Dozens killed in Brussels terrorist attack

[The Big Dunn]

It does. Notice I pointed out the specific fallacies you had to lower yourself to.

Do you need any of those terms taught to you before you attempt to continue?



As stated above, I do. Try and keep up with what I write please. I dont like to have to repeat myself.



Well that's your opinion, but Europe has seen that liberal 'tolerance' and denial is not working at all. It's actually leading to the deaths of lots of innocent people.

You do realize insanity is continuing on with the same policies and expecting a different result, don't you?



Pure conjecture, yet again. Can you please stop this and try and debate based on facts alone?

Or is that too much to ask of a person like yourself?



Are you crazy?!?!

Of course if they ID a terrorists they will get a warrant (or probable cause) and search the home. That's basic 4th Amendment stuff here.

Geez, how much of the basics do you need me to explain to you???

FYI, I'm here to debate, not to teach you things I learned well before High School.



Yes you did. You called me the name of a fictional character, and thus out of my name.

Knock it off. If you cant state your case in an adult manner, you have no case to state.



and that's your right. But once you spew it out, you've resorted to insult.

Look at it this way; based on your posts, and your desperate attempts at fallacy, I feel certain words fit you. I THINK that. But I don't call you those words in our debates because that would be me stooping to insult and name-calling. Get it?



And you are wrong.

FYI, my age is under my avatar.



We don't have to agree on opinions, but you will have to agree on the facts. That's been your problem so far, you're making up things and calling them facts.

I have kept up with everything you have written. It is what I am using to form my opinion of you and the points you are presenting. If you feel being compared to Archie Bunker is an insult, that's on you. I was simply being honest. When I read what you write that is who comes to mind. Whenever I am reminded of that combination of pro US passion and ignorance I get worried.

Yeah in 2005 you were 44. Its 2016 so that leads me to believe you are over 50. If you are still 44 now, ok.

I have stated my case in an adult manner. I have also debated facts. The facts are that the overwhelming majority of Muslims are not terrorists and as such I am not in favor of any response to Muslim terror that frames the issue as a an issue with Islam.

I have yet to dispute any fact posted. I simply choose not to use the facts others have listed when evaluating the issue. We should use as much factual information as possible when forming an opinion. However, when I see facts being used that come from studies paid for by partisan interests, I tend not to trust them.

How Europe handles an issue is not relevant to me. I have not called anything untrue a fact. I never stated any of my percentages were facts.

My education and life experiences steer me toward one set of facts, yours to another. That is the difference here. when you or anyone can provide solid data that the majority of Muslims are extremists that would commit terror, then I will factor that in.

[////]

I have kept up with everything you have written. It is what I am using to form my opinion of you and the points you are presenting. If you feel being compared to Archie Bunker is an insult, that's on you. I was simply being honest. When I read what you write that is who comes to mind. Whenever I am reminded of that combination of pro US passion and ignorance I get worried.

Yeah in 2005 you were 44. Its 2016 so that leads me to believe you are over 50. If you are still 44 now, ok.

I have stated my case in an adult manner. I have also debated facts. The facts are that the overwhelming majority of Muslims are not terrorists and as such I am not in favor of any response to Muslim terror that frames the issue as a an issue with Islam.

I have yet to dispute any fact posted. I simply choose not to use the facts others have listed when evaluating the issue. We should use as much factual information as possible when forming an opinion. However, when I see facts being used that come from studies paid for by partisan interests, I tend not to trust them.

How Europe handles an issue is not relevant to me. I have not called anything untrue a fact. I never stated any of my percentages were facts.

My education and life experiences steer me toward one set of facts, yours to another. That is the difference here. when you or anyone can provide solid data that the majority of Muslims are extremists that would commit terror, then I will factor that in.

You can use this argument about literally anyone. The majority of gang members have never committed an act of terror, the majority of skinheads have never committed an act of terror. They just support martyrs who commit them on the behalf of the belief system.

That isn't even slightly relevant to whether or encourage them to immigrate into your country.

There is no logical argument for why the west needs to continue to shovel devout Muslims, extreme Muslims or anyone else with connections to Islam into its cities.

The ones already living there are granted freedom of religion. That doesn't have anything to do with identifying it as a problematic ideology and refusing to bring in even more.

It does not seem like you have a point. You just want to side against what you view as a common enemy.

[The Big Dunn]

You can use this argument about literally anyone. The majority of gang members have never committed an act of terror, the majority of skinheads have never committed an act of terror. They just support martyrs who commit them on the behalf of the belief system.

That isn't even slightly relevant to whether or encourage them to immigrate into your country.

There is no logical argument for why the west needs to continue to shovel devout Muslims, extreme Muslims or anyone else with connections to Islam into its cities.

The ones already living there are granted freedom of religion. That doesn't have anything to do with identifying it as a problematic ideology and refusing to bring in even more.

It does not seem like you have a point. You just want to side against what you view as a common enemy.

Gangs and SKinheads are groups you choose to associate with.The majority of members of criminal organizations have committed criminal acts, they are not as you suggest simple supporters. The majority of people that join a racist organization do so because they agree with the tenets of said group. As such, targeting those group members is logical and necessary remedy to stop their criminal practices.

There is a difference between ISIS and Islam. Should we target ISIS and Hamas, yes. Should we target the mob, bloods, KKK, skinheads, MS 13-yes. Should we target all followers of Islam-no.

This will be the only time I respond to you.

[////]

Gangs and SKinheads are groups you choose to associate with.The majority of members of criminal organizations have committed criminal acts, they are not as you suggest simple supporters. The majority of people that join a racist organization do so because they agree with the tenets of said group. As such, targeting those group members is logical and necessary remedy to stop their criminal practices.

There is a difference between ISIS and Islam. Should we target ISIS and Hamas, yes. Should we target the mob, bloods, KKK, skinheads, MS 13-yes. Should we target all followers of Islam-no.

This will be the only time I respond to you.

So is Islam. You choose to subscribe to Islam. Islam is not an ethnic group. I am middle eastern and reject Islam. It is first and foremost a political confederation, secondarily a religion, and in no way shape or form an ethnicity.

It is also not "targeting" them to stop systematically importing them into your country without proper screening.

I also don't like how closet black power cowards on the internet think sympathizing with radical Islam is a "common foe" situation while being members of western society. Most of them hate you and you know it, but your childhood insecurities have turned you into their suicidal cheerleaders.

You don't have a point. Blatantly fabricated statistics, followed by attempts to blur reality via vague wording, followed by outright avoidance/refusal to respond. Run away, coward.

[1bad65]

I have kept up with everything you have written.

It's obvious you haven't, but you thinking you have only shows more of how lost you are in an adult debate.

If you feel being compared to Archie Bunker is an insult, that's on you.

It is an insult. Based on your inability to grasp basic concepts and simple written English, do you see me comparing to to Forrest Gump or the guy from Sling blade? Of course not, because I'm the one capable of stating my case without insults.

I was simply being honest. When I read what you write that is who comes to mind. Whenever I am reminded of that combination of pro US passion and ignorance I get worried.

Honest or not, its an insult. If you are debating a guy with one leg, do you think it's ok to call him a "cripple"? Of course not. Just grow up and stop acting like a child.

I can do it. Why cant you?

Yeah in 2005 you were 44. Its 2016 so that leads me to believe you are over 50. If you are still 44 now, ok.

No, in 2005 I was 33.

That number changes, fyi. Every year my birthday comes up, it increases by 1. There's a reason it asks for your birth date here, not your age. Something else you need to keep up on....

I have stated my case in an adult manner. I have also debated facts.

Wrong on both, but I'm sensing you'll never figure that out.

The facts are that the overwhelming majority of Muslims are not terrorists and as such I am not in favor of any response to Muslim terror that frames the issue as a an issue with Islam.

It is an issue with islam!!

Geez, what does it take for reality to smack you upside the head??

I have yet to dispute any fact posted.

Correct, you have failed to dispute any facts I've presented. Thanks for confirming that though.

However, when I see facts being used that come from studies paid for by partisan interests, I tend not to trust them.

Then that's on you if fallacy is placed higher than fact in your mind.

Partisan or not, certain facts are facts. For example, I despise KKK people. But if one KKK person says that 2+2=4, they are right. It is what it is, and the facts presented were sourced. You don't like the source, too bad. Facts are facts.

How Europe handles an issue is not relevant to me.

Well that shows serious ignorance and lack of logic.

One should always use the experiences of others so they can do the good things they did and avoid the bad things they did. It's common sense.

My education and life experiences steer me toward one set of facts, yours to another.

facepalm

Again, facts are facts. You cant pick and choose what you call fact and what you refuse to accept as fact.

That is the difference here. when you or anyone can provide solid data that the majority of Muslims are extremists that would commit terror, then I will factor that in.

No one has made that claim, so you're again stooping to a strawman argument. That's a very bad habit of yours.

What people are actually saying is that a disproportionate amount of terrorist acts are committed by muslims. By far, and the numbers prove it.

Now sourced numbers were also provided showing a large percentage of muslims agree with the terrorists, but you're obviously not going to accept that either.

[1bad65]

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.

The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e. "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.

This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged emotional issues where a fiery, entertaining "battle" and the defeat of an "enemy" may be more valued than critical thinking or understanding both sides of the issue.

The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

1. Person 1 asserts proposition X.
2. Person 2 argues against a superficially similar proposition Y, falsely, as if an argument against Y were an argument against X.

This reasoning is a fallacy of relevance: it fails to address the proposition in question by misrepresenting the opposing position.

Straw man arguments often arise in public debates such as a (hypothetical) prohibition debate:

A: We should relax the laws on beer.
B: 'No, any society with unrestricted access to intoxicants loses its work ethic and goes only for immediate gratification.

The original proposal was to relax laws on beer. Person B has misconstrued/misrepresented this proposal by responding to it as if it had been something like "(we should have...) unrestricted access to intoxicants". It is a logical fallacy because Person A never advocated allowing said unrestricted access to intoxicants.

Source (full article)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

The last part is EXACTLY what you are doing over and over by saying people are asserting most muslims are extremists who would commit terror when no one has put forth that assertion.

[////]

This will be the only time I respond to you.

Dunn refuses to argue with me about this topic, but he will send me paragraph-length red K messages about how much he hates me.

The dickless coward is in a tough spot because he can't really explain what his point is without fessing up about his agenda. Dickless coward's only option is retreat.

My boot is firmly planted on dickless coward's face.

[El-blanco]

Dunn refuses to argue with me about this topic, but he will send me paragraph-length red K messages about how much he hates me.

The dickless coward is in a tough spot because he can't really explain what his point is without fessing up about his agenda. Dickless coward's only option is retreat.

My boot is firmly planted on dickless coward's face.

that's hilarious

[1bad65]

Dunn refuses to argue with me about this topic, but he will send me paragraph-length red K messages about how much he hates me.

He does that to me too.

He'll say how he's done with me, but he keeps on posting whenever I post. It's so childish. and predictable.

[El-blanco]

He does that to me too.

He'll say how he's done with me, but he keeps on posting whenever I post. It's so childish. and predictable.

You guys killed him. He has no point. He just feels the need to defend who he perceives as a victim in society.