Originally Posted by Benzo
All you have done is set up rules that make any argument I am making invalid by your doctrine.
please explain. what rules did i set up? i'm not sure if you are referring to the loigical fallacies. certainliy i did not make those up. i'm not sure what other rules i could have stated.
and i don't really have an expressed doctrine in this debate. your original post seemed to ask for some clarification as to what people are protesting. i am trying to give a clear voice to that and to counter some of the points that you are making against it. i am not part of this movement, and although i have some sympathy for some of it, i don't accept it all as fact either. but i also don't reject it outright for reasons that are quite simply leaps in logic.
are you suggesting that these protesters don't have strength in their convictions, or just the few that have jobs and ipads? also, is it enough to have strength in your conviction if your conviction is unjust?