Subject:
|
Re: Finally--a use of public funding that I can really get behind!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 19 Aug 2003 20:21:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
494 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Carl Nelson wrote:
Although I am generally hesitant to dismiss sources as biased (since to do so
does not automatically invalidate the assertions of such a source), this website
has been widely debunked as a distributor of pro-industry, pro-conservative
propaganda in the guise of science. I’ll see about providing links to such
discussions, but I admit that I don’t have them handy. Stay tuned.
| |
Similarly, to confirm the issue of global warming, or to blame it solely on
human activities, is bad science. Realistically, we can’t accurately predict
the weather for the next week. Why do we think we can predict it for the
next hundred years?
|
Trends can certainly be predicted, and no one is blaming it exclusively on
humans. The assertion is that humans have a measureable impact upon global
warming, to such an extent that the human impact should be reduced when
possible.
| |
| |
| |
I’ve never understood the liberal hatred of logging companies.
|
Straw man. I have no reason to support a caricture of my position.
|
OK, then don’t. But that also means that any argument that you make from
personal experience is a straw man argument as well, and thus inadmissible.
|
Not at all. I’m pointing out that, since I don’t hate logging companies, and
since liberals in general don’t hate logging companies (though some certainly
do), your caricature does not represent the true liberal argument. Therefore, a
liberal’s failure to defend your caricature has no bearing on the validity of
the liberal’s true argument.
The position might more accurately be stated as follows:
Liberals hate aspects of corporate logging policies, namely the practice of
clear-cutting, of old-growth destruction, and strong-arm lobbying to ensure
legislation sharply skewed to favor the logging industry, such as Dubya’s
current policy proposal.
| |
Speaking of red herrings, I’m not sure what you’re trying to show with your
point--irony in tax dollars paying for both destruction and reconstruction
(omitting the fact that ‘twixt the two was the accomplishment of the goal of
topping Hussein’s regime)? We’ve done the same thing since the Marshall
Plan, and judging from the paradises of Europe and Japan it works.
|
Perhaps my reading of the Marshall plan is incomplete. Point me to the section
of the Marshall plan that endorses falsification of intelligence data to justify
pre-emptive invasion of a sovereign nation against the will and wishes of nearly
the entire world.
If the goal of ousting Saddam was so self-evidently valid, then why was it
necessary to fabricate information to justify the invasion? Either the cause
was just or it was not; in falsifying data (and through subsequent dissembling
and equivocation) Dubya has invalidated any moral claim he might have had for
going to war.
| |
And should munitions and reconstruction both be undertaken by the government?
|
In my view, the Bush administration should fund the entire effort in this case,
since it was only through their deception that the war came to pass.
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
34 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
