Look, either debate honestly, answer the question, or shut up.

This is in reference to the thread in GD titled "What does “minimize civilian casualties” mean?

There are many reasonable answers to this question, which is why it belongs in Great Debates rather than General Questions. That said, I’d like to bring to your attention some of the most asinine answers thus far:

Good answer to a question that wasn’t asked. Typical of the way these threads turn out, it provides foreshadowing for what’s to come:

Yep, it’s turning into the typical “US is evil” thread, because of course World War II is comparable in every respect to today’s wars, which is to say that they are not comparable at all, in either tactics or weaponry. This theme continues later with this gem:

What was this thread about? Oh, yes. It was about Iraq. Wait a minute, was it? I’m confused. I was confused then, too, because I followed that post with one of my own in an attempt to steer it away from what it was becoming: a pointless Bush/Iraq thread. Here’s what I said:

Alas, it was to no avail. Diogenes made the following claim:

Even if I take him at his word, which given his history of all Iraq all the time I’m not inclined to do so, if you read the thread you can see how it clearly became about Iraq. It started to get back on track later, until the most recent post which brought nothing to the table, to wit:

Again, a worthy post with absolutely no substantive value and indicative of extraordinary ignorance to boot.

So, what did we learn from this? There is no end to people who cannot stick to the topic at hand, instead turning it into a Bush/Iraq sausage fest as per the norm, flagrantly disregarding the request of the OP:

I’d like to say that I learned something from that thread, but I really didn’t. And so another worthy topic goes down the tubes because of hijacking kibbitzers who don’t really know the answer, they just know that the United States is historically wrong and Iraq is wrong and they will take every opportunity to tell you so.

In closing, may I say that it’s not a bad thing if you don’t know the answer. It’s not even a bad thing if you post the wrong answer. That’s why we have debates, to attempt to hash out the right answer. But if all you have to bring to the table is your oft-posted opinion about something that is not relevant to the topic at hand, please spare us the rhetoric and simply don’t post it.

Of course, but what do you expect?

“Bush and the Republicans are evil” is the basis of all their political thought, and the lens thru which they see all public issues. That’s it. That’s all they have to say, because that is all they think about.

“A fanatic is someone who won’t change his mind, and can’t change the subject.”


It’s my thread and it’s actually going rather better than I expected. Yes, Least Original shat in it, Declan clearly didn’t read before posting, and DtC’s comments are not couched in a way that helps the thread’s focus (although they are not in my view just a hijack). But it’s a hard topic and I think it’s going OK.

Hooray! My answer was reasonable! Or, uh, too stupid to repost. Oh well.

Having said that, I too am annoyed by the hijack. This wasn’t a question of “Did so-and-so minimize civilians casualties in this situation”, it was a question of definitions. Certainly the use of examples could be helpful, but in this case it’s pretty much derailed.

I think your expectations are way too low. It’s not really a hard topic. It’s hard for the rabid anti-Bush crowd to discuss intelligently because their arguments never get past their hatred of Bush.

Doors, you’re getting worked up over opinions of abnormal people.
Don’t be an ass and get bent out of shape over the idiots you quote.

Least Original whatever quoted “link tv” whatever the fuck that is, and then “internet blogs”

Redfury blew shit up with Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Diogenes, I didn’t bother reading.

There was really nobody in there worth pitting. They are all dismissable for one reason or another. They’re stupid, yes, but this is like arguing with retards.

How can I debate honestly when I’m living in an America where our president can’t even eat a pretzel, is invading every single country on Earth (and is looking to invade the Moon and Mars), wants to shoot all pregnant women, minorities, and immigrants, and the school board of Kansas has made it illegal to teach that monkeys exist. Answer that, and then I might read the OP and get to your issue. Or maybe I’ll go on an anti-religion tirade. Ha!

(This post may contain unsafe levels of irony and sarcasm. Bush is a Nazi, Al Gore is Jesus!)


Heh, I second the op, and add that every thread actually discussing the current crisis has been infected by the same spirit.

There are lots of people of different opinions on the current situation who would no doubt like to debate the actual issues, but they are drowned out by the seemingly endless energy of those who want to fight about it online.

Who told?


And I probably didn’t help matters by responding to them in that thread (well, not L.O.U.N.E…I’m thinking after another thread s/he’s in that responding to said posts may be a waste of time), eh Airman? Least you were nice enough not to include my meager contributions as part of the pitting. :stuck_out_tongue: Ah well. It IS a rather difficult subject to stay completely on track of, and the crew that sort of went off the reservation, inspite of the OP’s desire to keep things reasonably on track, were of no great shock. They seem to delight in making every thread about Iraq (well, in Red’s case about how bad and evil the US is…in a genuine good faith effort I believe (on his part) to show us what we are plainly blind too. Namely that the US is the font of all that is wrong with the world).

For my part in the hijack I will simply apologize…though its heartening that the OP himself isn’t too distressed in how things are proceeding there.


In fairness t Redfury, he was responding to something I said about the US which I meant to be taken as “the US today” and he interpreted the timeframe to be much longer.

Small nitpick for Least Original User Name Ever (see post #1)

Aren’t we fighting in Iraq?

It’s a channel pretty close (in channel order, not content) to NASA on Direct TV. It’s a mix of left wing/environmental documentaries, world culture and also has pretty good world current events shows. I’m surprised it’s not mentioned more often on this board, I’ve even pondered starting a thread to ask if anybody watches it. It’s viewer funded and commercial free, but has regular pledge requests a couple of times an hour. Link.

I disagree, I think they’re well worth pitting.

Some posters are in the habit of treating each question simply as a hook on which to hang their own opinion. Showered with enough vitriol, they may think better of it.

Meh. It’s closer to some posters being in their own little worlds, and lashing out at the real world for not being closer to what they want. I mean, look at the posting styles of the three people being discussed here.

Diogenes wanders into threads, makes declarations of correctness by fiat, and then gets more and more vitriolic when people are not immediately blinded by tears from having seen the Light.

Least Original User Name Ever shows up, throws out a few left-wing conspiracy theories, and then when pushed for cites, links to the Recursive Link Blowjobbing Blog Society (Left-Wing Division*)- those blogs that state unabashedly that a left wing conspiracy idea (Bush Stole Ohio, We’re Invading Iran Tomorrow, Iraq Was Invaded For Its Oil Profits), and “proves” said idea by linking to another member of the blogosphere who reiterates the claim and proves it by linking to another member of the blogosphere who reitirates the claim and proves it by linking to another… etc. LOUNE reads left-wing websites, watches left-wing TV, and sits in the filth of his critically unexamined ideas.

And RedFury simply hates America and Israel and can’t engage in a thread where he can’t spew forth on how much America sucks. Because it raped his sister or something. I don’t know; I don’t pay attention to whiny furriners.
None of them ever learns anything; none of them ever wants to discuss an idea, even their own ideas. They just shout at you to shut up and agree with whatever crap they spew.
[sub]There’s a Right-Wing Division, too, of course.[/sub]

you do realize of course that the next three pages of this thread will be arguing about which division is bigger and blowjobbier, right?

It has to be the left. After all, they have Monica.

Meh. Not like it matters. If I try to be fair and state that both sides do it, assholes come in to argue that the other side does it worse, and that I’m a biased pig for not saying so. If I try to avoid the issue, assholes come in to argue that the other side does it too, and that I’m a biased pig for not saying so.

The only way to win is to not bother playing, which is why I don’t bother posting in GD that much.

(And asterion? Ouch! Nice one!)

WTF doors

You posted the last sentence of my reply ?

I fail to see how the above quote fails to meet the orignal post ? or as someone else put it , I did not even read the friggen post.

Agree , disagree, ignore , what ever , but the last fuckin line , sheesh


Couldn’t be more accurate a summation of Diogenes’ modus operandi.

Look at this post. The irony being that I share his opinion - he actually manages to make it less attractive by shitting it out as a simplistic slogan and pretending it’s the entire sum of the issue.

It’s not something I like at all, since the more I learn about anything, the more I become convinced that every issue - political, moral, whatever - is complex, and almost every issue that people disagree on has legitimate reasoning behind both sides of the debate. I don’t like people who pretend that they can form a rational argument by shouting slogans over and over. Diogenes is really not all that dumb, so it’s really sad that he’s unable to see anything beyond his own opinion and his own black-and-white take on anything.