3 Ghazni elders killed by Taliban after uprising

[faye]

you need to think and say i am an idiot because i expose your b.s.
nobody can ever give evidence that you accept but you are consistently making claims, as though your word is holy, that you give no evidence for.

[khushal]

you need to think and say i am an idiot because i expose your b.s.
nobody can ever give evidence that you accept but you are consistently making claims, as though your word is holy, that you give no evidence for.

your exposing nothing. what have I claimed without evidence. You wont be able to back up this claim either. Your just talking out of your arse right now. I called you an idiot because you are irrational. Think rationally and I will take it back. back up your claims about me and prove me wrong.

[faye]

lol, irrational. i call you a liar and a hypocrite because you are a liar and a hypocrite.
bit of a drama queen too, i reckon.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Thats a straw man. we are talking about intellect which is human, not having a period which is sexual reproduction.

your not using my pattern of thinking. my pattern is that claims have to be backed up by evidence otherwise it will be questioned by sane people. your argument is coming up with different hypthosis. your angry because your losing.

if you think that's a straw man, you're an idiot.

And you're making a circular rebuttal here; because the things you claim to be backed by evidence are subject to the same type of suspicion you apply to other people's evidence. You're a classic case of cherry picking confirmation bias. Only things you deem acceptable you call "evidence" everything else you fabricate some accusation of "commentary".

[faye]

I told you many times if you want to talk about the hazara issue then discuss it with me over in the appropriate thread and I will answer your claims. here it is:
http://www.pashtunforums.com/showthr...me+talk+hazara

no you have not. you are getting worse.
so what.
that does not prove that the taliban did not murder and brutalise the hazaras. you think the hazaras escape all the way to australia just for a summer holiday, even though they must know that their lives are in danger to do this journey?
so are you a pashtun that left afghanistan to escape the hazaras?

[khushal]

if you think that's a straw man, you're an idiot.

And you're making a circular rebuttal here; because the things you claim to be backed by evidence are subject to the same type of suspicion you apply to other people's evidence. You're a classic case of cherry picking confirmation bias. Only things you deem acceptable you call "evidence" everything else you fabricate some accusation of "commentary".

How is that not a strawman. A strawman is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
Your comment about the intellect of females was the argument not about sexual reproduction. You cant compare the brain to sexual reproduction organs. two different things so you are the idiot.

On the second part, Im not cherry picking. I ask for sources that actually list evidence. Who cares what one racist person named S A Mousavi has to say. read his book, its full of BS that has no evidence to back up his BS. He is just spinning the western narrative. Who cares what joe shmoe Talib has to say, can this joe shmoe talib back up his claim with evidence, if he can than we can take him serously but if he cant, then the sane world will disregard his comment. Just because I refute your stance and ask for evidence and all you have is some commentary by some idiot who is spinning a narrative and I expose holes in that narrative, you get all upset.
Dont get upset because I expose holes in their illogical arguments that have no merit in the sane world.

[khushal]

no you have not. you are getting worse.
so what.
that does not prove that the taliban did not murder and brutalise the hazaras. you think the hazaras escape all the way to australia just for a summer holiday, even though they must know that their lives are in danger to do this journey?
so are you a pashtun that left afghanistan to escape the hazaras?

I referred that statement to Schimitar/revolution, not you. Your so stupid that you cant even keep focus what has been said to you and what has been said to others. Stay off the drugs and keep focus.

[faye]

I referred that statement to Schimitar/revolution, not you. Your so that stupid you cant even keep focus what has been said to you and what has been said to others. Stay off the drugs and keep focus.

cool.
when you say something intelligent to keep me interested enough, mr fibs.
BTW, you still selling that opium?

[faye]

mon nes doou renpo msna dree.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

strawman is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

yes correct that's what the definition of Straw Man argument is; and where have I claimed that your argument was about menstruation (you said reprodiction; you can't even get that part right). Hmmm Nowhere;

you're clearly misusing what a Straw Man Argument is.

If you want to see an actual strawman argument, look at your quote below.

Your comment about the intellect of females was the argument not about sexual reproduction. You cant compare the brain to sexual reproduction organs. two different things so you are the idiot.

^ that's a perfect example of a strawman By definition my statement isn't a strawman since I am not claiming it was your position . Your argument was about what would constitute an insult; you asserted that women not generally possessing certain aptitudes with logic is in insult to women.. But certain faculties being primarily consistent with women can't be insulting to women , since with the analogy of menstruation this is consistent to women primarily, but if you allude to males having the faculties generally possessed by females, it is insulting to men. So this demonstrates the only idiot here is you, and what you're doing constitutes a strawman, not me.

But then the sane world will disregard his comment. Just because I refute your stance and ask for evidence and all you have is some commentary by some idiot who is spinning a narrative and I expose holes in that narrative, you get all upset.

See all the stuff I bolded in black there; these are all merely accusations; you have provided no basis on whether or not any of that is factual; these are just your opinions; your "commentaries" , using your rendering of the word. You're asserting them as if they're facts but provide no evidence for them.

What a "Joe Schmoe Talib" says IS the evidence; why? Because he knows best Whether or not he's engaged in the activities he says he's doing. It's not aan "opinion" that he's doing such and such things; it's a fact because he's giving a First hand direct Existential reference from his OWN Activities. Just like in a court of Law when someone CONFESSES to a crime; they verify their own guilt.


Now the red bolded part is where your cherry picking and confirmation bias comes in; For pretty much every debate you have tried discrediting evidence on the Basis of Ad-Hominem accusations against the individuals; speculating Conspiracy Theories(claiming the Taliban is misinforming the media by admitting they get widespread international funding from Iran, Russia and Arabs). NONE OF WHICH you have any evidence to support that any of these refutations are valid or have merit. You're essentially scapegoating evidence here.

However youre take their word when the U.S. and Iran say they have a "physical evidence" of a drone being lost, even though the Hypothesis you used about deliberate disinformation, as you said for the other scenario could just as easily be levied here. But you're not doing that here, thus showing a laxed standard of evidence acceptance.

Thus demonstrating your confirmation bias.