You support it and they call themselves a humanitarian flotilla meaning you agree with them if you support them

There's a fallacy in there somewhere. Not sure which one though, I don't keep a list, but if any of the more knowledgeable posters do, please say it... :lol:

It's interesting that you post this after mentioning how blinded the anti-Israel side is, though.

You support it and they call themselves a humanitarian flotilla meaning you agree with them if you support them

There's a fallacy in there somewhere. Not sure which one though, I don't keep a list, but if any of the more knowledgeable posters do, please say it... :lol:

It's interesting that you post this after mentioning how blinded the anti-Israel side is, though.

 

IT is a red herring, specifically an "irrelevant conclusion" fallacy.

 

a) You support it

b ) they call themselves a humanitarian flotilla

conclusion: you support it therefore [fallacy] you also call it a humanitarian flotilla.

You support it and they call themselves a humanitarian flotilla meaning you agree with them if you support them

There's a fallacy in there somewhere. Not sure which one though, I don't keep a list, but if any of the more knowledgeable posters do, please say it... :lol:

It's interesting that you post this after mentioning how blinded the anti-Israel side is, though.

 

IT is a red herring, specifically an "irrelevant conclusion" fallacy.

 

a) You support it

b ) they call themselves a humanitarian flotilla

conclusion: you support it therefore [fallacy] you also call it a humanitarian flotilla.

 

My point exactly, if someone calls themselves something and then you support them you agree with what they are calling themselves

 

Thank you tortilliachp for your support :thumbsup:

You support it and they call themselves a humanitarian flotilla meaning you agree with them if you support them

There's a fallacy in there somewhere. Not sure which one though, I don't keep a list, but if any of the more knowledgeable posters do, please say it... :lol:

It's interesting that you post this after mentioning how blinded the anti-Israel side is, though.

 

IT is a red herring, specifically an "irrelevant conclusion" fallacy.

 

a) You support it

b ) they call themselves a humanitarian flotilla

conclusion: you support it therefore [fallacy] you also call it a humanitarian flotilla.

My point exactly, if someone calls themselves something and then you support them you agree with what they are calling themselves

 

Thank you tortilliachp for your support :thumbsup:

I believe you are using the reasoning fallacy "[bleep] hoc ergo propter hoc", I think that's the term. The incorrect assumption of an irrelevant conclusion due to solely its association.

You support it and they call themselves a humanitarian flotilla meaning you agree with them if you support them

There's a fallacy in there somewhere. Not sure which one though, I don't keep a list, but if any of the more knowledgeable posters do, please say it... :lol:

It's interesting that you post this after mentioning how blinded the anti-Israel side is, though.

 

IT is a red herring, specifically an "irrelevant conclusion" fallacy.

 

a) You support it

b ) they call themselves a humanitarian flotilla

conclusion: you support it therefore [fallacy] you also call it a humanitarian flotilla.

My point exactly, if someone calls themselves something and then you support them you agree with what they are calling themselves

 

Thank you tortilliachp for your support :thumbsup:

I believe you are using the reasoning fallacy "[bleep] hoc ergo propter hoc", I think that's the term. The incorrect assumption of an irrelevant conclusion due to solely its association.

 

[bleep] hoc ergo propter hoc literally translates into "correlation doesn't imply causation" I see no correlation between supporting the flotilla, and calling it humanitarian (as these are not related in any way, because the flotilla itself claimed they had a different goal). Therefore, you have to imply a correlation to imply causation, which by definition is an irrelevant conclusion because of a simplified assumption in connecting a) and b ) into a conclusion at all.

 

(sorry, theory of knowledge in high school makes me very picky when it comes to these things)

 

Israel63: My point posted out why you couldn't say what you said based on the information you provided. it doesn't make sense. A fallacy is an argument that doesn't make sense. there are different types of these. Another example is that i could say "This apple is red, therefore all apples are red" you make the same kind of mistake in your argument, where you connect things that are not necessarily right to combine into a conclusion. A better example might be for me to say that "you are from Israel, Israel is a Jewish country, therefore you must be Jewish" i know there is no law in Israel that you have to be Jewish, so the argument doesn't make sense.

 

Did you understand that?

Did you understand that?

You're kidding... right? :lol:

I never claimed there was any new information there, I only thought it would be interesting to show.

Did you understand that?

You're kidding... right? :lol:

 

No. he misunderstood my first post, so i wanted to make sure he understood my clarification post :) It wasn't directed at everyone

Did you understand that?

You're kidding... right? :lol:

 

No. he misunderstood my first post, so i wanted to make sure he understood my clarification post :) It wasn't directed at everyone

I think i understood what you are saying but i don't understand how what i said doesn't make sense

I think i understood what you are saying but i don't understand how what i said doesn't make sense

It makes sense in that it could be understood, but it just isn't logical to claim that not supporting Israel's policies means supporting Israel's enemies.

I could probably have explained that far better than I did.

It makes sense in that it could be understood, but it just isn't logical to claim that not supporting Israel's policies means supporting Israel's enemies.

I could probably have explained that far better than I did.

 

When did i say if you don't support Israel's policies then you support Israel's enemies? i never said that or anything like that

It makes sense in that it could be understood, but it just isn't logical to claim that not supporting Israel's policies means supporting Israel's enemies.

I could probably have explained that far better than I did.

 

When did i say if you don't support Israel's policies then you support Israel's enemies? i never said that or anything like that

You support it and they call themselves a humanitarian flotilla meaning you agree with them if you support them

And given the context that I brutally ripped that quote from there weren't many other interpretations for it.

And given the context that I brutally ripped that quote from there weren't many other interpretations for it.

 

I like how you are playing with my words what i said is if you support it and they call themselves a humanitarian flotilla that means you agree that they are a humanitarian flotilla even if their plan (a least the people aboard the Mavi Marmara) was to attack IDF soilders not to bring Humanitarian Aid there was no Humanitarian Aid aboard the Mavi Marmara where the IDF solders were attacked and killed 9 of the attackers

 

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/news.aspx/137997

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/news.aspx/137799

And given the context that I brutally ripped that quote from there weren't many other interpretations for it.

 

I like how you are playing with my words what i said is if you support it and they call themselves a humanitarian flotilla that means you agree that they are a humanitarian flotilla even if their plan (a least the people aboard the Mavi Marmara) was to attack IDF soilders not to bring Humanitarian Aid there was no Humanitarian Aid aboard the Mavi Marmara where the IDF solders were attacked and killed 9 of the attackers

 

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/news.aspx/137997

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/news.aspx/137799

 

Ok, I've tried to see where you're going with this, but stating that "there was no Humanitarian Aid" aboard the Mavi Marmar is completely ridiculous.

 

There's absolutely zero evidence to indicate that the "plan" was to "attack" Israeli soldiers. If that had been the plan, you'd think they would have at least thought to bring weapons to accomplish it properly.

 

It seems to me that they objected to Israel searching their ship (which Israel had every right to do, albeit not in international waters) they tried (stupidly) to prevent them from boarding, and paid the price.

Ok, I've tried to see where you're going with this, but stating that "there was no Humanitarian Aid" aboard the Mavi Marmar is completely ridiculous.

 

There was no humanitarian aid on the Mavi Marmara it was a passenger ship not a freighter ship there were 7 ship ships in the flotilla only 3 were freighter ships

 

please read link because i don't think you believe me http://www.israelpolitik.org/2010/06/10/no-aid-found-on-turkish-vessel-mavi-marmara/

 

There's absolutely zero evidence to indicate that the "plan" was to "attack" Israeli soldiers. If that had been the plan, you'd think they would have at least thought to bring weapons to accomplish it properly.

 

There is loads of evidence showing it was preplanned violence

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1I6XL2pzguE&feature=channel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkXDev2wXVA&feature=channel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZlSSaPT_OU&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvS9PXZ3RWM&feature=related

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/stephaniegutmann/100041771/gaza-flotilla-assault-what-really-happened-aboard-the-mavi-marmara/

 

It seems to me that they objected to Israel searching their ship (which Israel had every right to do, albeit not in international waters) they tried (stupidly) to prevent them from boarding, and paid the price.

At least we can agree on something which means we can make progress