>catalonia was anarchist and it was conquered so anarchism doesn't work
>nazi germany failed therefore it was nazism that made if fail
>the soviet union collapsed so it must have been because they were communist
>the Roman empire was strongest when it was pagan so being pagan must have been the cause
Why do so many mouthbreathers on Veeky Forums fail to discern between correlative and causal relationships?
the entire concept of logical fallicies was invented so mouth-breathing retards could argue over them
Because using the ol' grey matter isn't as fun as spewing out loads of retarded bullshit
>the Roman empire was the strongest when it was pagan so being pagan must have been the cause
seeing as everything after Christianity became the main religion was a downward trend, I think this is fair to say
Have you ever heard if the term " Illusory correlation " ?
...
Nazism didn't brought down the Germans to their knees, poor war choices did (among other reasons)
Communism wasn't the mAin reason for the Sovjets to fall, it was a combination of it's constitution, bad economy at the time and Gorbachevs finishing blows which were conflicting with Sovjet interests.
Polyethnic worldviews were not the reason for a superior army when the Romans were very dominant.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I'm with OP. Your term apllies more to people who go with those greentexts.Dunno if that was the point. I'm kinda wasted so I may have missed something or I'm judt being retarded
Correlation doesn't always equal causation but it is a misunderstanding of the fallacy to say it is never indicative of some relationship between the two.
To take the first of your examples "catalonia was anarchist and it was conquered so anarchism doesn't work", now that is clearly a weak and incompletely argument, even potentially fallacious as you have pointed out. However if someone were to detail the issues with anarchism in theory and practice and demonstrate that the reason Catalonia was conquered was in fact due to those issues then they have made a valid argument.
I agree but the argument is almost always couched as the OP has greentexted. Just check the archive for a thread about the efficacy of monarchy and these numb-brains
talk to me in latin about this shit and ill give a fuck about your uneducated opinion on these subjects.
The part about communism failing is correct though
wtf
This isn't even /pol/. This is transcendental shitposting. Who are these brainlets?
>the Roman empire was strongest when it was pagan so being pagan must have been the cause
it would be reductive to say it was the sole cause of Rome's decline, but it was a factor. Far more money and energy was spent on religion after the conversion of the empire, money and energy that could have been perhaps spent on defense.
The new kids of this golden era
>Sovjet
>>>/krautchan/
no u
Not counting the fighting. Theo sent fucking Alaric west to fight the pagans at Frigidus. No way that helped Rome.
>the center of a city was captured by armed rebels in a civil war for 8 hours so that means my snowflake ideology works
wut?
>saying literally the same thing that gets parodied in the OP
>>catalonia was anarchist and it was conquered so anarchism doesn't work
This one is correct. The state and warmaking are linked. A stateless society is simply bad at war and is at risk of being swallowed up by neighbors.
Didn't mean to post with a name. Whoops.
>correlation isn't causation
Top brainlet. Sometimes it is.