Adios, Amigo (Mal and summary executions)

[SirNitram]

I have, and you simply <snipped> it. You want to talk to me about sidestepping again?

I talk about the inherent roadblocks of immigration, you quote a number that lacks any sort of account of how many are turned away, or how many could never try. Yes, you sidestepped. Try again.

[Darth Lucifer]

219,000 of them did in one year alone.

You're so fucking clever.

HEY DIPSHIT: I SAID AVERAGE ILLEGAL
Jesus fucking Christ you are dense.

I'll say it again: [/b]Pot. Kettle.[/b] Figure out the rest for yourself.

How does PKB apply here?[/quote]

If you have to ask, I have nothing more to say to you.

[Mal_Reynolds]

I have, and you simply <snipped> it. You want to talk to me about sidestepping again?

I talk about the inherent roadblocks of immigration, you quote a number that lacks any sort of account of how many are turned away, or how many could never try. Yes, you sidestepped. Try again.

You didn't ask for that information originally -- you merely dismissed legal immigration as a "pipe dream". I demonstrated that it isn't. How nice of you to add this requirement... ex post facto? In any case, there's no reason to list how many are turned away, since my point is that they can come here legally, many thousands do come here legally every year, thus there's no defense for them coming illegally.

By the way, just because Mexico hasn't openly declared war doesn't mean it isn't engaging in one.

A page which lasts a handful of America's own undeclared wars. Just to establish, as apparently needs doing, that there is such a thing.

[Zero]

Same strawman -- do you expect a different result? If someone shoplifts consistently for six years, I expect an effective sentence, which in this case would equate significant jail time.

For a country that has either permitted or assisted illegal occupation of another country for decades, I would expect military response.

It's not a strawman. You equated shoplifting for six years again and again and again to illegal immigration, even though the two don't have the same legal, ethical, or economic standings. You also advocate executions of illegal immigrants, if they try to come here twice. The position of advocating the death penalty for both is rational, if you hold that executions of illegals is a good avenue of action.

You still seem to think that the only end-goal is stopping illegal immigration.

[Mal_Reynolds]

219,000 of them did in one year alone.

You're so fucking clever.

HEY DIPSHIT: I SAID AVERAGE ILLEGAL
Jesus fucking Christ you are dense.

The average illegal chooses to break the law either way. Whether they can come legally or not makes no difference -- the choice to break the law rests with the criminal alone.

I'll say it again: [/b]Pot. Kettle.[/b] Figure out the rest for yourself.

How does PKB apply here?

If you have to ask, I have nothing more to say to you.[/quote]

I'll take that as a kindness.

[SirNitram]

I have, and you simply <snipped> it. You want to talk to me about sidestepping again?

I talk about the inherent roadblocks of immigration, you quote a number that lacks any sort of account of how many are turned away, or how many could never try. Yes, you sidestepped. Try again.

You didn't ask for that information originally -- you merely dismissed legal immigration as a "pipe dream". I demonstrated that it isn't. How nice of you to add this requirement... ex post facto?

It's always funny to watch an ignorant twat try to use words he doesn't grasp the context of. The entire context of the relevent post was about the INS' roadblocks. Are you illiterate, that you didn't see it?

In any case, there's no reason to list how many are turned away, since my point is that they can come here legally, many thousands do come here legally every year, thus there's no defense for them coming illegally.

Negative, sparky. If the entry is onerous, burdensome, and full of roadblocks(And when this is true for those coming from Japan and England with full employment already, it's doubly so for these poor fucks), it is not a realistic option.

By the way, just because Mexico hasn't openly declared war doesn't mean it isn't engaging in one.

Uh-huh.

A page which lasts a handful of America's own undeclared wars. Just to establish, as apparently needs doing, that there is such a thing.

Ah, Wikipedia. The reference for the least and most gullible of us. Shall I edit that post so it says there's no such war? Perhaps that'd drive home how useless that source is.

[Mal_Reynolds]

Same strawman -- do you expect a different result? If someone shoplifts consistently for six years, I expect an effective sentence, which in this case would equate significant jail time.

For a country that has either permitted or assisted illegal occupation of another country for decades, I would expect military response.

It's not a strawman. You equated shoplifting for six years again and again and again to illegal immigration, even though the two don't have the same legal, ethical, or economic standings.

But I did not advocate the same sentence for both crimes -- you implied that I must, hence the strawman.

You also advocate executions of illegal immigrants, if they try to come here twice. The position of advocating the death penalty for both is rational, if you hold that executions of illegals is a good avenue of action.

Non sequitur. I hold that effective deterrent is necessary in both cases, but what constitutes effective deterrent is vastly different in the two cases.

You still seem to think that the only end-goal is stopping illegal immigration.

As far as the U.S. is concerned, it is. Mexico's problems are Mexico's problems.

[Darth Lucifer]

Take this as kindness, fuck ball.

[Mal_Reynolds]

I talk about the inherent roadblocks of immigration, you quote a number that lacks any sort of account of how many are turned away, or how many could never try. Yes, you sidestepped. Try again.

You didn't ask for that information originally -- you merely dismissed legal immigration as a "pipe dream". I demonstrated that it isn't. How nice of you to add this requirement... ex post facto?

It's always funny to watch an ignorant twat try to use words he doesn't grasp the context of. The entire context of the relevent post was about the INS' roadblocks. Are you illiterate, that you didn't see it?

I did see it. Or you so ignorant that you didn't see that those roadblocks are not an impediment to a statistically significant number of Mexican expatriates?

In any case, there's no reason to list how many are turned away, since my point is that they can come here legally, many thousands do come here legally every year, thus there's no defense for them coming illegally.

Negative, sparky. If the entry is onerous, burdensome, and full of roadblocks(And when this is true for those coming from Japan and England with full employment already, it's doubly so for these poor fucks), it is not a realistic option.

Again, the results disagree with you.

By the way, just because Mexico hasn't openly declared war doesn't mean it isn't engaging in one.

Uh-huh.

A page which lasts a handful of America's own undeclared wars. Just to establish, as apparently needs doing, that there is such a thing.

Ah, Wikipedia. The reference for the least and most gullible of us.

Ad hominem. Dispute the data, or not.

[Zero]

A page which lasts a handful of America's own undeclared wars. Just to establish, as apparently needs doing, that there is such a thing.

None of those are even remotely similar to what Mexico's doing. Each of those military actions were actually done by the US military, and we actually fought, and conquered land. Mexico isn't doing any such thing. Besides that, most of those 'wars' were military engagements authorized by congress. Mexico hasn't authorized anything, and most of their incursions into US territory are known to be accidental.

[Soontir C'boath]

Realize that many if not all of illegal immigrants are "unskilled workers" and they'd be far down the ladder for eligibility compared to those related to US citizens, permanent residents, and those that actually have an education and degree such as from college.

Your statistic of how many are accepted do not reflect how many people are poor, without much of an education, and work in the fields and so forth. Those included in the statastics could very well be educated and decently paid people that could afford the processing fees and wait time to apply for a green card, etc, which many illegals may very well can't afford.

The average illegal chooses to break the law either way. Whether they can come legally or not makes no difference -- the choice to break the law rests with the criminal alone.

Non sequitur. I hold that effective deterrent is necessary in both cases, but what constitutes effective deterrent is vastly different in the two cases.

Killing them is not a constitutional "effective" deterrent, dumbass.

[SirNitram]

You didn't ask for that information originally -- you merely dismissed legal immigration as a "pipe dream". I demonstrated that it isn't. How nice of you to add this requirement... ex post facto?

It's always funny to watch an ignorant twat try to use words he doesn't grasp the context of. The entire context of the relevent post was about the INS' roadblocks. Are you illiterate, that you didn't see it?

I did see it. Or you so ignorant that you didn't see that those roadblocks are not an impediment to a statistically significant number of Mexican expatriates?

Without providing the data I requested, you cannot prove they are 'statistically signifigant'.

In any case, there's no reason to list how many are turned away, since my point is that they can come here legally, many thousands do come here legally every year, thus there's no defense for them coming illegally.

Negative, sparky. If the entry is onerous, burdensome, and full of roadblocks(And when this is true for those coming from Japan and England with full employment already, it's doubly so for these poor fucks), it is not a realistic option.

Again, the results disagree with you.

In your head. Out in the real world, the reality is harsher.

By the way, just because Mexico hasn't openly declared war doesn't mean it isn't engaging in one.

Uh-huh.

A page which lasts a handful of America's own undeclared wars. Just to establish, as apparently needs doing, that there is such a thing.

Ah, Wikipedia. The reference for the least and most gullible of us.

Ad hominem. Dispute the data, or not.

The source is of no credibility, as I could edit that or a dozen other pages now. And it can't be 'Ad Hominem' when I'm attacking your source, little man. I'm insulting you. What's the matter? Your thin skin can't handle a little ribbing, so you must snip out where I make the clear statement Wikipedia is trash?

[Mal_Reynolds]

A page which lasts a handful of America's own undeclared wars. Just to establish, as apparently needs doing, that there is such a thing.

None of those are even remotely similar to what Mexico's doing. Each of those military actions were actually done by the US military, and we actually fought, and conquered land. Mexico isn't doing any such thing.

No, they're using a different technique for conquest -- simple demographics. But when push comes to shove, military assets (whether you acknowledge that they are official military or not) are being engaged to support the illegal occupation, and the Mexican government looks the other way. That constitutes undeclared warfare.

Besides that, most of those 'wars' were military engagements authorized by congress. Mexico hasn't authorized anything, and most of their incursions into US territory are known to be accidental.

Most are assumed to be accidental. By people who don't work there. The Border Patrol, who actually are there and witness them, disagree.

[Mal_Reynolds]

Realize that many if not all of illegal immigrants are "unskilled workers" and they'd be far down the ladder for eligibility compared to those related to US citizens, permanent residents, and those that actually have an education and degree such as from college.

Then that's their problem. It should not be ours.

Your statistic of how many are accepted do not reflect how many people are poor, without much of an education, and work in the fields and so forth.

That's irrelevant to the statistic.

Those included in the statastics could very well be educated and decently paid people that could afford the processing fees and wait time to apply for a green card, etc, which many illegals may very well can't afford.

Then -- again -- tough shit for the illegals.

The average illegal chooses to break the law either way. Whether they can come legally or not makes no difference -- the choice to break the law rests with the criminal alone.

Non sequitur. I hold that effective deterrent is necessary in both cases, but what constitutes effective deterrent is vastly different in the two cases.

Killing them is not a constitutional "effective" deterrent, dumbass.

It is if they're convicted and sentenced under due process.

[Mal_Reynolds]

It's always funny to watch an ignorant twat try to use words he doesn't grasp the context of. The entire context of the relevent post was about the INS' roadblocks. Are you illiterate, that you didn't see it?

I did see it. Or you so ignorant that you didn't see that those roadblocks are not an impediment to a statistically significant number of Mexican expatriates?

Without providing the data I requested, you cannot prove they are 'statistically signifigant'.

They are a statistically significant sample of legal immigrants.

Negative, sparky. If the entry is onerous, burdensome, and full of roadblocks(And when this is true for those coming from Japan and England with full employment already, it's doubly so for these poor fucks), it is not a realistic option.

Again, the results disagree with you.

In your head. Out in the real world, the reality is harsher.

The real world is tallied by the U.S. Census, from which the results I posted are drawn. You can wish as hard as you want, but that real world you're talking about doesn't support your position.

Uh-huh.
Ah, Wikipedia. The reference for the least and most gullible of us.

Ad hominem. Dispute the data, or not.

The source is of no credibility, as I could edit that or a dozen other pages now.

Dispute... the data. Credibility or lack of it is irrelevant to the validity of the data the source provides. Dispute. The. Data.

And it can't be 'Ad Hominem' when I'm attacking your source, little man.

That's the definition of ad hominem. Do you deny you're attacking the source?

I'm insulting you. What's the matter? Your thin skin can't handle a little ribbing, so you must snip out where I make the clear statement Wikipedia is trash?

Your statement that Wikipedia is trash doesn't support your position or refute mine.

[Zero]

But I did not advocate the same sentence for both crimes -- you implied that I must, hence the strawman.

You yourself have stated that a crime's punishment is based on the severity of the damage caused by the action. Equating the two implies, according to your previously stated principle, that the two deserve equal punishment if they're equally bad.

Non sequitur. I hold that effective deterrent is necessary in both cases, but what constitutes effective deterrent is vastly different in the two cases.

If you believe that effective deterrent is the only thing necessary when dealing with punishment, why not have execution be the punishment for all crimes? That way, nobody will ever want to do anything illegal.

As far as the U.S. is concerned, it is. Mexico's problems are Mexico's problems.

That's bullshit. The US has a lot more pressing matters than illegal immigration. Illegal immigration isn't the worst fucking thing there is, and advocating executions of them is both immoral and fucking stupid. You care not one iota about ethics, it seems. You also don't seem to understand that legal codes are supposed to be based around ethical principles. What do you want to base law on, ignorant jackass?

[SirNitram]

I requested, you cannot prove they are 'statistically signifigant'.

They are a statistically significant sample of legal immigrants.

Waiting for evidence.

In your head. Out in the real world, the reality is harsher.

The real world is tallied by the U.S. Census, from which the results I posted are drawn. You can wish as hard as you want, but that real world you're talking about doesn't support your position.

You have again failed to present evidence that there is no impediment for many other individuals. You simply refuse. Probably because your argument is dead in the water.

Dispute... the data. Credibility or lack of it is irrelevant to the validity of the data the source provides. Dispute. The. Data.

The pixie in my ear says it's wrong. Dispute. The. Data.

Or we can simply live in the real world of logical debate and realize it's a worthless source, just like Wikipedia.

And it can't be 'Ad Hominem' when I'm attacking your source, little man.

That's the definition of ad hominem. Do you deny you're attacking the source?

Negative. Ad Hominem is attacking the man, you illiterate monkey. I've not attacked you as a part of my argument yet. I have pointed out Wikipedia is a worthless source.

I'm insulting you. What's the matter? Your thin skin can't handle a little ribbing, so you must snip out where I make the clear statement Wikipedia is trash?

Your statement that Wikipedia is trash doesn't support your position or refute mine.

It merely points out you're a gullible moron who tries to use a worthless source to try and puff himself up.

[Mal_Reynolds]

But I did not advocate the same sentence for both crimes -- you implied that I must, hence the strawman.

You yourself have stated that a crime's punishment is based on the severity of the damage caused by the action. Equating the two implies, according to your previously stated principle, that the two deserve equal punishment if they're equally bad.

I equated the crimes to demonstrate longevity, nor severity. Maybe that's too subtle a nuance for you to grasp.

Non sequitur. I hold that effective deterrent is necessary in both cases, but what constitutes effective deterrent is vastly different in the two cases.

If you believe that effective deterrent is the only thing necessary when dealing with punishment, why not have execution be the punishment for all crimes? That way, nobody will ever want to do anything illegal.

Because in most crimes, rehabilitation has been effective. Illegal immigration has yet to respond to any deterrent so far proposed. And since Mexico's own government appears to be encouraging the crime rather than deterring it, they're accessories in it. The best way to deter them from continued complicity in the crime is to create both severe personal negative incentive for individual commissions of the crime and negative incentive against which Mexico's government would have to either openly declare war or finally take effective action to prevent their citizens from committing the crime and being tried.

As far as the U.S. is concerned, it is. Mexico's problems are Mexico's problems.

That's bullshit. The US has a lot more pressing matters than illegal immigration.

Name a few.

What do you want to base law on, ignorant jackass?

Ethics, of course. But my ethics don't include fucking over your own on behalf of strangers.

[Zero]

A page which lasts a handful of America's own undeclared wars. Just to establish, as apparently needs doing, that there is such a thing.

None of those are even remotely similar to what Mexico's doing. Each of those military actions were actually done by the US military, and we actually fought, and conquered land. Mexico isn't doing any such thing.

No, they're using a different technique for conquest -- simple demographics. But when push comes to shove, military assets (whether you acknowledge that they are official military or not) are being engaged to support the illegal occupation, and the Mexican government looks the other way. That constitutes undeclared warfare.

Civilians can't have an 'occupation,' dumbass. And I already demonstrated to you that the 'military assets' you speak of are more likely to be gang-related. Ignoring reality seems to be your skill, though, so you'll probably just declare that it's quite a stretch to say that people in uniform working towards drug smuggling might be related to gangs more than the government, even though we know that there are some gangs and drug cartels that have recruited fellows from the Mexican army, and from the Mexican equivalent of the FBI.

You'll also say that the government would have put a stop to it by now, but you ignore the fact that the US has been trying to put a stop to drug cartels for years, and that Mexico is actually trying to put a stop to such things.

link

Besides that, most of those 'wars' were military engagements authorized by congress. Mexico hasn't authorized anything, and most of their incursions into US territory are known to be accidental.

Most are assumed to be accidental. By people who don't work there. The Border Patrol, who actually are there and witness them, disagree.

http://www.cbp.gov is the official site for the US Customs and Border Patrol, and makes no mention of the Mexican invasion you claim is taking place. Shut the fuck up until you can provide evidence for your claims.

[SirNitram]

That's bullshit. The US has a lot more pressing matters than illegal immigration.

Name a few.

Soaring trade deficit. National debt rising so fast the Debt Clock will run out of room. Multiple government scandals. Collapsing automotive industry. Skyrocketing oil prices. International tension on the rise. A war that was launched on lies killing more Americans by the hour. A country that simply won't be rebuilt desipte promises otherwise.

[Mal_Reynolds]

I requested, you cannot prove they are 'statistically signifigant'.

They are a statistically significant sample of legal immigrants.

Waiting for evidence.

I'm sorry, I didn't read that sentence. If you're going to ignore the evidence already presented, I'll simply ignore further requests for it. Fair is fair.

In your head. Out in the real world, the reality is harsher.

The real world is tallied by the U.S. Census, from which the results I posted are drawn. You can wish as hard as you want, but that real world you're talking about doesn't support your position.

You have again failed to present evidence that there is no impediment for many other individuals. You simply refuse. Probably because your argument is dead in the water.

I have no intention of supporting the claim that there is no impediment, because I never made that claim. I only refuted your implication that no one gets through legally.

Dispute... the data. Credibility or lack of it is irrelevant to the validity of the data the source provides. Dispute. The. Data.

The pixie in my ear says it's wrong. Dispute. The. Data.

Burden of proof -- substantiate the existence of a pixie in your ear. I have already substantiated the reality of undocumented wars. You have so far attacked only the source, not the validity of the sourced information. I'll take that as concession.

Or we can simply live in the real world of logical debate and realize it's a worthless source, just like Wikipedia.

The real world of logical debate stipulates that attacking the source without disputing the data it presents is a fallacy.

And it can't be 'Ad Hominem' when I'm attacking your source, little man.

That's the definition of ad hominem. Do you deny you're attacking the source?

Negative. Ad Hominem is attacking the man, you illiterate monkey.

The definition is not that narrow, and for good reason. Yes, that's what the translation from the Latin reads, but in application it simply means to attack the source without refuting that which the source presents.

I've not attacked you as a part of my argument yet. I have pointed out Wikipedia is a worthless source.

Precisely -- you have attacked the source of the data rather than falsifying the data itself.

I'm insulting you. What's the matter? Your thin skin can't handle a little ribbing, so you must snip out where I make the clear statement Wikipedia is trash?

Your statement that Wikipedia is trash doesn't support your position or refute mine.

It merely points out you're a gullible moron who tries to use a worthless source to try and puff himself up.

And now you've committed ad hominem, even by your rudimentary understanding of the term.

[Surlethe]

Where's the fallacy, nutpuddle?

Equivocation. Haven't you heard of it? It's where your argument hinges on the change in meaning of a word, which is precisely what you've done.

Nope, sorry, bud. I posted from the damn dictionary the definitions of the word. The civilian action alone satisfies Definition 3, and Mexican military support of the civilian action satisfies Definition 1.

Are you intelligent enough to be aware that you have just admitted to precisely that which I accused you of doing, moron?

And what's colloquial about "An intrusion or encroachment. "?

If you're too stupid to realize that that's the colloquial definition of "invasion" -- e.g., "invasion of cockroaches"; "invasion of cockmunches"; "invasion of trollshits" -- then you have no business on an English-speaking forum, asshole.

If it were a colloquialism, I do believe it would be listed as such. Does it? No. It's literal. Too bad.

And any native English speaker will tell you that that is the informal utilization of the word. Unfortunately for you, that supports my point.

That's not colloquial, and there's no logical fallacy there because Mexico has used their military assets to support the intrusions, which causes their activity to come into the realm of the first definition.

Oh, then in that case you're a lying fucknut for specifically outlining the second definition in response to the statement "it isn't an invasion if it's civilians, and not military forces, no matter what the fuck you say." Either way, you lose. However, even by the first definition, Mexican intrusions are not an invasion since they are not entering to conquer US territory.

No, they're entering in support of civilians who are conquering U.S. territory, which is what they do through illegal occupation.

Because it's a military conquest; I see -- oh, wait; never mind. Retard.

Don't talk to me about mediocre reading comprehension or logical fallacies either, until you actually have something that backs you up on either charge, which you presently fucking don't.

I'm not the one who's trying to pass off an invasion of civilians as an excuse to go to war, and I'm not the one who's trying to equivocate an argument, dipshit.

No, you're the one who's calling illegal foreign occupation, which is being supported by military escort and occasional military engagement against our Border Patrol, anything -- anything you can think of that will make it sound innocent and harmless, when it's not.

For fuck's sake, your entire fucking argument is based on a series of goddamned equivocations! Do you honestly not understand the difference between an invasion in the informal sense and a military invasion, you shitwit? Are you honestly so stupid as to actually think the Southwestern US is being militarily occupied by a foreign power? You're so retarded your bullfuckery is making me cringe through a computer, you bigoted asshole.

[Mal_Reynolds]

That's bullshit. The US has a lot more pressing matters than illegal immigration.

Name a few.

Soaring trade deficit. National debt rising so fast the Debt Clock will run out of room. Multiple government scandals. Collapsing automotive industry. Skyrocketing oil prices. International tension on the rise. A war that was launched on lies killing more Americans by the hour. A country that simply won't be rebuilt desipte promises otherwise.

Good. Illegal immigration is among them. Local economic depression, I'm pretty certain, is probably on some level contributing to a few of those you listed.

[Zero]

Because in most crimes, rehabilitation has been effective. Illegal immigration has yet to respond to any deterrent so far proposed. And since Mexico's own government appears to be encouraging the crime rather than deterring it, they're accessories in it. The best way to deter them from continued complicity in the crime is to create both severe personal negative incentive for individual commissions of the crime and negative incentive against which Mexico's government would have to either openly declare war or finally take effective action to prevent their citizens from committing the crime and being tried.

Or, more likely, the entire international community is pissed at us over executing massive amounts of civilians, and we lose out on a lot of foreign dollars. Besides, having a war right now wouldn't exactly be a good thing. We already have the one in Iraq that's pissing people off, and going to war with an ally with a lot of nice tourist spots will piss a lot of people off.

Name a few.

The war in Iraq, our dependence on oil, the growing national debt, growing concerns over Iran's technical capabilities, foreign policy, terrorism, urban gangs, drug cartels... need I go on?

Ethics, of course. But my ethics don't include fucking over your own on behalf of strangers.

No, your ethics include execution without trial of people who try to come over the border.

[SirNitram]

They are a statistically significant sample of legal immigrants.

Waiting for evidence.

I'm sorry, I didn't read that sentence. If you're going to ignore the evidence already presented, I'll simply ignore further requests for it. Fair is fair.

No evidence was ignored. I'm waiting for the percentages.

The real world is tallied by the U.S. Census, from which the results I posted are drawn. You can wish as hard as you want, but that real world you're talking about doesn't support your position.

You have again failed to present evidence that there is no impediment for many other individuals. You simply refuse. Probably because your argument is dead in the water.

I have no intention of supporting the claim that there is no impediment, because I never made that claim. I only refuted your implication that no one gets through legally.

A strawman fallacy. Shock. Amazement. Only not, because you're a troll.

Dispute... the data. Credibility or lack of it is irrelevant to the validity of the data the source provides. Dispute. The. Data.

The pixie in my ear says it's wrong. Dispute. The. Data.

Burden of proof -- substantiate the existence of a pixie in your ear. I have already substantiated the reality of undocumented wars. You have so far attacked only the source, not the validity of the sourced information. I'll take that as concession.

You have not. You have cited Wikipedia, a source which can be altered by anyone, at anytime. It is not credible.

Or we can simply live in the real world of logical debate and realize it's a worthless source, just like Wikipedia.

The real world of logical debate stipulates that attacking the source without disputing the data it presents is a fallacy.

You have cited Wikipedia, a source which can be altered by anyone, at anytime. It is not credible. Logical debate does not debate data that is not credible.

That's the definition of ad hominem. Do you deny you're attacking the source?

Negative. Ad Hominem is attacking the man, you illiterate monkey.

The definition is not that narrow, and for good reason. Yes, that's what the translation from the Latin reads, but in application it simply means to attack the source without refuting that which the source presents.

If a source is not credible, it's claims are not credible, therefore they need not be discussed in detail. Are you this dense?

I've not attacked you as a part of my argument yet. I have pointed out Wikipedia is a worthless source.

Precisely -- you have attacked the source of the data rather than falsifying the data itself.

By this logic, one must individually refute every impossibility in the Bible to declare it is not a credible source on historical and scientific data.

Your statement that Wikipedia is trash doesn't support your position or refute mine.

It merely points out you're a gullible moron who tries to use a worthless source to try and puff himself up.

And now you've committed ad hominem, even by your rudimentary understanding of the term.

No, I've insulted you. I'm waiting for you to actually debate, instead of shoving the Burden Of Proof away from yourself at every instance.

Oh. And concession accepted on all the points you've failed to reply to.