The Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant Megathread

[LaCroix]

I'm not following the argument.

then you have no valid comment on the discussion.

[Viking]

I'm not following the argument.

then you have no valid comment on the discussion.

I'm not commenting on the discussion, I'm observing that the inability to prove a negative doesn't concede the argument.

[LaCroix]

I'm not commenting on the discussion, I'm observing that the inability to prove a negative doesn't concede the argument.

viking, i looked up "prove a negative." raz wasn't being asked to prove a negative. he was being asked to show evidence of a worldwide conspiracy. anything. he failed to do so. this doesn't appear to be "proving a negative" - raz said it was, and you jumped on it because you hadn't read the argument.

In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence.

good lord.

[grumbler]

I'm not commenting on the discussion, I'm observing that the inability to prove a negative doesn't concede the argument.

Not in all cases, no.  But it does in this.  Being asked to provide evidence, and conceding the inability to do so, is an effective concession of the point.

[Eddie Teach]

You haven't articulated a non-racist argument for siding with Palestine. It's either "Jews are evil" or "while technically the Jews haven't been quite as bad as the Palestinians, the Palestinians are too stupid to know better so it's the Jews' fault anyway".

yes i have. in my very first post i did.

i mean, why do you think so many people dislike israel? they're not all anti-semitic - that's an intellectually bankrupt argument.

i could talk about how it's a never-ending cycle caused by israel's fundamental unwillingness to cast aside it's obsession with remaining a jewish state, but i'm not gonna waste even more time on this discussion. basically, by the mere fact that there are so many people who side against israel, to even think they're all dumb, manipulated, or wrong is simply stupid. i don't even like palestine. i'm a big supporter of israel. but i'm not gonna pretend that everyone else doesn't have legitimately valid reasons for preferring palestine. i've read the arguments, as i'm sure most people here have. some disagree with the oro-palestinian arguments, yes, but that doesn't make them any less valid. same with pro-israel arguments for the hardcore pro-palestinians. this conflict is too fucked, and there are way too many nuances, for there to be a clear winning side. if there was, there wouldn't be the heated discussion there is today. both sides focus on different aspects of the conflict, which i raised in one of my responses to raz. ffs, as if i even need to raise an argument for why people might support palestine. 

Ok, I suppose "lots of other people side with Palestine, so they're probably in the right" isn't a racist argument, merely an extremely weak one.

[jimmy olsen]

 Looks like Mosul and possibly Baghdad will likely be obliterated,  whether ISIS wants it or not.

http://news.yahoo.com/us-extremely-concerned-isis-takeover-iraqs-most-dangerous-220400044--abc-news-topstories.html

[Maximus]

Ok, I suppose "lots of other people side with Palestine, so they're probably in the right" isn't a racist argument, merely an extremely weak one.

Ad populum; not a fallacy one frequently encounters on languish.

[jimmy olsen]

SAS on the ground according to the Mirror

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/sas-deployed-iraq-british-special-4026869#.U-ZUOvldVjQ

[Razgovory]

I'm going to have a trouble proving a negative.

i'll consider your argument conceded, then

That's not how logic works.

Though Raz didn't understand it either when he argued against intermediate species.

You can't prove a negative.

Wait, what?  When did I do this?

[Razgovory]

I'm going to have a trouble proving a negative.

i'll consider your argument conceded, then

You said " i'm still not seeing any evidence of this non-conspiratorial contention of yours."  I can't produce evidence of a non-conspiracy.  That's trying to a prove a negative.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

edit:

Googling, produces some rather neat pictures of the old city:

....

Very cool Mongers

Yeah, it's quite something that it's city built upon a city, upon the rubble of yet another city and so on.  At least that's my understanding of what makes up most of these tells.

the understanding is correct

[LaCroix]

Ad populum; not a fallacy one frequently encounters on languish.

ad populum would be if i had said "the majority of the world is pro-palestine, therefore pro-palestine is correct." i'm not appealing to the masses with my argument. especially since i never said, "now, i don't know the pro-palestinian argument is, but i assume because there are so many people out there that are pro-palestine, they must have valid reasons."

i'm pointing out that it's really scummy to label the other side of an argument as anti-semitic in this particular situation concerning two groups with a long history of hostility and eye-for-eye mentality.

[mongers]

More bombing please.

[Razgovory]

I really would like to understand what Viking means about "intermediate species".  I've never heard of the term.  For some bizarre reason Viking seems to think That I'm closet creationist.  Probably because I don't like Dawkins.

[Eddie Teach]

ad populum would be if i had said "the majority of the world is pro-palestine, therefore pro-palestine is correct." i'm not appealing to the masses with my argument. especially since i never said, "now, i don't know the pro-palestinian argument is, but i assume because there are so many people out there that are pro-palestine, they must have valid reasons."

i'm pointing out that it's really scummy to label the other side of an argument as anti-semitic in this particular situation concerning two groups with a long history of hostility and eye-for-eye mentality.

I asked you to present an argument that Palestine was in the right. You responded that you had already and quoted yourself:

i mean, why do you think so many people dislike israel? they're not all anti-semitic - that's an intellectually bankrupt argument.

If you want to concede that this was non-responsive, I'll ask again. Give me an argument that Palestine is in the right which doesn't involve bigotry of one sort or another. Utilizing a double standard doesn't qualify.

This isn't to say people can't be critical of Israel. It's easy for us to sit in the peanut gallery and declare a pox on both their houses. But to actively side with Arafat, Hamas, et al? That's either anti-Jewish sentiment or willful blindness.