Theos-Talk Archives (July 2003 Message tt00136)

Bart Lidofsky wrote:

> Theo Paijmans wrote:
> >
> > Nope. You used the presence of information on the Internet as evidence
>
> of its truth. I pointed out that it is NOT evidence of its truth. You
> used a logical fallacy (argumentum ad populum), and I pointed it out.

Either way, as I pointed out previously, the matter stays unresolved. If, as you
claim, that particular bit of information is false - your criteria being that:
a)the bit of information must be anti-American propaganda
b)it is on the internet and since it is a) it must be suspect by simply being on
the internet
c)it is found in sources you don't like for reason a)

You could have instead used objective criteria as
a) a simple, clear, concise analysis and rebuttal of that particular bit of
information b)a coherent demonstration why those sources publishing that
particular bit of information are not in order, other than that they collude with
your world view and c)a source other than an internet source proving your starting
premisse, i.e. that the information is flawed/false because it is on the internet.

You have done none of the above, other than changing the focus on the contents (is
or is that particular piece of information true or false) to focussing on form
(logical fallacy, argumentum ad populum). The question, whether that particular
piece of information is true or false remains open. It demonstrates that if you
would have had actual data that could have helped you in rebuting that claim, you
would have used it by now. That you have not done so, is an indication that there
is no such data to be found.

> I said radical, not terrorist. Since you will not desist from putting
> words into my mouth and using straw many arguments, I will not dignify
> you with any more answers until you desist.
>
> In other words, if you have to fabricate things that I never said in
> order to argue with them, then perhaps you have nothing to argue.
>

You used the word "radical" and not "terrorist", we have no disagreement over
that. I simply asked the question when that thin line between radicalism and
terrorism is being crossed, in order to recall the age old adagium that one man's
freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. By asking a question I obviously did
not put words in your mouth, but it is by now obvious that neither of us is going
to convince one another, and you apparently have deemed it necessary to:
a)accuse me of something I did not do nor intend to("putting words into my mouth")

b)humiliate me by saying that you will not "dignify" me again
c)not convince me but force me to a certain action since you have a hard time
having me to see it your way ("until you desist")

As the icing on the cake you accuse me of:
a)fabrication
b)being an airhead as obviously, I have nothing to argue with

Best regards,

Theo