You nailed it Mr Horne; See the ranking of such idiotic dogma? Is it reasonable? Absolutely not, but profitable maybe. 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...
It would be kind of narrow minded to think that all of anything can be categorized in one way or the other don't you think Mr baah?
"war is a racket" as in every war fo every kind? I doubt that...
Instead of putting words into my mouth, the person that jumped onto the Ad Hominem to gang up with the first attacker and defend the attacker (despicable acts, from despicable narrow minded assholes), read what it says again: WAR IS A RACKET. Does it say "Every kind of war is a racket". I doubt that...
The mark of a truly critical self thinker is OMITTING using or relying on ellipsis/omison and instead of the fallacious "Draw your own conclusion" the ... begs, they chose to make a complete thought, a critical argument, and make it SHARP, and not blunt and dumb bell like, but swift and to the point, like sWords, practicing precise, and specifics instead of TALKING POINTS (lolololol).
No, I expect people to read what I wrote, and not read into what I wrote, or in between what I wrote, which is the definition of meaning what you say.
I have no doubt that you meant to say I am not a man by your ... Omission and Draw your own conclusion fallacy, there's no reading in between the lines, it's an ad hominem seeking to divert the conversation from War Is A Racket being pearls before the swine, exactly as demonstrated by your inability to swallow one mans experience without seeking to pull it apart or distort it somehow, and otherwise inability to appreciate it.
Pearls before swine. (Which is another ad hominem, responding with support to a previous one, except here and now it's not, because it has been demonstrated as true, and the subject of discussion as well)
The mark of a truly critical self thinker is OMITTING using or relying on ellipsis/omison and instead of the fallacious "Draw your own conclusion" the ... begs, they chose to make a complete thought, a critical argument, and make it SHARP, and not blunt and dumb bell like, but swift and to the point, like sWords, practicing precise, and specifics instead of TALKING POINTS (lolololol).
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.
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.
The use of ellipsis/omission was used to say the conversation is not closed...
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.
I used ellipsis/omission to IMPLY the conversation was not closed.
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?
That's an amusing comment, since your entire original comment was a recitation of self-contradictory, emotional nationalistic mythology you've been taught all your life.
You nailed it Mr Horne; See the ranking of such idiotic dogma? Is it reasonable? Absolutely not, but profitable maybe. 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...
Pearls to swine is Two Time Medal of Honor, most decorated Marine General Smedley Butler, who wrote about his experience: War Is A Racket.
It would be kind of narrow minded to think that all of anything can be categorized in one way or the other don't you think Mr baah?
"war is a racket" as in every war fo every kind? I doubt that...
Instead of putting words into my mouth, the person that jumped onto the Ad Hominem to gang up with the first attacker and defend the attacker (despicable acts, from despicable narrow minded assholes), read what it says again: WAR IS A RACKET. Does it say "Every kind of war is a racket". I doubt that...
The mark of a truly critical self thinker is OMITTING using or relying on ellipsis/omison and instead of the fallacious "Draw your own conclusion" the ... begs, they chose to make a complete thought, a critical argument, and make it SHARP, and not blunt and dumb bell like, but swift and to the point, like sWords, practicing precise, and specifics instead of TALKING POINTS (lolololol).
Ah so you expect everyone to be able to read between the lines of what you write? I thought you might be a man who means what he says, sorry...
No, I expect people to read what I wrote, and not read into what I wrote, or in between what I wrote, which is the definition of meaning what you say.
I have no doubt that you meant to say I am not a man by your ... Omission and Draw your own conclusion fallacy, there's no reading in between the lines, it's an ad hominem seeking to divert the conversation from War Is A Racket being pearls before the swine, exactly as demonstrated by your inability to swallow one mans experience without seeking to pull it apart or distort it somehow, and otherwise inability to appreciate it.
Pearls before swine. (Which is another ad hominem, responding with support to a previous one, except here and now it's not, because it has been demonstrated as true, and the subject of discussion as well)
You did not differentiate from the "all" when you said "War Is A Racket" and your ad hominem excuse is most armature.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and your Hero has his, however I'm sure there were other men in that same war who would not concur...
Question: Why did your hero participate in a war that was a racket?
Why would I? I told you the name of a mans's work.
How would you know anything, you either go and read the work or you shut up and stop making a fool of yourself.
As sure as a fool is.
Why do you want to know?
No why or how, just agreement that the ad hominem was justified, the lowest scum of the lowest scum.
Complex question fallacy, best responded with a question questioning the premise of the loaded question fallacy: So what's your point?
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).
"..." 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?
That's an amusing comment, since your entire original comment was a recitation of self-contradictory, emotional nationalistic mythology you've been taught all your life.
Your cognitive dissonance is noted.