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: Neocon who wrote (141215)	7/22/2004 12:39:36 PM
From: Lou Weed	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<<First, the term "circular argument" refers to covertly assuming what is, in fact, in contention, in other words, arguing in circles. That is what you are doing. You are in essence saying "it is a weapon, therefore it is a weapon." You are not making any real argument against my distinction, you are trying to blow it off so that, like Humpty Dumpty, words mean whatever you say they mean.>> Total and utter codswallop!! It comes down to "intent". I offered you two scenarios where the intent determines the definition of it's usage. I clearly distinguished between it's usage as a weapon and non-weapon....so knock of your "it is a weapon, therefore it is a weapon." nonsense. True, it's not an anti-personnel device but it was still used as a weapon in Vietnam. Candy-coat it all you want my friend. MON.