I was thinking of Sherlock Holmes.
Too bad you don’t think like Sherlock Holmes.
Does december even think at all?
I agree. That was perhaps the weakest argument in the list.
Well, Bush stopped meeting with Arafat some time ago. IIRC it was after the ship full of arms was picked up and Arafat like about it being destined for the Palestinians.
Bush’s meeting with that radical Arab-American was a f*ckup. It was arranged by Bush aide Grover Norquist, whose name is now mud among some conservatives. E.g. see http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/bush14jun02.html
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Coldfire *
[ul][li]When people still don’t buy your crap, start Back Paddle Phase II. This involves the much-loved semantics games: start selectively quoting people’s rebuttals, put words in their mouths, and claim they misinterpreted your words. If necessary, start debating the meaning of common one-syllable words.[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]
This is the one that really annoys me. It’s like having a philosophy discussion with a schizophrenic. December is to facts what justhink was to argument.
Some of these “back paddles” are so blindingly obvious, so breath-takingly mendacious, that they are unquestionably trolling.
december - so? you pointed out that the Pope met w/folks. So did Bush. this does not at all support your allegation that meeting w/them ‘provides moral (or indeed any other kind) of support’ for what you claim as their position (note, I am not claiming that Jews are not murdered. just that a meeting alone cannot be used as evidence to support that particular goal - do you have evidence of what was discussed? it perhaps was the plight of Palestinian children ya know).
and, of course, the essential issue is that the Pope/Church has failed to act as you would have them act. this, of and by itself, does not constitute ‘support’ moral or otherwise for some of the goals of those regimes. which is, of course, your claim.
the Church has in fact decried the very things that you are so aghast at, the killing of Jews. Your feeble brushing off of that (essentially that they ‘could have done it sooner/w/more fervor’) notwithstanding, it appears that you’ve not been able to sustain your claim that the Church “supports” these hated regimes.
It was only a weekend trip–catch the boat in Freeport Friday night, back on terra firma Sunday night. Driving down isn’t bad, but I was pooped by the time I got back Sunday night.
No hammerhead pics, unfortunately. We got the report mid-afternoon that they were all over the place at the East Bank, while we’d spent all day at the West; by the time we got over there, they were gone. My buddy and I did see one solitary 6-ft. hammerhead, though, plus a fast-swimming blacktip. Got pics of probably a dozen eagle ray pics and a couple mantas, however, so I’m reasonably happy. I’ll send you a link to the album as soon as I’ve got it organized.
Very cool trip, though. I’m almost certainly going back this summer, when it’s warmer!
I think I see what you’re saying. Are you saying that: The meeting provides moral support for the group, but not necessarily for a particular position that they hold.? That’s a subtle distinction, which I will have to think about. However, the fact remains that Bush did make a decision to stop meeting with Arafat, presumably because such a meeting would give moral support to Arafat.
It’s hard to conclusively prove these things, because what you say is true: there are always actions (and omissions) both ways.
If you want to go farther, I would invite you to provide cites where the Church took stands in favor of Israel or against various anti-Israel acts. They might enable us to compare magnitudes.
quote:
Originally posted by nogginhead
I do not accept spin as a well-presented or coherent argument. I have yet to see a fair presentation of a position by december.
Please provide an example of a post of his you admire, and that shows the qualities of well-researched, fairly presented, or coherent argument.
weirddave
Try looking at the post just above yours. December has presented all of his points in one place. Have at them and disprove them-or was saying “that’s just spin” you idea of refuting something?
Who said I was trying to refute something?
I meant to refer to OPs, but let’s look at this one, too. “Presenting one’s points” does not equal a fair or coherent or well-presented argument. Do you claim that post is fair, coherent, or well-presented? I see three parts:
Part 1: Argue that the omission of a statement by one party is more important than what they did say.
I think the significance is more in what the Pope did NOT say…
Is that a fair argument? It could be, if one presented facts or reasons why the omission was more relevant than the statement.
Part 2: Attack the moral character of the speaker
The Pope treated Israelis and Palestinians as equals…
Is that fair? Nope. If moral equating of Israelis and Palestinians by the pope happened, it is irrelevant to whether the Pope supports a regime.
3. Focus away from the point
It’s true that my cites included opinions, but I think they also provided a number of facts…
You may not agree that these facts prove my case, but you cannot deny that I provided a number of facts to back up the opinion.
The criticism of opinion pieces in a factual argument is countereted by the inclusion of facts in those opinion pieces. Fair? Possibly. But it’s unreasonable to cite opinion pieces, as a whole, as fact, which is what was done: the facts were pulled out of them only when their use is challenged.
Finally, let’s discuss coherence and presentation. I don’t see an argument, just a few chosen issues addressed. They could have been connected with a little effort, but were not. As to presentation, I see a list of items, not a framework, but that’s a judgement call.
spin
verb and noun. To convey information or cast another person’s remarks or actions in a biased or slanted way
from http://www.wordspy.com/words/spin.asp
In this case, the spin mostly enters into the choice of facts to present. In most OPs, december uses spin much more blatantly.
I think I see what you’re saying. So in the same vein, Nixon strongly morally supported oppressive Communist regimes, based on the significant amount of personal interaction he had with both Brezhnev and Mao.
See, I think this colors your reaction to this OP negatively. In any event, wring and minty green have picked up the gauntlet and are vigorously presenting the counter case. It only took 5 pages!
thanks jr8 - no december, what I am saying is that merely meeting with some one does not provide ‘support’ for their position (all or part) moral or otherwise.
Or would you suggest that, for example, meetings between the Allies and Germany to negotiate the treaty after WWI provided ‘moral support’ for Germany.
In order for you to demonstrate support for that position/regime you must show something more than the two parties met. Hell, I ‘meet’ w/my ex husband often, but I strongly resist the implication that it offers ‘moral support’ for him or anything he does that I disapprove of.
especially when you’re talking about world leaders, as was demonstrated so aptly by jr8.
And, while you’re at it, you should probably support your allegation that Bush’s refusal to meet w/Arafat is due to him not wanting to ‘provide moral support’ for him.
Keep in mind that in the international community, refusal to speak/ have discussions w/ other parties is considered to be a highly volitale thing - IIRC, one of the things pundits have been cautioning Bush about wrt N Korea is that N Korea seem to be ratcheting up the hostilities in order to essentially force a direct meeting with the US.
and, in general, meeting w/some one w/whom you have differences and wish to persuade to change their actions is generally a good thing, ya know?
<sudden thought>
Geez – we’d better not be seen talking to december, lest it be seen as moral support for his position!
:eek:
</sudden thought>
december, The pope has met with all the major players in the Iraqui situation. He gave an audience to everyone, and if he couldnt meet them, he sent an envoy.
He has met everyone he could. the Vatican is trying to push peace.
I agree with you that it is a disgrace that it took so long for the Vatican to recognise Israel, but the fact is that the recognise it now and are trying to remedy past hurts.
Meeting with someone is not condoning their beliefs. I know it wouls suit your argument if it did, but ploease think about it. There are no black and white situations. this is not a “With us or against us” world, and to make it so is a gross oversimplification.
I acknowledge that some of the 8 arguments I listed are subject to more innocent interpretations. I’d be interested in arguments and cites pointing in the other direction.
I’m not Roman Catholic, but I always thought a personal audience with the Pope was an honor. ISTM that by meeting with Tarik Aziz, the Pope was giving a message that the Iraqi government has legitimacy. They don’t deserve legitimacy IMHO.
I think Saddam’s regime are a group of murderous thugs. They, routinely imprison and kill and torture their own citizens. They torture children in front of their parents. They allowed thousands of their citizens do without proper food and medicine, while they spent their money on lavish palaces and huge stores of armaments. Iraq has shown no integrity in their dealings with the UN or the world community. They have repeatedly lied to the UN about their weapons of mass destruction.
I don’t know why the Pope believed that his personal meeting with Aziz could do any good, given the nature of the regime.
That’s the thing, sport. You don’t know. You don’t have a fucking clue. Or you pretend that you don’t. But rather than admit lack of knowledge or understanding on your part up front, you present it as “Pope supports oppression” or other such bullshit.
Not only are you are berating me for something I didn’t write, you have put my non-statement in quotes. :wally
That’s the thing, sport. You don’t know. You don’t have a fucking clue. Or you pretend that you don’t. But rather than admit lack of knowledge or understanding on your part up front, you present it as “The Pope supports a regime that murders the Jews. What else is new?” or other such bullshit.
Respond to that, then.
Thats the problem with your outlook december. You only see one interpretation of everything. You say that some of the evidence you present is open to more innocent interpretations. You are automatically portraying the events as sinister to begin with, and a re skewing the message you are trying to convey.
Tariq Aziz’s meeting with the Pope was for the Pope to push for peaceful solution to the current situation. we don’t know what was actually said in the meeting, but why are you so quick to assume that it was messages of support? Does Bush agree with everyone he has meetings with? does he condone all of their policies?
First of all my statement is the literal truth. The Vatican has been giving legitimacy and moral support to the Ba’athist regime in Iraq and the Arafat regime. These regimes do murder Jews.
Second, regardless of the Vatican’s intentions, its actions have consequences. Their position has helped increase world resistance to overthrowing the horrendous regime of Saddam Hussein, even though the Vatican obviously must disapprove of many of its practices. This is the reponse to TwistofFate’s point as well. My point is that the Vatican’s actual actions have had consequences different from what it intended. “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.”