Subject:
|
Re: What about the first?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 19 Feb 2003 19:31:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1653 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
<snip>
> I was trying to get you to realize that you have indulged in more than a
> little bit of hysteria in your writings. All I seem to have done is provoke
> you to more. So I must end this discussion as counter-productive. If you
> descend into simplistic America bashing, be aware that people will swiftly
> tune you out, and you only hurt your cause.
>
> -->Bruce<--
What I want you to realize is that writing off valid points as 'straw man
arguments' and 'wiggling and changing the tune', and deleting examples that
are completely valid and true and saying, 'not germaine' are a fine example
of trying not to understand the actual issues.
No America bashing going on here by me--just pointing out American
hypocricy, and trying to show wher, how and why. If I tell someone that
they have a 'chip on their shoulder', it's not bashing, it's making an
astute observation. If I tell someone that they're buying stuff from the
people they want to go to war with, it's not bashing, it's pointing out
hypocricy.
You were the one that threw in 'Do Canadians drive SUV's?'. That point is
not germaine because Canada doesn't want the war.
Now if the issue was 'environmentalism and the effects of gas guzzling by
SUV's', then it's an apt point. But that's not what we're talking about,
Bruce. We're talking about America wants war with Iraq. You don't, but
your leaders do, and your leaders speak for America. America wants the war,
but Americans want to drive their SUV's. Scott posted a link that directly
links Iraqi oil to the consumers of America.
Now I will be the first to say that this is a simplistic reductionistic
rationale to a very complex problem--a problem that has many facets and
issues. And I will also be the first to say that it isn't the only and
exclusive, nor probably the biggest focus of the issue at hand. But it is
an issue, and a relatively important one.
Gore mentioned that if he were president he would have used the issues at
hand to guide the people of America to think about alternative means to
their dependance on oil in general--not just Iraqi oil. But no, you have an
oil baron as president, funded by the big oil companies.
Why do I have to mention this? It is common knowledge--if I have to start
mentioning all the 'common knowledge' to make the point, then you're either
not well informed or being deliberately obtuse. Either way, it's not
productive to a good debate.
Every professor I have ever seen in any secondary and post secondary
institution has written the word 'definition' as shorthand 'def'n:'. Every
single one, both in Canada and in the US. So again, I thought it was common
knowledge. My apologies.
Dave K.
-who has definitly had better days
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: What about the first?
|
| (...) No, but if you do, then perhaps you should attend to yourself before lecturing others. (major snip) (...) I read where you were running on about someone hating Islam, which has nothing to do with the subject at hand, so I simply deleted it as (...) (21 years ago, 19-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
|
|
|
|
