It is a simple rule of civilized society, dating back to when the first humans began social interactions. That is where your logic is faulty, and where you are incorrect.
could you point me to a site or book etc so I can read this?
Can you tell me what my basic premise was? and where it's faulty beyond repair?
Lets look at your argument:
Let me state this is plainly and clearly as possible, in simple English. If you associate with a group, ie, attend their gatherings, "fly their colors", etc(1), then by doing so you do condone and affirm their actions (2). It is a simple rule of civilized society, dating back to when the first humans began social interactions.(3) That is where your logic is faulty, and where you are incorrect.(4)
By associating with a group, willingly and voluntarily, you are saying "I like who these guys are, I like what they do, I like how they act, I want to be around them,(5) I want to be part of their group, I want to be with them and I want to be like them.(6)" That is just plain common sense, and again, follows with a basic and long standing rule of human social interactions.(7)
Your "debate skills", mentioning "fallacy of division", etc, do not make up for the fact that the basic premise of your argument is flawed beyond repair.(8) It violates the basic and long standing rules of human socialization and interaction.(9) So, once again, your position is ludicrous, untenable, and flawed.(10)
Conclusion: My position is ludicrous.
Argument yes/no yes
Premises1-9
Inductive strength-weak/invalid
Your conditional premise of: "If you associate with a group, ie, attend their gatherings, "fly their colors", etc(1), then by doing so you do condone and affirm their actions" does not in anyway, have a link to any of the non conditional premises. It's doesn't affirm the antecedent or deny the consequent to any of your non conditional premises.
In between these are attempts to ridicule and reduce to the absurd.
No offense intended in anyway, merely trying to reason with you in a dignified manner.
Regards
Tunes.
Once again, you attempt to "win an argument" by "labeling strategies" rather than addressing the facts or the point of the argument.
You are not "attempting to reason", you are attempting to argue using rules for debate societies. Clue for you: no one cares about "rules for debate and discussion", and no one is scoring this on a point system either. You get no points, nor do you get your point, or rather your lack of a point, across, by attempting to "dazzle" us with your "fabulous debate skills".
No one is fooled by your "I can assign a label each individual sentence in your post" attempts to score points. All it proves is that you are unwilling to address the actual point, so you simply spin and divert.
And by the way, if you read basic high school sociology, you'll find that what I gave as a basic and fundamental law of human social interaction is taught in high school sociology, usually to freshmen who are about 14 years old. You may make whatever you like of your inability to grasp such a basic and simple concept. Now, admittedly that was about 35 years ago for me, but oddly enough, the teacher hated me, so I had to learn it well enough to score in the 90th percentile just to pass, so I retained some of the more basic points, and still remember them, despite my advancing age and redneck disposition.
