You can drop your mic all you want. It's especially funny when you do it on such a poor argument.

A full half the video (or more) was spent trying to compare Iran to the Nazis. It does NOT, as you assert, actually use appeasement as an actual argument (other than saying "we're appeasing them! Just like the nazis!")

This is what the video is saying:
Evil is bright! (literally, it starts an opening argument with something which is not based in reality)
Iran is evil!
Hitler was evil!
Hitler was appeased and look at all the bad stuff that happened!
Here are points in which Iran and Hiter agreed! (this is the meat of the video, and literally the only "facts" he lists)
Therefore we are appeasing Iran with this deal! (no actual points of the deal are discussed. No quotes from the deal. No specifics.)

This is bad logic. It shows a poor understanding of the well established logic structure, and, dare I say a certain poor understanding of basic algebraic concepts.

What I'm saying is that if you think your argument is sufficient to "drop a mic" , then you do not understand logic or math.

victor809 wrote:

Ah burner... The "you don know your history!" Argument.

My age is irrelevant. Hell, the way your argument is based, I could have a 3rd grade knowledge of history and still disagree with it.

Do you really not see the flaw in your "Prager university" video, narratived by Prager himself?

Let me spell it out for you. Likening two participants in two different agreements does not liken the agreements.

Neither you, nor your illustrious Prager have identified a single similarity in the agreements. Your entire argument is based on both iran and nazis being bad people, therefore this agreement must be as bad as the 1930s appeasement of Hitler. This is incorrect logic. As I pointed out, and you completely failed to understand, this "logic" of yours could just as easily be applied to any agreement made with Iran, whether it is factually good or bad.

So, since your logic in applying any knowledge you may have is bad, your knowledge of history is absolutely irrelevant. If one were to apply Bloom's taxonomy, you "remember" and may even "understand" facts but you have no ability to apply them appropriately. Perhaps you should work on that?

victor809 wrote:

"factually good or bad"

hmmm...ill have to scratch my head about that one for a while and get back to you

gummy jones wrote:

... not much of a head scratcher. A factually good deal would be one which can be proven (using real facts) to be good. An example would be, "we remove the sanctions, Iran agrees to execute their leader and everyone who supported him as well as all ISIS members. They donate all money to puppies". A factually bad deal may be something like "We remove sanctions and provide them with 2 submarines and an arsenal of nuclear missiles."

As either of these scenarios could be argued against (with equal accuracy) using the argument posed by the moron in the video, the argument he was using is clearly a poorly constructed argument. He did not argue the facts of the deal.

victor809 wrote:

seems to me it is pure subjectivity but then again i aint to learned and we have disagreed on most things today and its not even dinner time!

oh well, back to work.

gummy jones wrote:

Ah burner... The "you don know your history!" Argument.

My age is irrelevant. Hell, the way your argument is based, I could have a 3rd grade knowledge of history and still disagree with it.

Do you really not see the flaw in your "Prager university" video, narratived by Prager himself?

Let me spell it out for you. Likening two participants in two different agreements does not liken the agreements.

Neither you, nor your illustrious Prager have identified a single similarity in the agreements. Your entire argument is based on both iran and nazis being bad people, therefore this agreement must be as bad as the 1930s appeasement of Hitler. This is incorrect logic. As I pointed out, and you completely failed to understand, this "logic" of yours could just as easily be applied to any agreement made with Iran, whether it is factually good or bad.

So, since your logic in applying any knowledge you may have is bad, your knowledge of history is absolutely irrelevant. If one were to apply Bloom's taxonomy, you "remember" and may even "understand" facts but you have no ability to apply them appropriately. Perhaps you should work on that?

victor809 wrote:

Bloom’s taxonomy? Really? Is that all you got?

You once again discount what someone has to say because he doesn’t have the academic “pedigree” you think he should to be considered credible. An observation on my part is that your response (which is typical of all your posts) to me avoided any answering of a direct question—do you think the Iranian nuclear deal is a good deal? Instead of really focusing on the issues, you like to lob little intellectual barbs to prove you have some education. What does that add to the conversation? I think what is lacking here on your part is known as common sense. Talking just to talk seems to be your mode of operation.

Carry on.

Burner02 wrote: