Subject:
|
Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 8 Jul 2004 19:22:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1043 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Leonard Hoffman wrote:
> > See, with that kind of non-sequitor answer you are just encouraging Lenny to
> > dodge the question the same way.
>
> I'm pretty sure this is maybe the most ignorant thing I've read in a month. I'm
> starting to think you're not able to have a friendly discussion about anything.
I just finished replying to your message where you did indeed dodge the
question, so I gotta say that you ignorant claim is pretty darn ignorant. :-)
>
> No, I don't condone genocide.
>
> Did you really think I did?
Of course not. I was merely trying to get you to confront the logical extension
of your claim that since Iraq is a sovereign nation that is recognized by the
U.N. what it does is legal and therefore no invasion can be "just". On some
level you see the logic trap and thus avoid it.
>
> Regarding WW2 - the key error of your logic is that Hitler wasn't killing German
> Jews, but he invaded Poland and Russia and was killing Russian and Polish Jews.
> In other words, his genocide was combined with invasion of another sovereign
> nation. Furthermore, if you check the motivation of the USA, UK, and USSR -
> none of them were fighting to save Jewish lives - they were fighting to protect
> the rights of sovereign nations or to protect themselves.
This has nothing to do with what I said, and is in fact just trying to dodge the
question. It is not whether or not anyone has done so, but whether or not it is
a just reason to wage war.
>
> But then again, was Saddam actually committing genocide? Is this example even
> relevant?
I take it you don't know any Armenians. And yes, its relevant.
Or is it just another non-sequitor method of rhetoric, meant to used
> charged terminology in an effort to make whatever point you had. Well, in
> debate, a general rule of thumb is the first person to mention Hitler or the
> Nazis loses.
No, it's the first person to mention Hitler, and I didn't, you did. Nor did I
mention Nazi's, for that matter. :-)
>
> I'm sure you are more creative than that, Bruce.
>
> -Notinterestedanymore
Shrug. I guess my questions were too tough or too embarrassing to answer.
-->Bruce<--
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
120 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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
