"when Lei XIII saud that communism and capitalism were pretty much the same, they called him stupid because they are contrary"

...failed comparison and argumentum ad verecundiam. ;-)

"Only i their little very blunt minds... like others I know if."

...argumentum ad hominem, argumentum ad populam.

Knowledge presupposes evidence and a linear chain of reasoning employin said evidence i.e. proof, which is what you can not provide. Belief requires no proof whatsoever..

What you -have- provided is a cut-and-paste from last night filled with a great deal of "name dropping". Your actual evidence is quoted here verbatim

a.) "It comes from Voegelin's study on gnosticism, in which all these movements converge.

...and readily disproven by the increasingly confrontational political structure within every modern Western nation. Even more true within religious movements, Christianity included. They do NOT "converge". We don't agree with the Lutherans.. Even among Catholics, we're increasingly drifting away from the Novus Ordo.

b.) "AND A HUGE ETC., and there you go.".

*points at the chalk-board* There you go. :D

I can tell you one thing for certain. None of your students respect you. Es verdad. The clever ones learn very quickly to say what you want to hear. The honest ones try to argue and get bad grades.

But they both understand they are being taught by a donkey. The clever student gives the donkey a carrot and the donkey follows him. The honest student argues with the donkey but it stays stubborn and kicks him. But both students know it's a donkey and neither of them respect it.

"Such a lame excuses to avoiding accept an utter defeat."

You must be the joke of every faculty meeting. :D

"you use an analogy, that's unacceptable, because only the total and direct proof is valuable as evidence or argument".

...that's a straw-man fallacy because I did not present that argument. I have pointed out the contradiction you made several times now. You did not, can not, and will not refute it. You did not even defend your own "evidence", i.e Voegelin's study on gnosticism when I challenged it.

Analogies show one thing is similar to another in a certain way. They do not show one thing is the other. When you say Pope Francis is a Marxist, that is easy to prove. When you say Pope Francis is a Kabbalist, that contradicts being a Marxist. You also have not shown any evidence he is a Kabbalist, regardless of Marxism or not.

When you make a claim you should provide provide proof, not an analogy.

"it's pretty tiresome to watch resort to this kind of pseudo-arguments, used to avoid engaging in real arguments."

...there is no worse hypocrisy than a man hiding his own failings by accusing others of them.

When I engage in a real argument you whine about "bothering others with your last logic class on fallacies". I know why. So do you. That kind of argument you can not do. It was the foundation of Greek and (later) Christian philosophy. You aren't clever enough to argue like that. Your Ph.D in Philosophy isn't worth the paper it was written on.

..."and you say analogies are illegitimate."

...something I never did. Another straw-man fallacy.

But this is an easy thing for you to prove. Quote me. Directly. Word for word. Not "you said and (I think) that means", not "what you implied (but did not say)", not "I defeated you again etc. "., not "I am too busy to find it." You made the claim. I say your claim is false. Now prove it with a quote,

There. Now you have a real argument, even one simple enough for you.

You made the claim. I say your claim is false. Now prove it with a quote. Either you can provide the quote or you can't. If you can't then your claim fails. That's a very simple argument. And another one you're avoiding.

That isn't a "fallacy fantasy", either. It's put up or shut up. :D Knowing you, you'll do neither. ;-) I'm really beginning to understand why people on GTV sneer at the "Latin Americans". You're supposed to be Ph.D? A lawyer, no less? Get out. :p

My theory is you started as a lawyer, couldn't make a living because you lost your cases and decided teaching at a university was easier and safer.

What you call a "fallacy fantasy" was known to the Greek scholars and later Christian theologians by the term "reason". It's a mode of discourse you can not perform.

Probably because it requires more thought than repeating slanderous, anti-semitic conspiracy theories. It also requires a little more than "AND A HUGE ETC., and there you go."

And there you go. :D