| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > 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 reject that the sanctions are the REASON that children (however many)
> > died. The sanctions do not prevent the flow of food into the country.
> >
> > 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.
> That is 100% opinion on his part.
I agree. And _that_ is what you should complain about. You claimed that he
didn't answer. He did answer. If you think his answer is made up, or simply
opinion, or based on incorrect facts, or based on an incomplete understanding
of the Iraqi economoy, or whatever, then complain about what you think is
wrong. Don't assert that an answer wasn't given. Assert that the answer was
pathetic.
Because of your special relationship with Larry, he might just say that he
explained the root of why he believes that before and that you're too stupid
or obstinant to grasp his reasoning. But at least the argument would break
down at that point because of his poor discussion skills instead of yours (in
claiming that he didn't answer). And maybe someone can step in and ask him to
clarify and we can actually get down to what people believe and why.
In this case, I don't particularly recall any valid explanation of how and why
UNICEF is lying. It kind of sounds like Larry is saying it's that way
because he wants it to be. So I'd be interested to hear it too.
> I offer facts
Sometimes I'd agree.
> /independent 3rd party opinion.
How independent?
> Larry offers his opinion. I see a difference between the two.
I do too. And you sometimes opine as well. And Larry sometimes posts 'facts.'
But that doesn't mostly matter. I don't think that you two actually argue to
resolve anything or find truths. It seems that you snipe at Larry's arguments
somewhat differently than you do with others. Sometimes picking on minutae,
sometimes not getting what he means -- but seems clear to me, etc. And Larry
has been downright rude in response (and never gives your arguments a fair
shake). I think this place is somewhat less pleasant because (proximately) of
his and (less directly, but equally weighted) your behavior. Even if I do tend
to side with him over you on the issues. :-)
But that's just _my_ opinion.
Chris
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: War
|
| (...) His answer was not a valid answer. Therefore it is not an answer... and that's the best I can do to get out of that one! :) (...) Independent of me! Seriously, I tend to get news which does not follow political dogma. The BBC is independent as (...) (23 years ago, 2-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: War
|
| (...) A great explanation of this was given by Dave! (...) The original cite of "debunk this" deconstructs the UN statistics. Statistics have a way of getting cited and re-cited, and those cites get recited by those that want the statistics to be (...) (23 years ago, 4-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: War
|
| (...) That is 100% opinion on his part. I offer facts/independent 3rd party opinion. Larry offers his opinion. I see a difference between the two. If it turns out that Larry has expert experience of this field, he should be able to substantiate his (...) (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
|
|
|
|
