Patriotism is like Religion

[Dak]

Let's play the "make your case" game. That's where you actually present evidence or shut up.

oh, if only we could: but it takes two to play that game, and you seem unwilling.

 

both me and atm have presented evidence, in the form of both logical reasoning and literature, to support our oppinions.

 

you ignoring the evidence does not mean that it does not exist/has not been presented.

 

please read through the Nizkor project; familiarise yourself with the logical falicies; and then attempt to refrain from commiting them.

[-Demosthenes-]

Your democracy was based on the British democracy. I fail to see how you could continue to regurgitate this old misinformed logic, you've been corrected on this in detail in many other threads. The US was in no aspect the first democracy. The US even copied the constitution and courts from the English. The politicians and civil servants in the US were English, and copied what they knew...Sparta was a monarchy that became a military state, the very opposite of a democracy. If your basing your idea of democracy on Sparta, no wonder you are so confused.

First I was mistaken, it was Athenian government, you know how easy it is to mix up Greek City States. I don't study Greek history now and I haven't since grade school.

The large city-state of Athens had established an early form of democracy by 600 bc

Second the English were responsible for only a part of the ideals in the constitution and the U.S. government make-up. There were as as much Greek and French as they were British. True Hobbes has some ideas, Locke had better ones, and your Protestant thinkers helped with some of the Christian ideas, and of course Blackstone and Coke had contributed, but many ideas were French (Montesquieu and Rousseau) and many were from as far back as Plato and Aristotle. Many ideas came from the Framers themselves, although they were British by blood, they were definitely not British in any other way. The Constitution was not a copy it borrowed ideas from many ideologies. Separation of powers was largely put together by Madison, and the Self Evident Truths were put together (not to say they didn't exist before then) by the Framers.

It is true that there were some democratic ideas were seeping into western Europe like England around 1642 with the rebellion against the monarchy. The U.S. was started with many more democratic ideas than had gotten into England at the time. It was a good start, I believe by 1856 most property restrictions were removed, and of course racial restrictions were removed (in theory) by 1865, women suffrage was gained in 1920. Despite the injustices that the government started with I think that the U.S. was still far ahead in terms of democracy of a long time.

Sorry I have gone so off topic, but there was no other way to explain myself, it's quite complicated.

[revprez]

oh, if only we could

 

But you can't. Neither you or atm have bothered to provide any supporting literature, your self-described love for reason is laughable, and now you're asking me to disprove the positive yet unsubstantiated claim that "patriotism is like religion."

 

Here's an exercise for you, go through the thread and formally describe any logical fallacies. Any fool can link to Nizkor. Let's see you actually apply the calculus.

 

Rev Prez

[Dak]

I cant be arsed to point all of them out as it would take too long, but heres the first one i found:

 

Religious types and patriots (who you likely view as nationalist neanderthals), remember? You don't like either. After all, they propagate and/or perpetuate lies.

This is a strawman, with a twist of poisioning the well.

 

the majority of your falicies are actually too plain dumb to be addressed in the nizkor files: 'faliciously ignoring evidence' isnt listed, surprisingly, although I believe it is generally refered to as 'arging from pigheadedness', or 'trolling'.

 

Or, from one paragraph in your most recent post:

 

Neither you or atm have bothered to provide any supporting literature...

falitiously ignoring evidence.

 

your self-described love for reason is laughable,

appeal to ridicule and ad hominin

 

and now you're asking me to disprove the positive yet unsubstantiated claim that "patriotism is like religion."

argument from pigheadedness. it has been substantiated. you have failed to adequately refute, or in many cases even address, the substantiations.

[revprez]

I cant be arsed to point all of them out as it would take too long, but heres the first one i found:

 

Like I said, any fool can look up fallacies on Nizkor, just as any three year old can use words they don't understand in meaningless ways. Write the proofs.

 

Rev Prez

[Dak]

No. The proofs are on the website that i linked to. citing the name of the falicy is an acceptable way of pointing out the logical crapness of your arguments. you go look up the definitions of the falicies, and if you dont believe that youv commited them at the points that i quoted, then you defend your comments, and explain why they arent falicies, and why the falicy that i cited doesnt fit.

[revprez]

No. The proofs are on the website that i linked to.

 

My God, you have no idea what you're talking about. Okay, we're done.

 

Rev Prez

[Dak]

the website that i linked to is a website dedicated entirely to proof of why certain argumentative tactics are logicaly faliciouse. i believe my statement that you quoted was, therefore, entirely accurate. You asked me for proofs and i supplied them.

 

or did you want me to explain in detail that putting words in my mouth counts as strawmaning because it allows you to attack an argument that i never made? Or that accusing me (entirely unfoundedly and innacurately) of equating patriots with nationalist neanderthals is poisoning the well because it attempts to brand me as a patriot-hater, which would then cast doubt on the objectivity (and thus validity) of my comments on patriotism?

 

Had i aquiested, i suspect that you would have gone on to demand an explanation from me as to why being a strawman invalidates your argument. Had I complied to that, i suspect you would have demanded that i fully define the word 'argument', before you were finally forsed to fall back on your tried-and-tested tactic of spouting out a random insult and changing the subject.

[atinymonkey]

But you can't. Neither you or atm have bothered to provide any supporting literature' date=' your self-described love for reason is laughable, and now you're asking me to disprove the positive yet unsubstantiated claim that "patriotism is like religion."

[/quote']

Fol de rol rol.

 

Until you change your attitude, I am not going to put any effort into defending my statements. I really don't need to.

 

You have been presented with copious documentation. Your refusal to admit the literature is your own shortcoming. There is no logical need for me, or Dak, to regurgitate the information provided on the websites. Indeed, the likelihood is that you would continue to deny the evidence whatever format it was presented to you. I am no going to enter a prolonged debate as to the nature of Nationalism, it is a predefined concept. If you wish to argue that Nationalism has a different definition, your argument is purely semantic and entirely baseless.

 

It is clear to me that your sole purpose on the forum is to created arguments, which you justify with strawmanning, ad hominem commentary, derogatory behavior and severely flawed logic. It seems that you believe these to be effective debating tools, where in reality they serve no other purpose than antagonism. Using these methods is a petty way of bolstering your ego, it's not a debating style. If you wish to truly debate the point of Religion and Patriotism, you will have to demonstrate an ability to debate. As it stands at the moment, neither I nor any of the other forum members will do anything other than respond to your insults.

[revprez]

It should be clear to anyone reading this thread that neither you nor Dak have shit to substantiate anything you've presented here. Why don't you run over to Relativity and start defending preferred frame crankery? You certainly have the intellectual honesty and rigor for it.

 

Rev Prez

[Dak]

It should be clear to anyone reading this thread that neither you nor Dak have shit to substantiate anything you've presented here. Why don't you run over to Relativity and start defending preferred frame crankery? You certainly have the intellectual honesty and rigor for it.

 

Unless, of course, by 'reading this thread' you mean actually reading this thread, in which case your argument tends to fall apart. If you expand your definition to mean reading the contents of this thread, including the quotes, and including folowing the links, and actually considering the points raised, then your argument gets redused to mere unsubstantiated ad hominins, which funnily enough adds weight to atm's last post.

[atinymonkey]

It should be clear to anyone reading this thread that neither you nor Dak have shit to substantiate anything you've presented here.

Yes. Well. Not quite sure I'm on the same page of the book here, or even using the same language, but we generally consider evidence to mitigate arguments. If your expecting feces instead of coherence, perhaps that is where the problem is.

 

*sigh*At least we are all remaining civil about it. No poo jokes here.

Why don't you run over to Relativity and start defending preferred frame crankery?

I can honestly say I have very little idea which preferred frame you are referring to. I'm assuming you are using it as a derogatory expression because, well, it's you saying it.

 

I'm extending that logic to cover you thinking a preferred frame is something a crank would argue, by that token that you take me as a crank. Which is rather odd as the term 'preferred frame' is rather common both inside and outside of Physics to describe the condition more commonly known as 'thinking inside the box'. The correct usage in a sentence would be 'a preferred frame of reference'. It means defining the parameters of a problem before you attempt to solve it, giving a focus to the task. Which would mean by removing the preferred frame you prefer to work unhindered by logic.

 

Unless what your saying is completely garbled, and what you actually mean is argue around a constant frame of reference. Which would be sadly ironic from someone who ignores references.

You certainly have the intellectual honesty and rigor for it.

Well, after all that it's is nice to see that you can admit you are not being intellectually honest.

 

Rev Prez

I see there is still a need to place your tag after each diatribe. Is this some sort of positive affirmation that you need, in order to validate whatever you post? Whatever the reason it's just a pointless distraction, which again is sadly ironic.

[-Demosthenes-]

I see there is still a need to place your tag after each diatribe. Is this some sort of positive affirmation that you need, in order to validate whatever you post? Whatever the reason it's just a pointless distraction, which again is sadly ironic.

oooo...maybe we should all take a break.

[Dave]

Okay, I think that this has gone on long enough. Pretty much the last page of this has been throwing insults back and forth over and over again, and as such I'm going to close the thread.

 

Any requests for re-opening the thread can be directed towards myself.