RE: Patriotism, an Abomination
You nailed it Mr Horne;
No why or how, just agreement that the ad hominem was justified, the lowest scum of the lowest scum.
See the ranking of such idiotic dogma?
Complex question fallacy, best responded with a question questioning the premise of the loaded question fallacy: So what's your point?
Is it reasonable? Absolutely not, but profitable maybe.
Rhetorical device which doesn't answer how or why, instead it only begs the question which it answers without critical thought, devoid of reason or method for concluding it's not reasonable (ironic).
Best not to feed pearls to the swine who have no appreciation in what real value truly is... For many it is just a job...
"..." or ellipsis is an Omission. Because of that it intentionally foregoes the formation of a complete thought, and simply implies one and only conclusion, effectively forcing people to read between the lines instead of expressing what it omits, such argument is always begging for a certain conclusion and because of that function it's the equivalent of draw your own conclusion fallacy, regardless that the thought itself is a sweeping remark about people, thus the fallacy of stereotyping/pigeonholing.
Indeed, turn all that around and direct it at the original post of deformation in "Patriotism" and you will have a very conclusive point...
The subject isn't the article itself, I brought up that to exemplify your actions, to weigh your words and question your conclusion, the subject is your actions in response to the actions of others.
The use of ellipsis/omission was used to say the conversation is not closed...
By the way was your reply about war in general being a racket somewhat a fallacy in stereotyping?
Nobody said anything about War In General Being A Racket. Do you have a problem with the phrase War is a racket, I mentioned that you're swine and I'm pelting you with pearls, you cannot appreciate it, just as you cannot close a sentence or finish a thought, and so to answer your question, you can stereotype people, but not events, or objects, you can only typecast and pigeonhole individuals.
Omission is used to NOT SAY something. Instead of relying on people interpreting your omissions and effectively CLOSING THE CONVERSATION, maybe make your thought clear, concise, and conclusive, or COMPLETE.
That wasn't hard, it takes a little effort to be specific and correct, to mean what you say, and say what you mean.
Why do you need to say/imply that the conversation is not closed, ever? Are you saying that if someone replies back you will reply back to them or what is the motive for saying that, and how does that communicate that the conversation isn't over?