| |
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> I've given my arguments elsewhere in the thread.
We both have.
> I find them very
> compelling. If you don't, there isn't much I can do about it, is there?
> Horses can be lead to water but they cannot be made to drink.
Lead me to water, then, and I'll drink. The well is dry if all your going to
do is argue that Communism will always fail, no matter what, though you
cannot possibly prove it in a million lifetimes. You're keen on telling
others to prove things, try proving your statement. Failure in the past does
not constitue failure in the future. Life is dynamic, societies and
attitudes change and the climate may someday be right where Communism may be
successful for a group of people or a nation (who knows what scale it will
be). Democracy "failed" for the ancient Greeks in a sense. If you lived back
in that time would you argue that Democracy will always fail?
At least I'm being realistic to suggest that the American sanctions against
Cuba have a negative effect on Cuba's economy, and I offered that said
effect IS profound, not minor as you suggested. That can be argued and even
proven. But how do you prove that Communism will always fail?
> That, by the way is not "stubbornly clinging" it's just being consistent.
I certainly agree that your behavior is consistent.
> Read more closely... I am trying to give an example. "suppose I say" != "I say"
Now be honest Larry, didn't that so-called example reveal at least a portion
of your opinion of me. As I said, it's your own loss.
> > > That's your behaviour, not your person, by the way, so I'm not calling you
> > > names.
> >
> > You spelled "behavior" wrong. Does that mean you don't grasp the basic
> > knowledge of American English spelling?
>
> It is a foible of mine that I often use the british spelling for things.
> Deliberately. Nice sidestep.
Just a dose of your own medicine: Deliberately missing the general point in
favor of arguing over the wording. And you didn't capitalize "British."
> > Well, you haven't really been reasonable today, that's for sure. And you
> > spelled "behavior" wrong again.
>
> Obfuscation. You missed the point again.
Exactly, see above. Hopefully I proved how tiresome nit-picking can be. As I
said before, I conceed that my statements aren't always clear the first
time. Sometimes I get ahead of myself but I make an effort to explain, offer
examples and restate so that it's more clear what I mean. Fortunately, Dave!
said it best when my brain failed to say it the way I wanted to. Can we get
back to the subject rather than complain about how we present our opinions?
Dan
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Cuba
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Daniel Jassim writes: <snip> I'm fairly happy with the accuracy of my characterization: you made a statement placing the entire blame for Cuba's woes here with the US instead of with their failed system, when challenged, (...) (23 years ago, 30-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Cuba
|
| (...) Patently untrue, the core of the argument has been addressed elsewhere in the thread. I would say, rather, that you are the one obfuscating at present. (...) Not trying hard enough, apparently. (...) I've given my arguments elsewhere in the (...) (23 years ago, 30-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
64 Messages in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
