am simply stating your arguments, then demonstrating how they fail to make a logical case. This is called refuting your opponent's arguments, and is probably the second essence of debate (The first is forming arguments).
Smearing? I beg your pardon. Telling someone his position is naive is not smearing, except in the world of people with tender sensibilities such as E.J. Armstrong and, apparently yourself.
"Kid" "Wash the mud from your eyes" "Naive."
These are not words you use except to belittle your opponent's position. Belittling your opponent's position without addressing it is the essence of the argument from ridicule.
Evidence? I observed that September 11 happened despite Patriot4life's claim that one of the reasons the jihadis hate us is for things we did after September 11. They hated us already, enough to murder thousands of us. They didn't need roundups and incarcerations to hate us. They already did.
Seems to me the only thing you have "demonstrated" is the ability to put three strawmen in one post, and the gall to be outraged when you misidentify one.
I won't discuss the childish aspects of your post except to suggest you grow up.
Given your failure to understand the nature of debate, may I return the ad hom with one of my own, perhaps addressing you at the level you seem comfortable with will render me more comprehensible:
You are one of the people who appears to have grown old without ever growing mature. In that I always expect and seek to learn new things, I will always appear immature to people who lack that capacity. So I shall never 'grow up' in the meaning that you use the phrase - too set in my ways to learn anything new.
Also, your casual disregard for anything resembling an intelligible debate is just annoying. I don't necessarily agree with Armstrong on much, but at least he tries. You seem content to sit back with a barrel of rotten tomatoes and desperately avoid thinking.
