Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1010
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Sat Jul 24, 2004 7:01 pm Post subject: | |||||||||||||||||||||
Semantics again? My oh my, how sad.
Like usual, you've failed to provide any reasoning for your disagreement. I am, however, here to help so let me show you what you need to do in order to support your semantic straw man. Find and describe the deception, either explicit or implied, in the following phrases:
Don't hurt yourself.
point by point:
Dignity: The quality or state of being worthy of esteem or respect. An estimated maximum of 13,212 Iraqi civilians have been killed. Clearly these civilian lives were not worthy of the US's esteem and respect.
The coalition is laughable, terrorism is on the rise and terrorist attacks have increased in number.
Iraq was not involved in a regional conflict.
Iraq has two shells  thus was not a threat to the US or any of the US's friends or allies.
Nation building. Seems to be the only truism in this entire exercise. However, "opening societies" and "building the infrastructure of democracy" necessarily implies diplomacy and diplomacy was a tool dismissed out of hand in the ramp-up to the invasion and the resulting occupation.
Propping up US friendly dictators in nations with US economic interests is hardly "cooperative".
The erosion of civil liberties, while a definite transformation, is not a sign of progress. It's a sign of regression.
Fine. I'll give you that one simply because it'll be funny to see how you'll twist 2 shells into a threat against US national security which, of course, you're now obligated to do as mere possession was not the sole charge by the administration. The threat that these weapons entailed is part and parcel of the entire WmD premise. As before, don't hurt yourself. |
|||||||||||||||||||||
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 1037
Location: Formerly 3333
| Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2004 12:43 pm Post subject: | |
|
Seems he can dish it out but can't take it. Sounds like a classic bully. Not much different from Adolph Hitler's or Saddam Hussein's philosophy. "Do it my way, believe as I do or you're gone." And for goodness sake, if you do disagree, you'd better not do so publically. Well that is complete BS!
Ultimately, the only way you could ensure "winning" your argument was to eliminate the debator. You're a sorry excuse. Thank you for showing all of us what you're really like. Your banning of BG showed your true colors much better than any words any of us could come up with. Footsoldier |
|
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1010
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2004 11:58 pm Post subject: | |||||
Hitler? Hussein? Please Footsoldier, I beg of you put your meager critical thinking skills to work and tell us how that philosophy differs from GwB's "You're either for us or your against us". Do remember that YOU, when, yet again, found yourself unable to dispute simple assertions in this very thread (page 4), pulled the pathetic "with us or against us" card. A disturbingly stupid tactic to say the least that, along with every other fallacy you've committed, nonetheless demonstrates your severely limited ability to reason. Seriously! Had you any foresight, or hindsight for that matter, whatsoever, you'd have noted the similarity between the alleged Hitler/Hussein philosophy and GwB's evident philosophy and considered those similarities before committing yourself to such a flaky position.
BG a "debator"? Now that's an oxymoron! The term "debate" necessarily implies consideration of your opponents arguments and a willingness to support and/or defend your assertions when they are challenged. Like yourself, BG evidently lacks skills in both of those arenas. I need only cite the degeneration of both of your replies into weak trolls and personal attacks (both bannable offenses), in this thread and others, to support such a claim. Note that the only individual to bother disputing my points since page 4 of this thread has been CCCs. Though CCCs sometimes, though rarely, neglects to provide support for s/his opposition, CCCs has never stooped to the low-brow bottom-feeder tactics that you and BG foolishly rely upon when your arguments (repeatedly) get trashed. So, should you decide to respond with yet another petty, fallacious, and wholly unsupported ad-hom (you've committed 3 so far) instead of disputing the on-topic points that you disagree with, you too will be banned. It's that simple. If you'd like to maintain your posting priveleges here you'd better get a clue and get it quick as I tire of your utterly moronic behaviour. If you'd like to continue to criticize me, I invite you to start a thread in the feedback forum. However, I'd recommend that you be prepared to support and defend your allegations as I am quite prepared to defend, support and justify every statement I've made and every action I've taken. Should you decide to accept the invitiation but, in doing so, fail to adequately support your allegations, you will be banned. Now, is it possible to get this thread back on track? CCCs? Are you out there? |
|||||
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 1037
Location: Formerly 3333
| Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2004 2:29 am Post subject: | |
|
So, should you decide to respond with yet another petty, fallacious, and wholly unsupported ad-hom (you've committed 3 so far) instead of disputing the on-topic points that you disagree with, you too will be banned.
It's that simple. If you'd like to maintain your posting priveleges here you'd better get a clue and get it quick as I tire of your utterly moronic behaviour. If unsupported claims are what people get banned for, then you had better ban yourself too. Are you really expecting us to believe everything you've spewed out in this forum, and this thread specifically, is substantiated fact? Get real! FS |
|
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1010
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2004 2:38 am Post subject: | |
|
ad-hom != claim
reading comprehension++ |
|