"I am behind the troops, but.." = "I am not racist, but..."

[Dinner]

Originally posted by elijah
Are you actually critiquing my arguments, or just b!tching?

Plrase point out where you made an argument in your last post and I will critique it where needed.

[Whaleboy]

Plrase point out where you made an argument in your last post and I will critique it where needed.

As my opponent in this debate, thats your job .

Tingkai: An interesting position, but largely irrelevant here. We have established that these spitting incidents happened, and they suck, although no-one here is going to lose any sleep over it. I am asking what it proves that a few idiots decided to share their saliva with the world. Oerdin must also prove that this happened en mass, regularly, and was common.

[Ming]

elijah - I would highly recommend you check your PMs... and soon.

[Dinner]

Ok, let's assume for a second you are right and it was only a handful of incidences where such activity occured. How do you propose the media picks it up and potrays it as being a common event?

BTW It is a little disingenious on your part to demand I provide links to news articles which were decades old by the time the internet rolled around. There aren't many newspapers who have 30 year old articles on line complete with pictures.

[Whaleboy]

Oerdin: You don't have to provide articles, maybe just a little account if you can recall. I will research this matter later if you dont want to, thus far I have no reason to doubt your claims except for lack of evidence. Stats would be nice though to show this matter conclusively. If I can find enough individual accounts of a reasonable diversity, I will concur with your position that this was a common occurance. In the meantime, its reasonable doubt until I know for sure. I think thats fair?

By the way, I never trust the (contemporary) media to provide me with accurate historical information.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Tingkai
t is not that they are lying, but rather their memory has changed.

Tinkai, I actually find that study to be very interesting. It is possible that some people are following the pattern you described, however, if we assume 75% of the people are remembering incorrectly then we still have several thousand instances (I am assuming) spread out over the whole period.

Still, you have an interesting point about people's memories continually changing and 30 years is a long time.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by elijah
Elijah was busy writing articles and getting drunk (though not necessarily in that order ).

Well, I wouldn't say drunk... That bottle of Reka Valley and the other Cabernet did disappear quickly though

I do agree with one point though. Oerdin made the claim that soldiers were spat upon, and thus the burden of evidence (I hate the idea of proof) is on him. It is very hard to find evidence that soemthing didn't happen, as that usually signifies a lack of evidence. However this is clouding the argument IMHO. So a few vets may or may not have been spat upon, of course some anti-war protestors will act despicably, as will some people in almost any group. The real issue here is about the justification of war, and the actions of the majority of pro and anti-war believers.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by elijah
Tingkai: An interesting position, but largely irrelevant here. We have established that these spitting incidents happened, and they suck

On the contrary. The only thing we have are recounting memories of events that happened 30 years ago. We don't have documents from that era. The question of whether these memories are accurate is highly relevant.

[Whaleboy]

Well, I wouldn't say drunk

I suppose I was reasonable considering I drank 3/4 of a bottle of red in 40 mins! Still, where did that Tequila go? *looks at Drogue's and Verres's livers*

Rest of Drogues post:

[Whaleboy]

On the contrary. The only thing we have are recounting memories of events that happened 30 years ago. We don't have documents from that era. The question of whether these memories are accurate is highly relevant.

True, but most historians would consider many corresponding personal testimonies to be strong evidence, particularly if they are from disperate people, from disperate backgrounds. I shall attempt to find these later.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Tinkai, I actually find that study to be very interesting. It is possible that some people are following the pattern you described, however, if we assume 75% of the people are remembering incorrectly then we still have several thousand instances (I am assuming) spread out over the whole period.

When I was a teenager during the 70s, I was in the air cadets (a quasi-military organization) which meant I had a military-style haircut. That made me stick out when 99% of the people had really long hair. I used to get into a lot of fights. Was this because:
a) I'm an obnoxious, opinated bastard;
b) I looked different and that's enough reason for some people to start a fight; or
c) I was in an organization run by the military.

Everyone here will automatically say A

But I could easily convince myself that the answer is C.

We place our own interpretation on events. This is why other supporting evidence is required. That supporting evidence has not been provided. We have dozens of conservative think tanks, commentators, professors, etc, yet none of them have produced supporting documents to back up the claim that peace activists spat on vets.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Tingkai
We place our own interpretation on events. This is why other supporting evidence is required. That supporting evidence has not been provided. We have dozens of conservative think tanks, commentators, professors, etc, yet none of them have produced supporting documents to back up the claim that peace activists spat on vets.

Sure, but none of them have proving Mr. Lembcke wrong as a priority because in there eyes this is already an issue which was settled 30 years ago. Also you were in Canada during this period weren't you? Since Canada wasn't ever officially involved with the war it makes sense that anti-war sentiment was much less then in the US.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Sure, but none of them have proving Mr. Lembcke wrong as a priority because in there eyes this is already an issue which was settled 30 years ago. Also you were in Canada during this period weren't you? Since Canada wasn't ever officially involved with the war it makes sense that anti-war sentiment was much less then in the US.

I was just using my experience as an example of how people can put their own interpretations on other people's motives.

Edit: I think it would be reasonable that somewhere in the US, some conservative research would be thinking "This Lembcke guy is spreading lies and I'm going to prove him wrong." But it hasn't happened.

[Tingkai]

By the way, if you haven't read his book, you should give it a chance. He shows how the cultural image of Vietnam vets changed over the years by tracking movies, from "heros" in the Green Berets to the "crazed veterans" in post-war movies.

He does have a chip on his shoulder. What pisses him off is that the vets who wanted to end the war have been forgotten.

[Whaleboy]

By the way, if you haven't read his book, you should give it a chance. He shows how the cultural image of Vietnam vets changed over the years by tracking movies, from "heros" in the Green Berets to the "crazed veterans" in post-war movies.

Will do? Any particular one I should read, time being an issue :hunted: