Logical fallacies are making public debate impossible. It is frightening that government force against A is advocated on the premise that A's lawful opposition to B which is caused by C and/or D, claiming to be C, and/or E, and C and/or D and/or E may be part of F, might have been the trigger for G's unlawful conduct toward H, a tiny sub…
Logical fallacies are making public debate impossible. It is frightening that government force against A is advocated on the premise that A's lawful opposition to B which is caused by C and/or D, claiming to be C, and/or E, and C and/or D and/or E may be part of F, might have been the trigger for G's unlawful conduct toward H, a tiny subset of F that may (or may not) have included a subset of C and/or D and/or E. My head hurts. Were their logic used against "stochastic terrorism" theorists, they'd swear that fascism (a system they can't define) had descended upon them.
Logical fallacies are making public debate impossible. It is frightening that government force against A is advocated on the premise that A's lawful opposition to B which is caused by C and/or D, claiming to be C, and/or E, and C and/or D and/or E may be part of F, might have been the trigger for G's unlawful conduct toward H, a tiny subset of F that may (or may not) have included a subset of C and/or D and/or E. My head hurts. Were their logic used against "stochastic terrorism" theorists, they'd swear that fascism (a system they can't define) had descended upon them.