quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Dave:


This lacks logic - its ignarato elenchi. Its also probably a circular argument or a non sequitur- AIDS is an indicator of corruption, AIDS is spread by gays, homosexuality is an indicator of corruption, therefore AIDS is an indicator of corruption, therefore homosexuality is corrupt.
"lacks logic" is your opinion of my opinion. I can as easily say that your own opinion lacks logic and doesn't add up for me. I don't see any clear and logical argument that my opinion lacks logic. I think I've made the connections clear.
Well, no. It lacks logic. Logic follows certain syllogisms. "If A, then B" is a proof. But you're saying "If A, then B/ if B, then A". Read out loud what I wrote above: its a circle.

quote:



"circular logic" is a bit insulting. I see this term as more of a label than a clear criticism. A dismissive label.
Its not dismissive: its an attack upon the lack of logic in your argument.

Look, here is something about logical fallacy for you to chew on:

quote:

A fallacy is a way that a logical argument can go wrong and thereby fail to be valid or sound, or otherwise fail to properly support its claim. Arguments intended to persuade may be convincing to many listeners despite containing such fallacies, but they are nonetheless flawed. Recognizing these fallacies is sometimes difficult.

Here is an example of a bad argument. Suppose James wanted to argue for the claim that all killing is wrong. Suppose he was giving this argument to a group of people who supported the death penalty: they think that some killing is fine, as punishment of the worst murderers. So James argues as follows:


If one should never do X, all X is wrong. (X can be any action.)
One should absolutely never kill.
Therefore, all killing is wrong.
The supporters of the death penalty would not be impressed by this argument. It commits the logical fallacy of begging the question. In the argument, James says that one should absolutely never kill. But to prove that, he would have to prove that all killing is wrong—which is what he is trying to argue for. Anyone who disagrees with the conclusion will disagree with the premise that one should absolutely never kill. One might maintain to the contrary that, indeed, in some cases one actually should kill: it is our grim duty, an unfortunate yet necessary part of justice.
...Typically, logical fallacies are invalid, but they can often be written or rewritten so that they follow a valid argument form; and in that case, the challenge is to discover the false premise, which makes the argument unsound.
[/qb]
Your arguments are riddled with logical fallacies. On first inspection, they seem persuasive, but when broken down and examined, they are based on illogic. That's not an insult: its a statement of fact.