| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> 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.
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! :)
>
> 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?
Independent of me! Seriously, I tend to get news which does not follow
political dogma. The BBC is independent as I can get. The Guardian (a
newspaper I often quote) is a liberal/republican paper which believes in
many of the ideals we share - freedom of speech, information etc.
>
> > 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 we both enjoy that. Larry likes it as he gets his kick out of being
rude to me. I like it as it makes him look weak.
> 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.
Thanks for it ;)
Scott A
>
> Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: War
|
| (...) imposed. (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
