You do not have to lecture me about logic, I am well aware of how it works. But Aristotelian binary logic brings you only so far and has little to do with actual thinking.This is not true, learning to recognize and refute logical fallacies is a key component to making a valid argument, be it a silly (but fun) internet debate, a legal trial, a philosophical quandary, or scientific pursuit. Pinpointing and addressing specific formal and informal logical fallacies in one's opponent's position is a skill, and with some of the more difficult fallacies it is actually the exact opposite of second nature; some examples of logical fallacies that would fit this description are post hoc ergo propter hoc, No True Scotsman, Correlation does not Equal Causation (which is similar but not the same as the post hoc fallacy), Argument from personal Incredulity, and false dichotomy, etc. These are all logical fallacies that are extremely common specifically because what seems logical, common sense, or second nature is often not so. Simply by the multitude of logical fallacies you've made in this one debate, you offer a good illustration of that point.About logical fallacies, people who care about logic (I don't, paradoxes are much more interesting) virtually never mention it and just do it. Second nature kind of thing.I agree with this.To satisfy you, point one is irrelevant as you'd find similar responses wherever you asked people how they would have behaved under fascism, oppressive aliens or in general a nasty regime of power. More people would claim to be resistance fighters to convince themselves or to meet social standards and less people would claim to be opportunistic followers relative to how it would actually be. And this is bullshitting not something bad but just the way culture works.
Yet you've been claiming this doesn't happen for the entire thread.This is a reasonable position, but again a clear deviation from your previous position. I still don't see how the statement could be viewed as any more honest than stating the opposite, however, which goes back to my initial argument.The reasons vary, for some it might a protective shield whereas others consider this to be a way to gain recognition. I doubt that saying that you would be an opportunistic guy and join the nazis meets any of these points though. It is rather a safe way to lose all respect of your fellows and seems to be caused by blunt honesty or serious confusion ... or it is just plain trolling.Seriously...after debating the point in this thread for several days this is your final statement? Clearly you care something about it or you wouldn't have spent so much time discussing it.Who cares.
If somebody accuses me of having made logical errors, an indirect word of saying you are stupid I will be blunt and use the word directly. Feel free to ban me for it.Horatio, I understand that you feel passionately about this subject, but this is right on the borderline for a flaming infraction. You and I have spoken about this before. Dial it back in the future.
Clearly someone does...You do not have to lecture me about logic,This is not true, learning to recognize and refute logical fallacies is a key component to making a valid argument, be it a silly (but fun) internet debate, a legal trial, a philosophical quandary, or scientific pursuit. Pinpointing and addressing specific formal and informal logical fallacies in one's opponent's position is a skill, and with some of the more difficult fallacies it is actually the exact opposite of second nature; some examples of logical fallacies that would fit this description are post hoc ergo propter hoc, No True Scotsman, Correlation does not Equal Causation (which is similar but not the same as the post hoc fallacy), Argument from personal Incredulity, and false dichotomy, etc. These are all logical fallacies that are extremely common specifically because what seems logical, common sense, or second nature is often not so. Simply by the multitude of logical fallacies you've made in this one debate, you offer a good illustration of that point. I agree with this.About logical fallacies, people who care about logic (I don't, paradoxes are much more interesting) virtually never mention it and just do it. Second nature kind of thing.
Yet you've been claiming this doesn't happen for the entire thread. This is a reasonable position, but again a clear deviation from your previous position. I still don't see how the statement could be viewed as any more honest than stating the opposite, however, which goes back to my initial argument.Seriously...after debating the point in this thread for several days this is your final statement? Clearly you care something about it or you wouldn't have spent so much time discussing it.Who cares.
As you obviously don't understand it. You can't exercise critical thinking skills without logic. Magical thinking, sure, but not "actual thinking."I am well aware of how it works. But Aristotelian binary logic brings you only so far and has little to do with actual thinking.
I never said that. I've been arguing that very point this whole time. You seem to be getting rather emotional about all this (what with the name calling and all, the first instance of which I let slide), so maybe it's time we drop it. If you can't debate without getting all worked up (or at the very least, using language that suggests you're getting all worked up, a la calling me stupid or "shove some of it back down your throat"), then I'm not really interested anymore. Good-spirited debating is fun. Petty name-calling is for kids. If you would like to continue the debate maturely, however, I'm all for it.As you enjoy so much to claim that I made ample of logical errors I will show shove some of it back into your throat. Your claim that said that there aren't any people who pretend to be worse than they actually are is wrong.
If somebody accuses me of having made logical errors, an indirect word of saying you are stupid I will be blunt and use the word directly. Feel free to ban me for it.Horatio, I understand that you feel passionately about this subject, but this is right on the borderline for a flaming infraction. You and I have spoken about this before. Dial it back in the future.
If somebody accuses me of having made logical errors, an indirect word of saying you are stupid I will be blunt and use the word directly. Feel free to ban me for it.Horatio, I understand that you feel passionately about this subject, but this is right on the borderline for a flaming infraction. You and I have spoken about this before. Dial it back in the future.
If somebody accuses me of having made logical errors, an indirect word of saying you are stupid I will be blunt and use the word directly. Feel free to ban me for it.Horatio, I understand that you feel passionately about this subject, but this is right on the borderline for a flaming infraction. You and I have spoken about this before. Dial it back in the future.
Good-spirited debating is fun. Petty name-calling is for kids and TNZ.
if i was living in Occupied Europe between 1939 and 1944, I'd've done my damnedest to get to a neutral nation like Sweden, Switzerland or Spain and then got from there to Britain and joined the Free (insert nation) Forces or joined the local resistance forces. Screw joining up with the Nazis.
No need to, they have been quite clear.First of all to you politically correct types in this thread, let me restate my views to you in a more detailed way.
So by your own words, you are a mercenary and a coward?If i was a frenchmen, norwegian, dutchman or any european living in occupied europe during ww2 and it was 1940/1941 period where germany & her aillies japan & ltaly were seem to be winnning the war, i would certainly join the Waffen SS, because of the paycheck and NOT for Ideology.
But if it was 1944/1945 period, i would not join because the Axis were losing the war by then
Well jolly good, but it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.Another thing that i would like to add is that the SS (Schutzstaffel) means defence corps and it had various arms.
Yes, you are.I have stated my position and i stand by it. I am NOT a NAZI.
i would certainly join the Waffen SS
Again, it has nothing to do with anything here. You seem under the impression that only German (or at least European people) can be Nazi. This is patently untrue.Far Right politics is not exclusive to folks of european descent.
If i was a frenchmen, norwegian, dutchman or any european living in occupied europe during ww2 and it was 1940/1941 period where germany & her aillies japan & ltaly were seem to be winnning the war, i would certainly join the Waffen SS, because of the paycheck and NOT for Ideology.
But if it was 1944/1945 period, i would not join because the Axis were losing the war by then and the only people who joined the SS during this late period were those who believed in nazi Ideology which i don't.
Waffen-SS = the military force that fought battles.
Emoborg's nonsense looks like a Nazi apologist argument.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.