posted
Afghanistan is easy. Afghanistan isn't a country, it's a lawless land. Obama will go against a non-nation. Afghanistan doesn't have allies. There really isn't a nation of Afghanistan, it's the wild-wild west. No risk of pissing off the Chinese in Afghanistan.
How's he doing with North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela? These countries have governments with allies who are our enemies. Afghanistan has no allies, it isn't a nation. In Afghanistan, there is no political risk.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Afghanistan in 2001 was a sovereign nation with a government that arguably had some kind of plurality of control over its tribes, Afghanistan today is also still a sovereign nation with a different government that is ostensibly our ally (despite biting the hand remarks by its President) that happens to only control land we have troops occupying.
Regardless of whether it qualifies as a failed state it is however still a state with national boundaries that no one can just waltz in and annex without violating international law.
Also Afghanistan does border China and the Chinese ostensibly do have an interest in keeping American forces out of its backyard that at this moment doesn't outweigh its interest in not having said lawless backwater existing in its backyard while letting America bleed white trying to fix it while giving "moral" support.
How is Cuba your enemy? Why would we need to do anything regarding Venezuela? Its president doesn't like us yes (for some pretty justifiable reasons) but it isn't supporting terrorism or developing WMD's and letting Russia station some badgers in its territory is just brinksmanship on par with us trying to put Radar stations and intercepter missiles in Poland nothing out of the ordinary here that deserves your uninformed amateur opinion.
As for North Korea it is actually China's long term goal and interests to have North Korea implode peacefully without fanfare and have it Unify with South Korea because this would mean the removal of American forces from the Korean peninsula as China and South Korea are big trading partners and both dislike Japan's rising militerism.
What China doesn't want is North Korea exploding catastrophically as that would destabilize the region (understatement) and hurt trade and its economy and increase tensions with the United States who would undoubtably station probably around 3 Carrier battle Groups in the region for the duration of the crisis.
IP: Logged |
posted
I'm quite sure I've received briefings about the region that you have not. Afghanistan may have an official government with "sovereign" borders but this isn't the reality of the situation. There are large portions of Pakistan that are lawless as the tribes that live there also live in Afghanistan. The warlords and tribal leaders of that nation do not draw a line in the sand to equate a border. Although the map shows a national line, large portions of Pakistan are without Pakistani government authority. Afghanistan has a border on a map but the people that live there do not recognize your borders, nor do they recognize a central government.
If Obama want's to display his big stick with Afghanistan, he's the biggest bully in the world. No nation is Afghanistan's ally.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: I see President Obama doing just that, speaking softly and humbly which is an American virtue.
It's a virtue, but what makes it an American virtue? I mean, is it distinctly American? Does it even match the reality? Sometimes I think Americans are the only people in the world allowed to talk as if they invented positive personality traits. Does it being an American virtue make it uniquely American? Are there virtues which are decidedly not American, but still virtuous? I'm interested in how this statement functions- as exclusive or inclusive, and what your intent is in making it.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I'm quite sure I've received briefings about the region that you have not. Afghanistan may have an official government with "sovereign" borders but this isn't the reality of the situation. There are large portions of Pakistan that are lawless as the tribes that live there also live in Afghanistan. The warlords and tribal leaders of that nation do not draw a line in the sand to equate a border. Although the map shows a national line, large portions of Pakistan are without Pakistani government authority. Afghanistan has a border on a map but the people that live there do not recognize your borders, nor do they recognize a central government.
If Obama want's to display his big stick with Afghanistan, he's the biggest bully in the world. No nation is Afghanistan's ally.
I'm pretty sure that by virtue of being Canadian I am better informed on this issue then you are or the average American soldier since they recruit anyone apparantly these days.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I'm quite sure I've received briefings about the region that you have not.
You are not allowed to bring to this conversation authority that you are unable to demonstrate through your analysis, or by reference to sources. Allowed, you understand, in the loose sense of the word- by doing what is not allowed, you lose the argument. This means, specifically, that it is not necessary to allude to your access to information directly when it is not being challenged. It is not appropriate to allude to information you cannot share and claim that as relevant to the discussion, which means you can source and cite every piece of information you *do* share, because it sure as hell isn't coming from you. Analysis is the same- either it's yours, and its quality can be judged on its own, or it isn't yours, and it has a source. Either way, "I've seen things man, I've been to briefings, don't even get me started bro" is weak sauce. Especially considering that I know you well enough to know you're using whatever trivial piece of information you picked up in whatever "briefing" you attended and eliding that with your broad suppositions, falsely believing that this somehow makes them true, or unassailable, which is why you don't provide a source- because the source either isn't real, or doesn't say what you are claiming, or would clearly show your embellishment to be highly impeachable.
It all fits your sad pattern. I'm actually happy to be so good at recognizing it. It comforts me to know I'm not susceptible to your filth.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I'm quite sure I've received briefings about the region that you have not.
You are not allowed to bring to this conversation authority that you are unable to demonstrate through your analysis, or by reference to sources
I agree whole-heartedly with this. Which is why I rolled my eyes when Foust talked about his Korean friends, as if that makes him an expert on the opinions of most/all of South Korea. And why I roll my eyes at you, when you talk about your friends in Eastern Europe (was it the Czech Republic, or somewhere else? I admit, I forget precisely where you live now) as if that makes you an expert on Russia. Or when Rabbit says she works in climate science, and X specific topic is too complicated to explain the details but we should just go ahead and trust her.
Arguing from authority is a bad way to argue, but the fact is a lot of people here do it when an argument goes into a specific area they feel they know a lot in. Sometimes it's hard to separate demonstrating your expertise from simply expecting people to believe you because you're an authority. I think it's probably something we could all improve at.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Would have helped if you had rolled your eyes a little more publicly when he was bashing me for not having access to his apparent network of foreign friends rather then focusing on my anger for being condescended to for 'playing video games'.
IP: Logged |
posted
Argument from personal experience doesn't necessarily deserve an eye roll. It just, on its own, has little to no evidential value.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Back to the initial topic, Obama cancelled his cemetery speech today. So, there was a massive storm and lightning warnings and he spent that time meeting with military families. He should have had everyone stand outside in the rain, risking lightning strikes and delivered that speech dang it. If he loved the troops, he would have.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I agree whole-heartedly with this. Which is why I rolled my eyes when Foust talked about his Korean friends, as if that makes him an expert on the opinions of most/all of South Korea. And why I roll my eyes at you, when you talk about your friends in Eastern Europe (was it the Czech Republic, or somewhere else? I admit, I forget precisely where you live now) as if that makes you an expert on Russia. Or when Rabbit says she works in climate science, and X specific topic is too complicated to explain the details but we should just go ahead and trust her.
Arguing from authority is a bad way to argue, but the fact is a lot of people here do it when an argument goes into a specific area they feel they know a lot in. Sometimes it's hard to separate demonstrating your expertise from simply expecting people to believe you because you're an authority. I think it's probably something we could all improve at.
The issue with argument from authority is when it is used as a mechanism to try to prop up arguments which cannot substantiate themselves. A common mistake is to assume that any argument from authority is inviable. Rabbit's would be a case where it is perfectly viable. So, this contention comes off as more than a little silly.
/
like seriously, there's something way different between your doctor saying "I'm more informed on leg fractures, I'm an ER doctor" versus blayne's "I'm more informed on this, I'm a Canadian"
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Back to the initial topic, Obama cancelled his cemetery speech today. So, there was a massive storm and lightning warnings and he spent that time meeting with military families. He should have had everyone stand outside in the rain, risking lightning strikes and delivered that speech dang it. If he loved the troops, he would have.
Callin it now, posts by freepers saying that this was a show of displeasure by God
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:G.W Bush didn't attend memorial day ceremonies at Arlington in 2002. G.H.W. Bush didn't attend memorial day ceremonies at Arlington in 1989,1990,1991,or 1992. Reagan didn't attend memorial day ceremonies at Arlington in 1981,1983,1987 or 1988.
Hey Rabbit, where did you get these specifics?
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Or when Rabbit says she works in climate science, and X specific topic is too complicated to explain the details but we should just go ahead and trust her.
1. This is a very poor description of what I've done. Over the years I have linked people to dozens, possibly hundreds of scientific papers and reviews so they can see what leading authorities in the areas have to say. CT even compiled a thread linking all of my comments and the references I've used.
2. It is a logical fallacy to claim that an expert's opinion should not be trusted above the opinion of those who lack expertise.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:G.W Bush didn't attend memorial day ceremonies at Arlington in 2002. G.H.W. Bush didn't attend memorial day ceremonies at Arlington in 1989,1990,1991,or 1992. Reagan didn't attend memorial day ceremonies at Arlington in 1981,1983,1987 or 1988.
Hey Rabbit, where did you get these specifics?
I got them from snopes.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Or when Rabbit says she works in climate science, and X specific topic is too complicated to explain the details but we should just go ahead and trust her.
1. This is a very poor description of what I've done. Over the years I have linked people to dozens, possibly hundreds of scientific papers and reviews so they can see what leading authorities in the areas have to say. CT even compiled a thread linking all of my comments and the references I've used.
He also totally misconstrued what I had to say about Russia, which mainly had to do with the fact that Blayne has no idea what he's talking about, not asserting that I *do* know what I'm talking about, because I really don't- I just know enough to know who else doesn't.
It's a bit frustrating, really, to spend your time arguing against a false appeal to authority only for someone to claim that's exactly what *you're* doing, even when all you've tried to do is shed light on the falseness of the appeal by comparing it to one of your own. Like if I responded every time to Mal and his Jamaican neighbors with the bombshell that one of my uncles is black- but only to show how absurd the idea is that having a black uncle puts you in touch with black culture, and how *even more* absurd the idea is that having Jamaican neighbors, racist ones to boot, who are not even Americans, makes you an expert.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry for the offenses given, guys. I probably shouldn't have called anyone out by name, as that can (understandably) be taken as a sort of personal attack.
First of all: Rabbit, that's a fair point, you have cited sources and given plenty of legitimate arguments over the years. I was vaguely remembering a couple of instances where I did get a very strong vibe of "I'm a scientist who studies this and you aren't so you shouldn't even be arguing this with me" from you. I don't know if I could find the instances if I tried searching, and I don't remember how many years ago it was, so you'd be well within your rights to assume my memory is just faulty. Even if I remember clearly, it could well have been a situation where you were tired of rehashing the same arguments with someone over and over, rather than you just trying to shut down discussion.
In any event, I apologize.
Orincoro: That is also a good point. I'm just going to straight up agree that I misremembered, and therefore mischaracterized, your comments about Russia. You have my apologies.
The only other person I named in my post was Foust, and only with regards to the one comment made earlier in this thread. I think I'm going to stand by that one... just because you live in South Korea, and you have friends who laughed at Mal's comment, doesn't, ipso facto, prove that Mal's comment is laughable to a majority of Koreans. Mal's comment may do that on its own...
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But .. Foust made no claim other than that the koreans he showed the comment to had a laugh over it.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I should say I definitely know people who are bona-fide experts on Russia, but man, that is so not a subject I can get myself into. First of all I dislike virtually every Russian I meet, and second, the absurdities of that country are like the absurdities of my host country multiplied by the absurdities of my home country rendered in drunken and unsubtitled soup of despair. Experts on the Russian world are often experts in absorbing barbarous absurdities.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I'm quite sure I've received briefings about the region that you have not.
You are not allowed to bring to this conversation authority that you are unable to demonstrate through your analysis, or by reference to sources. Allowed, you understand, in the loose sense of the word- by doing what is not allowed, you lose the argument. This means, specifically, that it is not necessary to allude to your access to information directly when it is not being challenged. It is not appropriate to allude to information you cannot share and claim that as relevant to the discussion, which means you can source and cite every piece of information you *do* share, because it sure as hell isn't coming from you. Analysis is the same- either it's yours, and its quality can be judged on its own, or it isn't yours, and it has a source. Either way, "I've seen things man, I've been to briefings, don't even get me started bro" is weak sauce. Especially considering that I know you well enough to know you're using whatever trivial piece of information you picked up in whatever "briefing" you attended and eliding that with your broad suppositions, falsely believing that this somehow makes them true, or unassailable, which is why you don't provide a source- because the source either isn't real, or doesn't say what you are claiming, or would clearly show your embellishment to be highly impeachable.
It all fits your sad pattern. I'm actually happy to be so good at recognizing it. It comforts me to know I'm not susceptible to your filth.
Mal's not completely wrong, he just used magically wrong words. I think the idea was that he's probably better informed than everyone else because he was sat down and had this stuff explained to him like he was a twelve year old idiot. What's the use of those briefings if you can't feel like you're an expert on the subject briefed upon completion of the briefing?
Also, I'm better informed than....everyone, really. So there. *Blows raspberry*
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I should say I definitely know people who are bona-fide experts on Russia, but man, that is so not a subject I can get myself into. First of all I dislike virtually every Russian I meet, and second, the absurdities of that country are like the absurdities of my host country multiplied by the absurdities of my home country rendered in drunken and unsubtitled soup of despair. Experts on the Russian world are often experts in absorbing barbarous absurdities.
quote:He also totally misconstrued what I had to say about Russia, which mainly had to do with the fact that Blayne has no idea what he's talking about, not asserting that I *do* know what I'm talking about, because I really don't- I just know enough to know who else doesn't.
Except I do know and you have absolutely zero credibility or proof because of a) your own resorting to ad hominid rather then structured debate and b) your own arguments that you did venture forth were so ridden with holes from fallacies and refuge in absurdities that it sinks in the calmest waters of logical debate.
You put words in my mouth, assumed every wrong interpretation of whatever view you think I had and was a condescending pillock who couldn't admit you were wrong and resorted to absolutely savage attacks on my character rather then the argument itself which you ignored with a 300 mile away detour.
And no don't go running away and claiming "I started it" I attacked your initial condescending attitude and you ultimately have the higher obligation to not escalate it, something you proved yourself inherently unable to do.
Your statement also seems to shoot your argument in the foot, you 'not liking the russians you met' is hardly an informative opinion that you can generalize to apply to all russians or even so much as credibly give you the ability to make as a baseling informed political commentary of their government in excess of myself, essentially in brief your opinion is no more credible or authoritative then my own which makes both your condescension, your arrogance and your hubris egregious failures.
Your cannot use your experiences in the Czech Republic or the 'few Russians' you've met as something greater authoritative standing then my own. (Since I actually have met immigrant and russian nationals as well)
Maybe when you learn to not immediately resort to reductio ad venatio arguments you can come back and argue whatever argument you were trying to make inbetween of making an ass of yourself.
IP: Logged |
boy you really have to stop peppering your rants with vocabulary that's above your writing level
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
That was Opera's auto spell check, and as for missing the proper conjunctions whatever, however you are still committing an important fallacy by attacking my grammar (which is readable) instead of actually arguing the point which you are doing to boost your own ego rather then to be anything approaching constructive.
Of course I could just go back to using vulgar obscenities so I would figure the accident isolated incidents of bad grammar in the context of a perfectly readable text to be preferably step in the right direction when I have a complaint.
You cannot have your cake and eat it too, you complained when I reacted inappropriately and now your complaining when I am trying to be more expressive but far more appropriate manner that better substantiates my position but you still complain because you'ld rather I not post at all regardless (at least I avoided saying 'irregardless') of content.
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: That was Opera's auto spell check, and as for missing the proper conjunctions whatever, however you are still committing an important fallacy by attacking my grammar (which is readable) instead of actually arguing the point which you are doing to boost your own ego rather then to be anything approaching constructive.
What point? I didn't argue anything short of the fact that you shouldn't try using fancy sounding words that you absolutely and consistently do not know how to arrange in a way which is not grammatically incorrect and incredibly confusing.
I'm not criticizing your argument about orincoro, I'm criticizing your presentation. Because it sucks. And one of the reasons why it sucks (besides your massive failure to be mature or control your anger, of course) is because you try to inject lots of fancy sounding crap into it (remember "de facto or de jure" ..?) and it is painfully obvious that it's not vocabulary you actually know how to use.
At this point I don't bother trying not to fulfill your expectations of what would be 'constructive' for me to post because they're incredibly irrelevant to your general maturity level. It's because you sperg and flame and can't grow up.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: That was Opera's auto spell check, and as for missing the proper conjunctions whatever, however you are still committing an important fallacy by attacking my grammar (which is readable) instead of actually arguing the point which you are doing to boost your own ego rather then to be anything approaching constructive.
Of course I could just go back to using vulgar obscenities so I would figure the accident isolated incidents of bad grammar in the context of a perfectly readable text to be preferably step in the right direction when I have a complaint.
You cannot have your cake and eat it too, you complained when I reacted inappropriately and now your complaining when I am trying to be more expressive but far more appropriate manner that better substantiates my position but you still complain because you'ld rather I not post at all regardless (at least I avoided saying 'irregardless') of content.
So in short, shut your goddamn trap.
I honestly think part I bolded has been debatable in the last couple posts, dude. To make your point, and show you really mean it you don't need to toss in incomprehensible grammatically incorrect uses of big words, any more than you need to toss in gratuitous insults or profanity.
You can just calmly and clearly state your case, read it back to yourself to make sure it's coherent, and post it.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I meant 'Opera' ...
Really? Because I was sincerely under the impression that Oprah was hovering over your shoulder and vainly trying to point out all the spelling mistakes.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
But I really was wondering if Oprah had released her own web browser. And whether or not it was any good.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: You can just calmly and clearly state your case, read it back to yourself to make sure it's coherent, and post it.
I was talking to my wife about this recently. I am absolutely astounded by the amount of people who just don't proofread anything before they post/publish/submit it. Granted, I'm unnecessarily anal about it (I double-check everything before I post it and often once more afterward), but a quick look over (especially if you know you're prone to grammar or spelling errors) just seems like common sense to me. Apparently it's not, though.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Charlie: Look buddy, I know a lot about the law and various other lawyerings, uh, I'm well educated, well versed. I know that situations like this, real-estate wise, are complex. Lawyer: Actually, they're pretty simple. The forms are all standard boiler-plate. Charlie: Okay. Well we're all hungry. We'll get to our hot-plates soon enough. Let's talk about the contract here. Lawyer: I'm sorry, I forgot. Where did you go to law school again? Charlie: Well I could ask you that very same question. Lawyer: I went to Harvard. Charlie: Ah, mhm. Lawyer: How about you? Hm? Uh? Charlie: I'm pleading the fifth, sir. Lawyer: I'd advise that you do that. Charlie: And I'll take that advice into cooperation, alright? Now what say you and I go toe-to-toe on bird-law and see how comes out the victor? Lawyer: You know, I don't think I'm going to do anything close to that and I can see clearly you know nothing about the law. It seems like you have a tenuous grasp of the English language in general. Charlie: (said as fly flies past his head) I, uh, well, filibuster! Lawyer: Do you.. Do you know what that word means? Charlie: Ah-yup! Lawyer: Yeah, whats that mean? Charlie: uhhhhhhh. AHHHHHHH!!!(proceeds to slam through the door)
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm, maybe I do need a sarcasm sign Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: That was Opera's auto spell check, and as for missing the proper conjunctions whatever, however you are still committing an important fallacy by attacking my grammar (which is readable) instead of actually arguing the point which you are doing to boost your own ego rather then to be anything approaching constructive.
What point? I didn't argue anything short of the fact that you shouldn't try using fancy sounding words that you absolutely and consistently do not know how to arrange in a way which is not grammatically incorrect and incredibly confusing.
I'm not criticizing your argument about orincoro, I'm criticizing your presentation. Because it sucks. And one of the reasons why it sucks (besides your massive failure to be mature or control your anger, of course) is because you try to inject lots of fancy sounding crap into it (remember "de facto or de jure" ..?) and it is painfully obvious that it's not vocabulary you actually know how to use.
At this point I don't bother trying not to fulfill your expectations of what would be 'constructive' for me to post because they're incredibly irrelevant to your general maturity level. It's because you sperg and flame and can't grow up.
Except your completely wrong as I did use the words correctly albeit forgetting a key conjunction, Orincolo was arrogant and hubris is a form of arrogance, the only word I looked up was venatio which is latin for 'game'. The word I forgot to but in was 'are' as in 'are egregious failures' and the usage of egregious is also correct.
Your not only completely wrong but also overbearingly anal and using it as a springboard to attack me over trivialities that apparently have your panties in a twist.
It is absolutely hypocritical of you to accuse me of immaturity when it flies in the face of absolutely ridiculous extenuating circumstances (people being douchebags to me) or your own immaturity in dealing with my perceived immaturity which is you increasingly going out of your way to provoke me just to retroactively prove you right.
So come back when you have a shred credibility and aren't an agent provocateur.
To reiterate, there isn't a single word I used that was used incorrectly within the english language.
quote:Which is why I rolled my eyes when Foust talked about his Korean friends, as if that makes him an expert on the opinions of most/all of South Korea.
Um, I did no such thing. I assume you agree that it's a dumb idea that Bush would have stopped the sinking of the Cheonan, especially given how murky the circumstances surrounding the incident are?
It's election season here in SK, and the incumbents always try and use fears of NK to boost their own re-election chances.
American party politics do not dictate the course of world events.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Except your completely wrong as I did use the words correctly albeit forgetting a key conjunction
"I used the words correctly, except I forgot a key conjunction"
"I used the words correctly, except I didn't use the words correctly"
Also: My completely wrong what?
quote:Your not only completely wrong but also overbearingly anal and using it as a springboard to attack me over trivialities
The fact that you are incorrigibly immature and inappropriately hostile at the slightest provocation is not a triviality. It's actually pretty big. It's why as a poster you are a detriment and an embarrassment to the community and why you need to learn to own up to your issues.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I mean seriously, "and your hubris egregious failures" is not even ambiguously incorrect grammar. It's profoundly incorrect grammar. While I expected you blaming your actions and complete loss of temper on others (as well as just generally going into a tantrum) I didn't expect you actually trying to pull an insistence that what you said wasn't problematic insofar as the english language was concerned.
Entertaining, but .. baffling. I mean, really?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Which is why I rolled my eyes when Foust talked about his Korean friends, as if that makes him an expert on the opinions of most/all of South Korea.
Um, I did no such thing. I assume you agree that it's a dumb idea that Bush would have stopped the sinking of the Cheonan, especially given how murky the circumstances surrounding the incident are?
It's election season here in SK, and the incumbents always try and use fears of NK to boost their own re-election chances.
American party politics do not dictate the course of world events.
Alright, I stand corrected yet again. Clearly I read more into your post than intended. Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"To reiterate, there isn't a single word I used that was used incorrectly within the english language."
Blayne, I realize that your lack of understanding of the English language (capitalized, fyi) leads you to believe that you can be as loose with words you looked up in the dictionary 5 minutes ago as with facts you read on wikipedia last week, but I'm afraid on this score, you're an even more obvious fraud. I mean, honestly, I could pick any of the sentences in just your last post and go to town on how many mistakes you make, how unclear your meaning actually is, and *why*. But I've done that so many times I should start charging you for it. Besides, when you improve thanks to my and other people's sound advice, you'll pretend that you just taught yourself, and none of our help did any good at all. You've never thanked anyone on this forum for helping you improve your English- which, I recall quite clearly, was so poor when you started here that I believed you were a Chinese high school student who had immigrated to Canada.
quote: I didn't expect you actually trying to pull an insistence that what you said wasn't problematic insofar as the english language was concerned.
No Samp, what he said was that all the words were correct in usage. Apparently that means that they don't have to be in the right order, connected to each other, make sense in the context of the argument, or be used correctly. So I suppose all that is needed for them to be correct is that they are spelled correctly... which is a tall enough order for Blayne nine times out of ten.
ETA: also
quote: a) your own resorting to ad hominid
You cannot make this stuff up. It's just too good.
posted
Regarding the Reverend Wright, it occurred to me that an analogy for understanding President Obama's loyalty to Trinity UCC is the loyalty that people have to OSC even as his views get more hateful and extreme. Can you imagine what folks would think about fans of OSC if all the got were some snippets from his most racist or homophobic columns?
Not only was the Reverend Wright "American" enough to have served in the Marines, but he made Trinity a real power for good in Chicago. Neighborhood programs that have truly followed the Gospel in service to the poor and sick.
As he had gotten older, his views have become more extreme - a not-unusual phenomenon. He stepped down as pastor from Trinity shortly before all the controversy.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's a good analogy kmbboots, I've had a devil of a time convincing a few people I know to read Ender's Game, because their only familiarity with OSC is through his political writings.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Hell, I love America, and I think the Founders' theories and ideas don't apply to a lot of what we have to deal with in the 21st century. Is that really a surprise, that a document written when parchment was the written medium of choice, and the steam engine hadn't even been invented yet? The Founders wrote slavery into the Constitution, and no rights for women. They were wrong. They were wrong about a lot of stuff. A lot of stuff they made provisions for no longer apply, and a lot of stuff that is important to us today didn't even exist back then. The writers of the Constitution got a lot of stuff right, and left a lot of stuff vague for us to figure out later. They are called framers for a reason. They framed an unfinished picture that we had to create long after they were gone. They gave us an outline, but we have to fill in the details. We do that on a yearly, sometimes daily basis. They might have disagreed with his, but the Framers weren't prophets or gods, they were fallible, they were men, and they were wrong about a lot of stuff.
Wait...Let me get this straight.You think the Constitution is an aged document and that we should just "make it up as we go along"?
Isn't that what amendments are for? If the government should have power to change, grant, or revoke certain rights or responsibilities of the government and it's people, then do it through an amendment.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Strider: That's a good analogy kmbboots, I've had a devil of a time convincing a few people I know to read Ender's Game, because their only familiarity with OSC is through his political writings.
I hate that. I tell people to just read it. Let the work stand on its own; you get more out of it by not tying the work of fiction down by things the author said and did in life afterwards.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Samp, if Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh wrote a fiction novel, and I recommended it to you, would you put aside your dislike for their ideas and personality and read it, letting the work stand on its own? Or would you not bother reading the work of someone you know to espouse vial social and political ideologies?
The people I'm talking about specifically are mostly progressive liberals. It's helpful that it's me recommending the book to them, as opposed to someone else. They know me and my reading tastes and trust me, and they're STILL having a tough time getting past what they know of OSC. Imagine if a mal or Ron Lambert type was doing the recommending.
I should say, it's a pretty small minority that are actually familiar with OSCs political writing and belief system. The vast majority of people I've recommended Ender's Game to have read it and loved it (and continued with the series). I've gotten one of my liberal activist friends to read it, and she's helping to put pressure on some of the other readers to give it a chance.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
