Subject:
|
Re: What about the first?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 18 Feb 2003 23:28:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1735 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> >
> > > > I take it then, that Canadians aren't buying SUVs?
> > >
> > >
> > > Canadians aren't hell-bent on going to war, and we at least try to have a
> > > cohesive and responsible foreign policy, without the pretension that we do.
> >
> > Good for them, but that doesn't answer my question. :-)
>
>
> Again, I think it did--take a fine example of Cuba--name one spot where
> Canadians can go on vacations that Americans, by law, cannot? Guess which
> cigar Canadians can smoke that Americans, by law, cannot.
"I take it then, that Canadians aren't buying SUVs?" If you are going to
castigate Americans for something that Canadians are doing (wasting oil
through self-indulgence), you aren't going to garner a lot of respect for
whatever point you are trying to make.
>
> Now I'll connect the dots--
>
> We try to have a coherent foreign policy. We ain't perfect by any stretch
> of the imagination, but we try. Of course Canadians buy SUV's. But we're
> not the ones wanting to go to war against one of the countries that supply
> oil for our SUV's. Americans want their cake and blow up those that cooked it.
I've already pointed out that Iraq does *not* supply the oil for our SUVs
(maybe yours, but I doubt it). You are building up an anology on a false
premise (straw man).
>
> So you outlaw Cuban cigars and tourism to that country because your foreign
> policy says so, but you'll take the oil from the countries that you want to
> fight. That's just but one small example.
An inaccurate one and one that tries to draw a parallel that is actually
perpendicular (Because cigars from Cuba are outlawed, it is inconsistent to
take oil from a country we want to fight? What?).
>
> >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > But nope, you Yanks want your freedom to do as you please while everybody
> > > > > else is the bad guy.
> > > >
> > > > Are you honestly saying that Saddam Hussein isn't a bad man? I mean, there
> > > > are lots of reason not to be going to war with him that I think are
> > > > perfectly legitimate, but this is not one of them. I think you only hurt
> > > > your cause by taking that angle.
> > >
> > > I have said elsewhere that Saddam is a bad man--a very very very bad man
> > > (waggles finger like Seinfeld ep.)
> > > Here's something I learned in grade
> > > school--two wrongs make a right? I tink it's a perfetly legitimate
> > > arguement--we wants what we wants at the expense of others. Call it
> > > complacency, call it 'don't throw my trash in my back yard', call it what
> > > you will, but what it comes down to is selfish righteousness--'lookit
> > > us--look how great we've become' at the continuing expense of those around you.
> >
> > But this was not the point you were making. How can you castigate the
> > United States for its policy in regards to Iraq on the basis of the US
> > trying to portray everyone as a bad man? Is he a bad man? Yes? Then you
> > admit that particular argument is invalid.
>
> Dubya is a bad man. Cretien is a bad man. Blair is a bad man.
In relation to Saddam? I worked with an Iraqi who had to flee Iraq: Bush is
an idiot, Saddam is *evil*. But that wasn't the point that you are trying
to transmogrify: the US is trying portray all the people it wants to fry as
"bad guys". Okay, but Saddam *is* a bad guy!
> I can line
> up people that have said that these leaders have done very bad things to
> their citizens, either thru their actions or inactions in the legislative
> process.
I can find the same for every single darn leader in every country and I
won't fault them as wrong. Are you saying that because none are completely
guilt free that no action should ever be taken by anyone in regards to anything?
>
> Calling someone else 'bad' while saying we're 'good' is hypocritical.
No one mentioned "good" before.
> It's
> all shades of 'gray'.
There is no shade of gray in regards to Saddam.
> In the time of the peace rally in Toronto on
> Saturday, a few homeless people, in the very same town, died--and many more
> across our country. Let's talk about US casualties during the same time due
> to gun violence, homelessness, et al.
What the heck does that have to do with this? Let's talk about the price of
tea in China - it's just as relevant.
> Now I dunno how many citizens of Iraq
> are dieing every hour under the leadership of Saddam, but taking our
> attention and resources from where it is needed for our own countries and
> diverting it halfway around the world to a country that doesn't threaten us
> and saying that it's because the leader is a 'bad man' is, well, ludicrous
> and moronic at best.
I did say Bush is an idiot. :-)
> > > No, but I haven't heard a solid rational non-ulterior-laden motive from
> > > those that want this war at all costs--which is my point.
> >
> > A point that I don't think you established at all.
>
>
> I don't have to establish that fact--Blix did it.
> He refuted most, if not
> all of Powells claims of immediacy. Other experts have also stated their
> views on the issues. If you want to invade a country, don't you think that
> you have to convince me of why you have to, instead of me trying to show you
> why you shouldn't?
*You* haven't established this at all was my point. Blix is not the one
leaving messages on Lugnet. :-)
>
>
> > > Comparing it to
> > > Germany in the '30's? Talking about 'Axis of evil'? All the rest of the
> > > props for supporting this war are built up like a house of cards, and all of
> > > them have been refuted.
> >
> > Oh?
>
>
> Read above.
I see no refutation above.
>
> > > Because SH is *bad* is the bottom line, and that's
> > > why we must go to war? That doesn't cut it.
> >
> > I agree, but primarily because I don't see the good that would come from it,
> > not that it isn't worthy to see Saddam removed from power.
>
> Again agreed--Saddam should do what's best for his country. But where do we
> get off trying to enforce that on him? What gives us the right to do this
> forcibly?
Are you saying that the UN shouldn't interfere in any way?
>
> >
> > > > > And the only answer I come up with is 'cause those that want the war want
> > > > > the war for *no* rational reason--they just want the war "'cause that's just
> > > > > how it's always been done."
> > > >
> > > > Seems like another in a long line of straw man arguments.
> > >
> > >
> > > Well, again, we're going to war 'cause that's how it's done.
> >
> > You are repeating the same straw man argument.
>
>
> No, for it hasn't been knocked down yet so, obvious to me, it's not a straw
> man. This whole straw man thing has always bugged me. It's like "Well, by
> def'n a straw man arguement is easily refuted!", a la 'knocked down', and
> folks keep on throwing it around, but the point is still sitting there...
> not refuted... not knocked down. So if a straw man isn't knocked down, what
> does that tell you? That maybe it isn't such an easy push-over after all?
"def'n"? I can't make heads or tails or what you are trying to say in that
paragraph. Are you saying that you haven't been able to knock down the
straw man you set up? Then you have no point. Are you saying that I have
failed to establish that you are using a straw man argument? I've done so
on several points, and you just keep shifting your position.
>
>
> > > We don't want
> > > to try anything else, we think it's the *only* way. It's history
> > > repeating--call it a straw man all you want, you can't knock it down.
> >
> > My point is that you are the one setting it up so that you can knock it down.
>
>
> Where? I don't want to knock it down--I believe it to be valid--when you
> cut to the bottom of the page, in the history of violence, violence begets
> violence--it's cyclical--"you're great grand ancestor killed my great grand
> ancestor so I hate you and I'll kill you if given the opportunity." It's
> the way it's been done, it's the way things seem to be don now, and it looks
> as if it'll continue to be like this in the future. Well, I'd like a
> change, please.
A straw man argument is setting up an easy but inaccurately depicted target
that you can knock down. "America is wasting the oil it gets from Saddam,
so it must go to war with him." If it was getting it already, why would it
need to go to war? Is the oil really going to America? No. The target
that is being knocked down is America, based on a false analogy. "America
depicts its opponents as 'bad guys'," as if that means that they aren't,
therefore America has no valid reason to oppose them. But Saddam *is*
"bad", you even admit as such. Now, if your point from the word go was, "He
may be bad, but is that sufficient in itself," that would be something else
- but that is the point you have wriggled into, *not* the implication you
originally made.
-->Bruce<--
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: What about the first?
|
| (...) Even though I can easily agree with you on that (oil for US consumption which is not from the GoM or Alaska comes primarily either from Venezuela or West African countries), I think I must point out one does not need to *use* the oil to (...) (22 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: What about the first?
|
| (...) Even though I can easily agree with you on that (oil for US consumption which is not from the GoM or Alaska comes primarily either from Venezuela or West African countries), I think I must point out one does not need to *use* the oil to (...) (22 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: What about the first?
|
| (...) I love analogies... If I know someone who has an alcohol problem, do I have to have an alcohol problem? If I know someone who hates Islam and wants to kill anyone who believes in that religion, do I have to carry a gun and start shooting as (...) (22 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: What about the first?
|
| (...) Again, I think it did--take a fine example of Cuba--name one spot where Canadians can go on vacations that Americans, by law, cannot? Guess which cigar Canadians can smoke that Americans, by law, cannot. Now I'll connect the dots-- We try to (...) (22 years ago, 18-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
91 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
|
|
|
|
