Saddam has been executed

[Aeson]

Originally posted by TCO
And you failed to make any assessment of the overall point of his argument.

I have already addressed his arguments to me. He keeps changing subjects and failing to support his earlier assertions, and has yet to address a single one of my points directly.

Evidence or analysis that is "not in dispute" is still totally relevant.

He is offering "points" in an argument which have already been accepted as givens or that not one is refuting, and ignoring what he and I have actually already said.

If he wants to throw up irrellevent points, that's fine. I'll point them out.

You little piss-ant, cut stuff into individual sentences piss-ant.

It's a pleasure to be of service.

To be fair though, I "cut stuff" into distinct individual statements to show what I am refering to specifically. That may or may not be a sentence or group of sentences depending on how the user has formulated their posts. It is only a matter of giving reference, as I always present the argument within the context of the entire post or discussion as may be the case.

Now leave the GameLeaguer to me. He's my and Eyes's *****.

Haha.... please if you have any influence with him at all get Eyes back here... He's so much fun!

On the other hand, I haven't noticed your posts to be anywhere near as entertaining. At least Eyes starts out with the pretense that he will actually address points made, before running away and hiding behind the "argument" that I address what he's actually said.

It's not as much fun for me if you never actually come out and at least try to pretend to be rational.

[Ecthy]

Get lives. GP, get a life!

[SlowwHand]

I think Eyes must finally be in restraints at the local funny farm.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by SlowwHand

You'd throw your hat in with Eyes? Come on... no need for that sort of self-degradation!

[SlowwHand]

Yeah, that's happening. Uh huh. Yepper. Sure.

[Aeson]

My apologies. Regardless of our differences otherwise, it was quite wrong of me to assume you would accept such an... um... "distinction".

[SlowwHand]

I was beginning to wonder. I can certainly understand being disagreed with, but that was a little slanderous.

[TCO]

Aeson, I say again, because individual points are agreed on does not make them irrellevant to an argument. Quite the contrary. If you think they are irrelevant, then discuss what factors make something relevant and how they don't measure up! But saying that they are not in dispute is NOT the same thing as saying they are irrelevant.

In addition, you ought to adress your opponents best argument and not play rhetorical tricks based on cutting it into pieces while ignoring the main import (including assumed connections). For instance, it is clear to anyone being fair that Sloww's argument is one based on importance: he lists the various facts (which we agree are not held in dispute) as support for an overall thesis. If you are pplaying fair (instead of being a junior high school sophist, you address the sufficiency of those supports.

In the end, I think your critique of Sloww is really one more of sufficiency rather than relevancy. But of course, I can't read your mind. In any case, that the points are agreed on or non-novel IS irrelvant to framing an argument.

Oh...and Eyes is an idiot.

[Sava]

So when are we going to hang the former members of the Reagan administration who enabled Saddam?

[TCO]

Right after we hang the Stalin-enablers of FDR's administration.

[Sava]

Oh I didn't realize Stalin was, at one point, a CIA asset.

But to be fair, the Saddam business goes back before the Reagan years.

[TCO]

You're such a frigging moron. We had war plans against either. He was not a CIA asset. We were engaged in the region and practiced balance of power politics. We knew he was a baddie and wanted Iran and Iraq to kill each other. Go play Civ.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by TCO
Aeson, I say again, because individual points are agreed on does not make them irrellevant to an argument. Quite the contrary. If you think they are irrelevant, then discuss what factors make something relevant and how they don't measure up! But saying that they are not in dispute is NOT the same thing as saying they are irrelevant.

Ok, since you can't seem to scroll up and read, I will rehash the interaction between Sloww and I for you:

- First I stated (in response to the OP topic and LOTM's remarks) that our involvement with Saddam might have come into light if some of his actions were tried in court, causing us embarrasment.

- Sloww responded by calling me a jackass and implying I always fault the US.

- I pointed out that my use of the term "some" does not fit with his "always".

- Sloww responded asking if I knew who else was set to be executed, and implied that it would refute my (nonexistant) claims to being a human rights advocate. (And then implied that because KH posted that very quickly after, that no one else knew how to use a search engine.)

- I offered my views on the DP, and explained to Sloww why those views are not what I consider based on "human rights".

- Slow responded saying all I was doing was throwing around buzzwords.

- I posted a jab at him for not addressing my points at all.

That is the context of the discussion Sloww and I were having up to the post you are refering to. His response was to "argue" points which had not been discussed at all. They are irrellevent to what he is responding to, even though they certainly are relevent to other issues. This is what is refered to as a "strawman" argument.

He claimed those were his points. They were not what he had stated previously, and I listed those points.

In addition, you ought to adress your opponents best argument and not play rhetorical tricks based on cutting it into pieces while ignoring the main import (including assumed connections).

My discussion with Sloww was about his own address of my statements, and the interaction that followed. He called me a jackass and that I always blame the US. Obviously that is what I am going to address, as he has made it the subject of debate. Simply because he tries to change the subject later on does not mean I have to follow his lead, or that the points he makes on the new topic are somehow relevent to our prior statements.

For instance, it is clear to anyone being fair that Sloww's argument is one based on importance: he lists the various facts (which we agree are not held in dispute) as support for an overall thesis. If you are pplaying fair (instead of being a junior high school sophist, you address the sufficiency of those supports.

No. The discussion has to be taken as a whole. You are ignoring the entire flow of the exchange between Sloww and I, instead focusing on one post specifically, taken out of context, and that is why you come to a faulty conclusion.

In the end, I think your critique of Sloww is really one more of sufficiency rather than relevancy. But of course, I can't read your mind. In any case, that the points are agreed on or non-novel IS irrelvant to framing an argument.

Are you suggesting that:

- The guy was a ****ing mass murderer.
- My point is, he paid the price.
- My other point is, it's a shame.
- My last point is on the list of people to lament, he's dead last.

Are applicable arguments to whether or not:

- "Some" = "All"
- That I'm blaming everything on the US.
- That I'm a jackass.
- That my arguments are just buzz words.
- To have a view on human rights you must know the names of everyone who has received or is schedualed to receive the DP.
- That no one other than KH knows how to search.
- That opposing the death penalty is sympathizing with Saddam

That second list are the assertions Sloww had made in response to me which I refuted (well, I didn't refute that I'm a jackass... I really don't care about that). Simply listing off the first list (which is something we probably all agree on) doesn't support the assertions made in the second. Otherwise any position in any debate could be supported by offering something like "2+2=4" as an assertion, making everything "ok".

Oh...and Eyes is an idiot.

Not in dispute.

[TCO]

I can't read all that. Could you make it snappier to entice me?

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by TCO


Oh bull****. You tried to separate the issue of your DP opposing from your desire to have him tried for various crimes (so that we can not see that you are just unhappy killing him, as you are anti-DP, so that you want to stretch things out). But every one of us cave men pro-DPers just wanted him dead as soon as possible to avoid any chance of him wiggling out of his DP sentence.

I raised an aside comment for the reason that it would have been good to have him tried for other crimes. This is a point that can be made regardless of your stance on the death penalty.

You can wish him dead by hanging and recognise (if you wish, it's only an opinion afterall) that to not have him tried for other crimes is a minor downside just as you can be pro-death penalty and believe the sentiment that 'Death is too good for him' is a downside to the punishment.