Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Straw Man
Your reasoning contains the straw man fallacy whenever you attribute an easily refuted position to your opponent, one that the opponent wouldn’t endorse, and then proceed to attack the easily refuted position (the straw man) believing you have undermined the opponent’s actual position
Not only can you not differentiate between different forms of Inflation and between Income and Wealth, you don't understand the difference between murder, kill and slay.
A standard Cost-Benefit Analysis says that you execute murderers.
The State does not murder....neither do soldiers....they slay.
Some people through negligence or thoughtlessness or emotional outbursts kill. That makes them killers, not murderers.
And the US is not a nation, it is a federal republic. The Cherokee are a nation. No doubt your inability to grasp Political Science is on a par with your inability comprehend Economics.
|
Someone should comment on topics they understand better. The cost benefit analysis on executing murderers says we shouldn't have a death penalty. We too often get it wrong, and even when we get it right the cost is staggering. Trying to play word games with the fact that we are executing someone is idiotic. Especially since you're not arguing my point. (Because Im actually FOR the death penalty). Although I do think we need death penalty cases to have a higher standard for guilt-ie more then "beyond reasonable doubt".
My point is that we as a nation, when we execute someone (or slay whatever word most excites you) we should do it in a humane manner. No doubt your inability to grasp this simple concept is on par with your inability to come up with reasonable arguments without going off on wild tangents that often have nothing to do with the topic on hand, while maintaining the inability to be civil.