To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 23019
23018  |  23020
Subject: 
Re: Democracy.... Dubya Style
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Fri, 19 Dec 2003 19:51:17 GMT
Viewed: 
1008 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
   In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
   In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:



  
   I’m surprised that you’ve forgotten that, John! Newbies like Don may not realise it yet though... Hence this public service announcement. :-)

I haven’t forgotten, Lar! I was in “mock mode” with my comment with no intention whatsoever in engaging Scott on these topics.

   Whereas I usually concur with you, Larry, it seems as of late that Scott had developed a debate style in which his points are backed up and cited, as is hte case with this particular arguement.

I love the notion here in this group that if one produces a cite, it somehow validates an idea. Reminds me of the knock on the Bible that you can cite it to prove anything.

Cites validate an idea inasmuch as the idea has some substance supporting it. Whether or not the idea is valid is up to the contrary side to prove. As I hear in other avenues, “saying something is wrong doesn’t make it wrong.”

I once read a button that said “2 + 2 = 5 (for moderately large values of 2)” If I knew nothing about mathematics, and my only experience with numbers was this button, and someone were to ask me what 2 + 2 equals, I could cite that button--“It equals 5, for moderately large values of 2”

Then we could get into a debate where other people could cite Euclid or other mathematical ‘geniuses’, and show equations that would unequivocably show that 2 + 2 does not equal 5, but rather, it equals 4.

However, if someone just responded to the “equals 5” idea with “ride! ride! ride!”, or other sarcastic comment, how did that further the discussion on any side? Did the ‘respondee’ validate his sarcasm with *any* rationale or cites? Did the original poster glean anything from this?

Scott was talking about the hypocricy of Dubya where ‘Freedom and Liberty’ were concerned--

“In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur wrote:

  

So Bush talks about Freedom and Liberty whist funding gross human rights
   abuses in places like Uzbekistan & Israel and you think he is >not
“dishonest”?

He hands out “lucrative” contracts to his buddies and you think he is not
   corrupt?

Wake up, you are dreaming!


How could one sleep with your incessant SOS rants?

JOHN ”

Yes Scott has this thing about Israel and the US. Does that negate his points that there’s a little hypocrisy goin’ on right now?


  
   If the counter arguement to this debate is ‘ride ride ride’, I fail to see how that refutes Scotts points on this particular issue.

It’s not a refutation, but a mock! I’m tired of his stupid ideas on these topics and I will resort to mocking him when he brings them up rather than bang my head on the wall arguing with him about them. If he wants to troll them out, fine. I will unleash sarcasm mode.


You may be tired of his “stupid ideas” but you want the conversation ‘cause you’re still here. Resort to mocking or call it what you will, you want the conversation, yet you don’t want to show how his points are wrong. I love sarcasm, and have appreciated that from you as well as most others in this group, and it has its place in the discussion. However, with sarcasm must come, at some point, a point (hopefully with cites) that is intended to refute. Sarcasm on its own does not refute ideas, nor advance the actual discussion.


  
   I would agree that had there been a legitimate refution of the points and Scott went down the ‘stylish’ path that he’s known and loved for in the past, it would be at that point where I’d have written off his arguement as hopelessly rhetorical.

At this point in the discussion, the rhetoric is not coming from ‘Camp Scott’ and, lately, Scott hasn’t played that card.

I wait with anticipation to the continued discussion.

You will wait in vain.

Hey, it’s probably better than waiting for the Dundas TTC streetcar.

  
JOHN



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: Democracy.... Dubya Style
 
(...) FINE!!! I admit it (again)-- the US and Israel aren't perfect!!! I am so tired of the comparisons to perfection! It's stupid to discuss! (...) My presence in this NG hangs by a thread as The Fates saw away. If not for the participation of a (...) (21 years ago, 19-Dec-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Democracy.... Dubya Style
 
(...) I haven't forgotten, Lar! I was in "mock mode" with my comment with no intention whatsoever in engaging Scott on these topics. (...) I love the notion here in this group that if one produces a cite, it somehow validates an idea. Reminds me of (...) (21 years ago, 19-Dec-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

32 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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR