| |
Larry you pre-suppose the question I asked required yes/no answer. I do not
concede it did. I don't like yes/no questions as the respondent does not
have to justify their answer. I suspect you like them for that very reason.
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
>
> > > This is a "have you stopped beating your dog" question. Shame on you.
> >
> > Shame on her. Shame on you for not answering the question.
>
> I answered it. Not my fault if you weren't paying attention.
>
> Let's try an example.
>
> Suppose Dave! asks you, Scott Arthur, the following question: "Have you
> always been the complete and utterly clueless twit you are today?" and
> demands a "Yes" or "No" answer. Whether you answer yes or no, you've agreed
> to the premise.
>
> But the correct answer is neither yes nor no. The correct answer is "I
> reject the premise of the question", because the question presupposes that
> you *are* currently a complete and utterly clueless twit. (For the purposes
> of this example it doesn't matter whether you actually are or not)
That is perhaps the way *you* would answer the question. I would say "I
reject the premise of the question because..."
You see I feel the need to justify myself, not spout opinion.
That is the difference between you and I.
>
> Now if the media (newsgroup) reports that you answered "No, my twitness is
> justified by the way the rest of the newsgroup acts" and ROSCO asks ME if I
> agree with your answer, demanding a yes or no answer, I should not answer
> yes or no to that question *either*. Instead I should point out the
> falsehood of the assumed premise of the original question even if you didn't.
>
> The fact that I did your work for you by pointing out the falsehood of the
> premise doesn't mean I didn't answer ROSCO's question about your statement
> just as the fact that I did Madeline Albright's work for her doesn't mean
> that I didn't answer *your* question about *her* statement.
I don't agree that you "did Madeline Albright's work for her". Madeline
Albright had three ways of answering that question:
1) Agree with the argument, but justify the position of the USA.
2) Discout the argument.
3) Defer answering due to lack of details.
You have done none of these.
>
> So your assertion that I didn't answer your question is false.
>
> Hope that helps.
>
> Please note that whether you actually are a complete and utterly clueless
> twit or not has no bearing on this example.
>
> However, if it will help you work through the example, I'll ask you the
> question if you want. Let me know if it will help.
What a fuss. What fun for you to call names rather than justify yourself. I
do note that you failed to respond to anything other than the 1st line of my
reply. Is that because it does not suit your argument? Here is the rest of
that post, I shall allow you a 2nd chance to debunk my evidence:
>
> Madeline Albright is not my nominee for best Secretary of State for the 20th
> century, and her answer to this question is part of the reason why.
>
> I reject that 500K children in Iraq have died since sanctions were imposed.
> That statistic itself is questionable. I note you haven't debunked it,
> merely cited it again.
I have never stated that I thought it was true. The fact that your govermnet
agrees with though does give it some credance.
>
> I reject that the sanctions are the REASON that children (however many)
> died. The sanctions do not prevent the flow of food into the country.
Really?
From: http://www.unicef.org/emerg/Sanctions.htm
==+==
In both Iraq and Haiti, sanctions resulted in dramatic increases in the
price of staple foods. In Iraq, 1995 market prices had increased to more
than 1,000 times their pre-sanctions levels. More costly food directly
contributed to rising rates of malnutrition. In Iraq, from 1991 to 1995,
wasting among under-5's quadrupled to 12 percent, while stunting doubled to
28 percent Meanwhile, in Haiti, one study demonstrated a rise in child
malnutrition from 7 to 35 percent in the two years following the
introduction of sanctions.
Sanctions also affect food production and agriculture. In both Haiti and
Iraq, agricultural inputs - including spare parts, seeds, fertilizers and
pesticides - were either restricted or in short supply. The high cost of
scarcely available cooking fuel led to increased use of charcoal and
firewood, contributing to deforestation and environmental degradation. In
Haiti, charcoal consumption increased by 19 percent during the first year of
the embargo, equivalent to cutting an additional 220,000 tons of wood.
==+==
and from: http://www.unicef.org/emerg/ImpactSanctions.htm
==+==
EFFECTS OF SANCTIONS
DIRECT EFFECTS
(immediate)
1. Decreased Imports
Medicines
Food Imports
Agricultural Inputs - fertilizer, pesticides, spare parts
Industrial/Commercial inputs/parts
Other spare parts
Fuel
Educational materials
Water Purification/supply inputs
==+==
later on the same page:
==+==
Take for example a country such as Iraq which, prior to the implementation
of sanctions, imported 70 percent of its foodstuffs. Sanctions, by impeding
the availability of food, directly contributed to the enormous rise in
market prices resulting in measurably higher levels of malnutrition across
the country. In this instance, a possible sanctions indicator (malnutrition)
is interpreted in view of an important contextual variable (high food
imports, lack of self-sufficiency regarding food production) that made
civilians more vulnerable to the effects of sanctions.
==+==
>
> I reject that even if the sanctions actually *caused* the death of even 1
> child that it's the fault of the imposers of the sanctions for the deaths.
> The *fault* lies with the lawless dictator Hussein, not the US.
So Madeleine Albright was wrong then? So less food, higher food prices and
starvation are not linked? Do you really believe that?
From: http://www.unicef.org/newsline/99pr29.htm
==+==
The surveys reveal that in the south and center of Iraq -- home to 85 per
cent of the country's population -- under-5 mortality more than doubled from
56 deaths per 1000 live births (1984-1989) to 131 deaths per 1000 live
births (1994-1999). Likewise infant mortality -- defined as the death of
children in their first year -- increased from 47 per 1000 live births to
108 per 1000 live births within the same time frame. The surveys indicate a
maternal mortality ratio in the south and center of 294 deaths per 100,000
live births over the ten-year period 1989 to 1999.
Ms. Bellamy noted that if the substantial reduction in child mortality
throughout Iraq during the 1980s had continued through the 1990s, there
would have been half a million fewer deaths of children under-five in the
country as a whole during the eight year period 1991 to 1998. As a partial
explanation, she pointed to a March statement of the Security Council Panel
on Humanitarian Issues which states: "Even if not all suffering in Iraq can
be imputed to external factors, especially sanctions, the Iraqi people would
not be undergoing such deprivations in the absence of the prolonged measures
imposed by the Security Council and the effects of war."
==+==
I accept that SH is not trying to make things better for his countrymen, and
may well actually be making it worse for them. But who is the fool, him for
playing that game, or us for going along with it?
>
> Despite all that, I do not support sanctions in general and not in this
> particular case either.
Indeed I understand you want to destroy what it left of the infrastructure
in Iraq as SH dared to voice his opinion:
From: http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=12631
==+==
If I were Saddam Hussein, who has made the foolish mistake of exulting, I'd
be enjoying the running water while I could. That country needs to be
disassembled too, their citizens freed, and the oil pumped out and sold to
pay war reparations.
==+==
Scott A
> ++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: War
|
| (...) Scott, what do you want? You posed a quote from Albright and asked if Larry agreed with her. He answered with, as I see it, a three paragraph answer. You claimed (foolishly or disingenously?) that he didn't answer. So he reasonably assumed (...) (23 years ago, 2-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: War
|
| (...) I answered it. Not my fault if you weren't paying attention. Let's try an example. Suppose Dave! asks you, Scott Arthur, the following question: "Have you always been the complete and utterly clueless twit you are today?" and demands a "Yes" (...) (23 years ago, 2-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
177 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- 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
|
|
|
|
