more cracks from europe.

[Az]

You have no answered my point that your view has not got necessarily more validity than another, where they are based on different sets of premises and we are dealing with a set of premises that differ from your own. Basic logic.

Yep. basic logic.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


Hardly. I'm showing why your argument of your view being more valid than theirs does not hold water. Sure they may have been better off but that doesnt mean they should have done as you now wish they'd have done.

I believe that counts as a formal fallacy.

In other words, my point is well within the grounds of answering your point. However, it's all spam, and I'm too tired to argue around in circles with you. Back on the block list!

they want the things we have. if they had not kicked our asses it is much more likely they would have those things.

I see no fallacy there. I also particularly like how ppl who don't entertain ur vapid and meaningless arguments of relativism go on ur block list. or how this is like the 18th time I've been put on it. have some ****ing back bone u simpleton. keep me on it this time.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
It doesn't,

Then if your arguement isn't any more valid than his, why bother annoying him with it?

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


It doesn't, unless you're looking at arguments in terms of critical errors.



Why? I think its a perfectly valid argument. Don't look at it with the tinted glasses of histories winners and losers, look at the event itself. In terms of what we're dealing with here, how is it different? It's a suicidal altercation against superior odds is it not?

because ostensibly we wanted to help the vietnamese. whether we were successful or good at it is different. the germans WANTED TO KILL EVERY LAST JEW THAT EXISTED.

I think that is a significant enough difference to invalidate ur sadass analogy.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Agathon


You must be joking. They [the Vietnamese] still gloat about handing you your asses.

They?

Ask the Montegnards. Ask the Catholics. Ask the Buddists. Ask the Hmong. As the people who fled in their boats. As the refugees and their children in America.

[Ned]

What we need now is for Kerry and Dean to themselves call for a unilateral withdrawal from Iraq. If the international community will no longer support the effort, why should we do it alone?

[Whaleboy]

they want the things we have. if they had not kicked our asses it is much more likely they would have those things

Ergo they should not have kicked your arse? Rome and the Barbarians.... the uprisings against Saddam in the early 90's... the list goes on.

Yep. basic logic.

Thanks

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


Ergo they should not have kicked your arse? Rome and the Barbarians.... the uprisings against Saddam in the early 90's... the list goes on.



Thanks

ergo they should have fought on our side. and u promised to block me? Obviously it is not beyond a relativist to lie.

[Whaleboy]

Then if your arguement isn't any more valid than his, why bother annoying him with it?

Hardly. If he doesn't like it, then he doesn't have to answer it. We'll all grown up here.

because ostensibly we wanted to help the vietnamese. whether we were successful or good at it is different. the germans WANTED TO KILL EVERY LAST JEW THAT EXISTED.

You see "help" is a funny one because at the point of delivery it wasn't. The next few years bear me out on that one. Unless the ends of defeat of communism justifies means history has generally viewed as a disaster?

[Whaleboy]

ergo they should have fought on our side. and u promised to block me? Obviously it is not beyond a relativist to lie.

Relativism is a simple device. It does not dictate a personality. I have blocked you now if that makes you happy until you can enter a debate with civility and respect for the opposing view.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


Hardly. If he doesn't like it, then he doesn't have to answer it. We'll all grown up here.



You see "help" is a funny one because at the point of delivery it wasn't. The next few years bear me out on that one. Unless the ends of defeat of communism justifies means history has generally viewed as a disaster?

dinodoc question was why do u ask, NOT why do I answer. do relativists learn comprehension skills? or does it not matter because all interpretations are equally valid?

I agree it was a disaster. for the vietnamese. the americans went home and experienced a growing and powerful economy. the vietnamese went home and experienced oppression.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


Relativism is a simple device. It does not dictate a personality. I have blocked you now if that makes you happy until you can enter a debate with civility and respect for the opposing view.

I hope I didn't make u cry.

btw I'm almost positive u said the exact same thing to me before. so I'm going to have to hold u to this one.

[Az]

Just so that you know, Whaleboy thinks there is no ethical difference between helping old ladies cross the road, and eating babies. It all depends on "different postulates, and points of view".

God, I hate postmodernist bull****.

It has nothing? It has much cultural capital.

Look at what it was like before the '70s. Nonetheless, Iraq is easier than Afghanistan, and yet it's still screwed up!!!

And there have been there how long exactly?

Really? I thought the US was doing it because they were genuinely nice people... . I'm more concerned about the general precident it sets, no one nation should be allowed to dominate the world like that. The PNAC calls it benevolent hegemony. I call it dangerous. If the USA wants to help, then fine. It should not impose that help upon others.

So, you're willing to sacrifice the fait of the Iraqi people in order to prevent some unseen danger? You sound like Rummy.

You of all people should understand that .

Why's that.

Technically, the British would be better at the job, since the institutions of centuries of nation building are still in place, and I dare say a more agreeable culture with the Iraqi's, as seen in places like Basra for the most part. A British-led UN task force would be perfect...

I didn't know that the brits were close to the ME mentality.
Anyway, can I accept this humorous reply as an admission to a conceded point?

[GePap]

"Coolitions of the Willing" are inherently shaky- If Iraq is so damned important, why leave it in the hands of a transiatory grouping of states and not make it a global task?

[Az]

"Coolitions"


The problem with "coalitions of the willing" isn't that they're "transiatory", but that they have interests. The same problem will exist with a "global taskforce". It won't be truly global, but more like "dividing the pie"