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: jttmab who wrote (162999)	5/24/2005 10:09:14 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

"Having something be an isolated incident in terms of the overall American military in Vietnam doesn't mean it was the first time that it was "the very first and only time" that either that group or any other "slaughtered innocent civilians" " Non sequitor. Not at all. An isolated incident doesn't mean its the only incident that occurred in a country or an area over a period of years. If I saw a man walk past my door wearing an Abraham Lincoln costume, I would probably assume it was an isolated event unless I knew I had a neighbor who had a habit of doing so, or I saw it happen more than once. That doesn't mean that it would be the first time he ever wore such a costume or that no one else has worn such a costume in the US over the last 10 years. Above and later in your post where you refer to SOP, you've established two sets of ethics. No, not two sets of ethics, and not one either. Zero. Its not an ethical issue. Its a issue of assumptions and biases. Am I biased to believe bad things about terrorists easier than I believe bad things about American soldiers? Yes I am. But its not an unreasonable bias. Also I didn't assert that "assisted suicide bombings" were common, they would probably also be considered isolated incidents, probably not standard operating procedure for most terrorist groups. You ignore the semantics of the word. Google on "propaganda" and see what percentage of times the word is used on a neutral basis. I agree it is most often used to mean dishonest propaganda, but using it to describe honest propaganda is not inaccurate and is not faulty usage. It is sometimes used that way, and its definition covers that usage. Do you even remember any substantive point that this semantic issue is connected to? Tim