Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zonder who wrote (55172)	10/28/2002 12:52:46 PM
From: Sir Francis Drake	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

zonder - wrong - I DO distinguish between civilian and military deaths. However, do you follow arguments, or do you not? Because you are WRONG on the facts when you say: Your "indisputable facts" do not seem to distinguish between civilians and soldiers. The numbers I cited were CIVILIAN DEATHS in the Tokyo bombings by conventional arms, and the 7 million study of civilian estimates referred directly to CIVILIAN DEATHS. So, YOU ARE DEAD WRONG to say that the figures cited do not distinguish between civilian and military deaths. As to you position: yep, you are entitled to your opinions. Just as the Flat Earth society members are entitled to their opinions that the Earth is flat. However, with freedom and "entitlement" to opinions comes "responsibility" and "consequence" - which is that while you are free to hold whatever provably absurd opinion you wish to hold, be prepared to have your opinions treated as absurd and ridiculous - that is the context of my remark about the health of your future positions. In this case, I think you are simply being reflexively against the U.S. - which taints your positions. By contrast, I always try to be careful to take into account both sides. If folks see that you are simply an America-hater who will resort to absurd arguments to justify his position, your positions will be dismissed. See? I feel there is a slight difference between breaking a car window to set off an alarm and nuking entire cities Bad, bad move. You cannot win arguing against logic. You are opening yourself up to a simple retort of rhetorical blunder. Please take a refresher in logic at school. You seem to have missed the class which illuminates the nature of ANALOGY. An analogy operates on "principle illustration and not particulars equality". First lesson on analogy! The principle is what was illustrated in my example - the principle that a higher law supercedes a lower law - as in the ANALOGY between law of vandalism (car window) and rape-prevention. Of course the PARTICULARS are different and not equal - one is a window the other a city, but the PRINCIPLE is the same. If particulars were the same analogies would not exist - clearly, you have missed the class on analogy function at school! "Bob fights like a lion" zonder: "But Bob doesn't have a tail like a lion!" Again, zonder, you are exposing yourself badly - making bad arguments, then compounding your mistake by making logical blunders. Bad, bad, for you positons, and opinions - you call your opinions "humble", but instead they will look "dumb" if you make 1) moral errors (more conventional deaths are "humane" and fewer atomic are "inhumane") 2) factual errors (claiming the figures I cited did not distinguish between civilian and military deaths) 3) logical errors (showing you do not understand the formal structure of analogies). zonder - again, think about your credibility. I can keep devastating it as long as you want - because here you are dead wrong.