When I have produced sources, you cry that they are not sufficient, or that you disbelieve them. You do not state what it is that would satisfy you, and I suspect that nothing would. In my correspondence on other forums, I sometimes encounter this, but by and large. most conversations are mutually respectful interchanges back and forth. Even when no minds are changed, there is improved knowledge of the other's point of view. My beginning piece in this thread has been well received elsewhere by both those who agree, and those who disagree. When people challenge my facts, they usually cite a source, and then we can "bite into" the issues. My sense of you is that you are entirely insulated from views that oppose yours, which explains why when I cite a rather well known fact, you respond with the literary equivalent of a blank stare, as if you had never heard any such thing before. In my beginning post, I briefly encapsulated the essential arguments of both big and small govenrment advocates, and then carefully distinguished the small government view from the anarchist view, which distinction many people do not immediately appreciate. There is a huge distinction between anarchy and limited, enumerated government powers. Huge. Your "mafia" reference indicates to me that such points are completely lost on you. I have spent more time volleying with you than I normally would, because on a site about epistemology, I had expected the center of gravity to be cautious and respectful interchange of ideas. I have judged the book by its cover, it seems. While I invite you to make sourced and reasoned responses, I'll not continue quibbling over impromptu mischaracterizations of my positions. And I do sincerely wish the best for you and yours! ========================================
On May 16, 10:54 am, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > On May 16, 3:50 pm, Robert <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > You are suffering from false analogy fallacy > > > I'm looking through your posts to find anything comparable to a fact- > > based, logical argument. > > Yes, this is true. And the reason for that is that it is YOU that is > making all the unsubstantiated statements. > If you want to go on with this conversation then you will have to > produce some data to support your childish hysterical and self- > contradictory assertions. > Put up or shut up! > > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "Epistemology" group. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > [email protected]. > > For more options, visit this group > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Epistemology" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group > athttp://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
