As I said, he had no sources, claiming that he "sourced himself" isn't a good way to give the paper any credence.
When you conduct a science experiment, why do you need a source for that?
If I were to test different objects on how they heat in the sun, why do I need a source for that?
Similarly, when Theodore tests to see how much of Martin's work was plagiarized, do you see why he doesn't need a source for that? He's the one conducting the science experiment lol.
And yes, the book itself is propaganda.
Once again, you've barely asserted this without any proof or argumentation -- you haven't learned your lesson.
Furthermore, this document wasn't released until decades later. How can this be propaganda if it wasn't released to the public at the time?
Furthermore, I'm saying it is LIKELY the FBI lied given: their is no actual evidence that the claims were true, and they had an extremely high motive to lie, therefore it is likely to be a lie.
And how did you deduce this likelihood of lying, other than a blind guess? Looks like you're the one without sources now.
Also, what determines they had an "extremely high motive to lie?"
Again, I was using that to settle the credence of the paper, the writer was obviously discriminatory in nature, no?
No. Prove it.
Further-furthermore, to say it is a "non-sequiter" is actually a fallacy-fallacy. I was not connecting logic specifically, merely saying that the word-usage made me trust the claims less, since it increases the motive to lie, we've been over this.
Incorrect.
You said that: "I don't take it seriously", and your reasoning was because of the words. You can't lie about what you said when it's there for us to see. Therefore, my ascribing of your argument as a non-sequitur stands.
Furthermore.... even if it true that he "associated with communists", so what? You do know that there were communists patriotic to America right? there is literally nothing wrong with that, you see, you buy into the red scare as much as the guys writing this... but ya know, considering this was a Mccarthinson era report, with no actual evidence, and a counter report (which you failed to read), which detailed it as exaggerative.
America's national interests at the time were in fighting Communism, specifically Russian Communism. Undermining that fight, as Martin did, was against America's national interest.
Also, Communism is such a dreadful ideology that anyone doing anything in favor of it is doing something wrong lol.
Since you've thoroughly read your sources and haven't copy-pasted it once you saw the heading in order to look smart, you need to show us where you source says what you are arguing. Dumping it at the bottom and not linking it to your argument is insufficient.
While it is "technically" correct, that is true, whenever making a claim that is contested it is the burden of the maker of the claim to provide adequate evidence of said claim. If 2 + 2 = 4 was in contention, the maker of the claim would have an intellectual burden to prove said claim. However, that does not apply here, as math itself is an axiom due to it's self-fulffilling nature, so this is a false-equivelency, as these claims are specific and falsifiable, you must provide evidence of their credence.
Theweakeredge: *looks at a duck*
Theweakeredge: "Where is the source that proves I'm looking at a duck?"
Duck: *quack*
Theweakeredge: "Where is the source to prove that you quacked?"
Or... if you're saying that it doesn't matter if we have sources for our claims
You're asking for a source of a source.
This is comedy.
Nope, I didn't, I merely said that claiming anyone isn't a christian because of actions they took is stupid, because doing that you could claim ALL christians aren't christians...according to the bible, actually. Since by your logic, if someone does someone "unchristian" than they aren't christian, and the bible says all men fall short of the glory of god, so... yeah, no.
I don't know.
If I intentionally have dozens of drunken orgies, despite the Bible explicitly saying not to do that...
If I intentionally have 4 mistresses, despite it being one of the Ten Commandments not to do that...
If I intentionally have a child out of wedlock, despite the Bible saying not to do that...
If I intentionally steal other people's work, lie about doing it, and even try to copyright the work I stole, despite it being against TWO of the Ten Commandments: stealing and lying...
It would seem like I don't have much interest in being a Christian.
It would seem like I'm a fraud.
You see, you aren't actually critically thinking through this stuff. You just throw out fallacies you think apply when you have no idea what you're actually addressing. This is why skilled interloquitors don't do this "quote" and respond stuff like this. It often leads one to conclude that you aren't considering the entire thing in context.
I have little time to answer, interloquitor.
There is no credence to what you said here because it has exactly ZERO sources. Fairly simple logic. You have an extremely high motive to lie. Fairly simple logic. Furthermore, exactly ZERO sources. Fairly simple logic. If you think that's a fallacy, there's an extremely high motive that that's a fallacy-fallacy with exactly ZERO sources. Even if it wasn't ... so what? Fairly simple logic.
