Discussion in 'IntroSpectrum' started by KingMenace, Nov 28, 2006.
Some good ammo against hawks if you happen to live in a red state.
i always love a bit of fiction in the mornin'
This is rich. The author of the article claims to list the top 10 fallacies about violence in iraq and in making the case employs a logical fallacy in practically every instance.
The most egregious fallacy here is ad populum. That an idea is shared by a large number of people says nothing about its veracity.
Considering the large number of insurgents killed or otherwise neutralised by american forces it seems a reasonable supposition that in the absense of american forces the violence would be higher.
this is a combination of the strawman and guilt by association fallacies. The author states the point he wishes to refute and then by choosing an indivudual with whom his reader probably feels a hostility toward(bill o"reily) and attributing to him a garbled argument for the point in question he 'refutes' it.
Its a sad indictment of the authors fatuity that we are only two supposed 'fallacies' in and he has already started to contradict himself. If the militias wish to defeat the US, an enemy it cannot hope to defeat militarily, it by neccesity must opt to do so politically. The two postulates presented by the author, 1)the violent actors are motivated by the american presence and 2)they have no interest in influencing the only thing which could possibly grant them victory, are clearly in conflict.
Here we have another combination of fallacies. This time ad verecundiam in conjuction with the false dillema fallacy. The ad verecundiam occurs when the author informs us that an unnamed 'knowledegable commentator' has described some opponents of the report in unflattering terms. How does an anonymous 'knowledgeable comentator's' apparent endorsement of the study(in fact he only derides some critiques of the report but for sake of argument lets assume he does subscribe to its findings) prove that the report is accurate? only a dolt accepts authority in place of argument.
the false dillema is when he notes how some arbitrarily selected lower estimates seem to have been discredited by a release of figures from the iraq health ministry and on that basis asks the reader to assume that the lancet report is correct. That A is false doesnt make B true.
Whether the iraqi figures being in the 'lancet ballpark' can be said to lend significant weight to its findings im not sure. With a margin of error numbering in the 100's of thousands its a pretty big ballpark.
this is circumstantial ad hominem accompanied by a mess of empty assertions. The author tells us syria and iran have no reason to foment violence in iraq, then suggests they actually do but then says they arent because he doesnt think they are. The circumstantial ad hominem of the last line is the cherry on this cake of confused 'reasoning' when he infers that because if the claim were true it would be beneficial to the claiment it cant possibly be true.
This is the fallacy of begging the question. His refutation of the strategies rests on the presumption that his earlier arguments are true when they are of course a hodpodge of fallacious nonsense.
here we have an example of the ignoratio elenchi fallacy. He seeks to refute the argument that foreign fighters are fueling the violence by proving that they are not a majority of the actors. The argument is irrelevant to the point it is presented to discredit.
This is just a steaming heap of incoherrence. They wont attack the US if we withdraw from iraq because theres not many foreign terrorists there and they are all just iraqis who will stay in iraq but some wont but we cant fight them there because if you kill a terrorist his blood fuses with minerals in the soil and more terrorists grow but theyll stay if we go and some wont but they wont and so there.
with every paragraph the article authors already limited powers of reasoning seem to degenerate still further. Here he amazingly seeks to rubbish the idea that the sunni and shia used what the u.s affored them to indulge in large scale killing by claiming that the sunni and shia used what the u.s afforded them to indulge in large scale killing!
his poor mind degenerates even further. In the midst of another selection of assertions masquerading as argument he manages to incorrectly cite his own article. The go long strategy is referenced in #5 but he claims it is referenced in #8.
thats it, the rapid decline we have observed in the authors already confused thinking over the course of this article has reached rock bottom. His tenth fallacy about violence in iraq doesnt even have anything to do with with claims about violence in iraq!
U.S. occupation there, in two weeks, will exceed the length of the Second World War for America.
The people that lead us into the war with Iraq has nothing to do with the violence in Iraq? Even though these people were warned that US occupation in Iraq would lead to just this sort of escalation in violence.
Guess I miss the logic of your argument.
The logic is quite simple. Does the article set itself the task of listing the advocates of war? No, the article sets out to list misunderstandings about the current situation in iraq and detail what the reality is(in eyes of the author at least). I fail to see how the tenth item on the list, a ranting diatribe against endorsers of the war, can be construed as dealing with such a misunderstanding. Its like he forgot what he was supposed to be talking about.
No it isnt, its not true and would be irrelevant even if it were. The coalition's continued presence in iraq is at the consent of iraq's democratically elected government. The US is no more occupying iraq anymore than it is occupying south korea, germany or anywhere else its soldiers are presently based.
ever hear of a war that wasn't violent?
Teq check your PM's, I left you a message.
Separate names with a comma.