Both - you were pathetic for erecting a bunch of strawmen like me dehumanising Hinkle or revelling in his injuries, but at least were making your own arguments, and responding to what I actually said.
I don’t see the point - your argument in that post isn’t analogous to mine - unless you are arguing that it is possible to both support and oppose something at the same time. Which would be a dumb argument to make.
I’m flattered you actually looked up my (out of date) profile.
The rest of your post is just silly. Mostly because De Beers doesn’t deal in blood diamonds. And diamond mining isn’t our biggest industry. And I work now. And I’ve supported anti-blood diamond charities. And we have government healthcare should my scrotum need it.
Oh, and it’s a stupid analogy. But you knew that, I hope.
Oh, this is good. You’ve managed to contradict yourself twice in one sentence. You’re saying I was arguing pathetically well, by constructing strawmen that responded to what you actually said. I mean… what the hell? Can you honestly look at what you just wrote and tell me it makes a lick of sense?
Look, you’re clearly on the ropes, here. You’re contradicting yourself all over the place. The logic behind your position has been shredded ten times over. So far, everyone who’s read your comment is appalled by it. It’s clearly too much to expect you to act decently and apologize for your incredibly callous comment, but you could at least exhibit enough self-preservation to shut the hell up and hope that this thread drops off the front page before too many more people read it. All you’re doing here is making yourself look bad. Really, really bad. Stop digging, already.
Yes, it is a dumb argument. Incredibly dumb. Too bad you didn’t realize that before you made it. But, at least now you’re learning.
Your scrotum is protected by blood diamonds.
And as far as your strawmen regarding your employment status, I find it pathetic and irrelevant. Will you respond to the things I actually wrote?
Don’t mean a thing if it ain’t got the bling.
Forget trying to connect MrDibble to immoral acts by others. He wishes other people ill. That immoral enough on its own.
So MrDibble living in South Africa is exactly analogous to a soldier voluntarily joining an army that is fighting in Iraq? And this is what conclusively demonstrates MrDibble’s hypocrisy and therefore the invalidity of his point?
I’m confused. I don’t think that nationality is in any way analogous to membership in a voluntary organization. Because a voluntary organization is one you can choose to join, but nobody chooses the nation of their birth.
Or am I missing something?
I think I’m also missing the part where he said the soldiers deserved their injuries and misery and so forth (or even wished ill on anyone). (To be fair, I didn’t notice that he said they DIDN’T deserve their fate, but that’s not the same thing.) All he said was that he didn’t have much sympathy for their complaints about losing their bonus.
I confess I am saddened by the pattern I’ve seen lately of non-American dopers saying something, and getting roasted by American dopers who don’t really read their comment in the intent in which it was offered. Honestly, folks, he did not wish ill on anyone (or at least, not until the pile-on). This all began when he expressed something closer to schadenfreude about a grievance that could have been (a) avoided (by not joining the army and going to war in the first place) and (b) anticipated (by reading thoroughly before signing).
I didn’t say you argued pathetically, I said you were pathetic.
Nice try, but I can tell the difference between my argument and your attempted parody of it. That you can’t is the pathetic bit.
Monkey, lick my diamond-encrusted balls.
garygnu, can you tell the difference between lacking sympathy and wishing ill? Because there is one, you know.
Peanut gallery here. Yup, He shooled you right proper guvna’
Just my 2 fuckin cents.
Cunt?? Taking it as a compliment considering the source 
Yes, hyperbolic mockery. He’s clearly not listening to reason, so I mock. Of course the analogy was bad. I wasn’t fighting ignorance, I admit, just having a little fun at the idiot’s expense.
Did you read the same OP I did? It’s about how they can’t pay their medical bills. And then this dick pipes in to say "Boo Hoo! Poor quasi-mercenaries didn’t get paid their blood money. Cry me a fucking river. Reap, meet Sow. " The schadenfreude he expressed wasn’t about money in and of itself, it’s about soldiers not having the money for medical care. Easily inferred from the “reap meet sow” thing and the nature of the OP. That, and just the general fucking dickishness of the tone.
Not his hypocrisy: his idiocy. He made a stupid argument. Other posters have been making fun of him by parroting his stupid argument back at him. The analogous portion is where we seize on one aspect of his situation and insist that it fully describes him, while petulently refusing to even consider that there might be mitigating circumstances.
The phrase, “You reap what you sow,” means that one has received the just desserts of their earlier actions. There is not a lot of room for nuance in that phrase. It means, plainly and clearly, that one deserves what ever misfortune they receive. In an interesting but not terribly convincing feat of mental gymnastics, MrDibble has claimed that he was referring specifically to Hinkle not getting his bonus. Leaving aside the fact that this phrase makes no sense when applied to that portion of Hinkle’s situation, he’s plainly stating* that Hinkle (and his entire family) deserve to lose their homes and live in poverty.
(*Actually, he was plainly saying that Hinkle deserved his wounds, but MrDibble is apparently attempting to convince us that that was a function of him being too dumb to communicate clearly. I see no reason to disbelieve him on this score.)
The only other poster I can think of who would voice an opinion as manifestly fucked up as the one MrDibble has posted here is Der Trihs, who is (tragically) an American. And he has received no end of grief over his similarly heartless comments about American service members. Casting this as “Americans v. foreigners” is neither accurate nor fair to the posters who have been genuinely disgusted by his cavalier attitude to the health and well being of another human being.
Says you.
You do drag on about these hypothetical “mitigating circumstances” - yet you refuse to address the basic argument. All you could offer was an ignorance defence, which I notice you haven’t returned to, either.
Specific misfortune - not getting your bonus.
If only that reference wasn’t in my very first post, you’d have a point.
If I’d come in gloating about his injuries like you and others wish/imagine I had, all of this argument would make a lot more sense.
How so? It seems to apply just fine to me. “no blood money” -> “reap what you sow”. Where’s the invisible disconnect that has me cackling at Hinkle’s injuries? I can’t see it, but everyone else seems to.
Gosh, if only there was a post where I’d plainly stated that that wasn’t what I’d said, and that they didn’t deserve it. If only you, the peanut gallery and others could read my previous posts, or even respond to them. But such sophisticated technology is beyond us, alas.
Yeah, Der Trihs gets the old apartheid tu quoque thrown at him all the time, doesn’t he? He’s just like me.
I like peanuts. That’s good eatin’ right there.
Me, and every single other poster to this thread other than cowgirl.
Funny, a few posts back you were saying that I was the only person in this thread who was addressing your basic argument.
And I haven’t returned to it because there’s nothing more to say on the subject. My position there doesn’t need further elaboration or clarification.
Yes, and you’re a bastard for gloating over it. I think I’ve been pretty clear on that point.
That is not, in fact, the most reasonable meaning one would arrive at from reading your first post. You’ve clarified what meaning you were aiming for - for all the difference it makes - but that meaning was not evident in your original post. That post was clearly saying that he deserved his injuries. Any disconnect between intended meaning and actual meaning is clearly a result of your own defeciencies.
Yes, I sure it does seem that way. To you. The rest of the English-literate world is getting a good laugh at you because of it.
And what does that tell you about your position and your ability to communicate it clearly?
See, the thing is, it is what you’ve said. You don’t have a problem with Hinkle not getting any more money out of his military service. Because he’s not getting any more money out his military service, his entire family is suffering. Therefore, you don’t have a problem with his entire family suffering. Which makes you a shitheel who can’t follow the basic logic of his own statements. You are, quite literally, too dumb to understand the words coming out of your own mouth.
And you accuse us of throwing around strawmen. :rolleyes:
argumentum ad populum
…and then you stopped responding in any sensible way. Your argument in favour of ignorance at least addressed my actual response.
…or you just haven’t got any valid response. My last point - ignorance is no defence against moral blame. Your response - some bullshit analogy about apartheid.
Nope - you seemed to think I was gloating over his injuries. Not clear at all.
Not necessarily - it could also be that you are primed for a circle-the-wagons approach. You didn’t ask me for clarity or restatement, you jumped straight to penciling me in as an asshole.
I’d hardly call your hordelet of your Me-Toos the rest of the English-literate world.
That Yanks don’t like having their troops’ moral goodness questioned? That you, as a supposed war opponent, still want your opposition to like you, as though the jocks who stuffed you in your locker could still be your buds? That you’ve seen the ire Der Trihs attracts and you’re scared to get the same treatment if you took a principle moral stance? That you’re displacing your guilt over your country’s immoral actions and angrily lashing out at me for pointing it out? I don’t know, I’m not psychic.
There is a difference between “No sympathy for their suffering” and “Gloating over his injuries”. But yeah, I don’t care what happens to his family. Don’t think they “deserve” it, but don’t think they “deserve” my sympathy either.
Like I said, I save my sympathy for innocents. Hinkle brought it on them. He’s not an innocent. They might be, but it wasn’t them I was addressing, it was him.
Odd that the only way you could attack the apparent illogic of my arguments was pointless analogies and ad hominems, isn’t it? You’d think if it was so illogical, you could point out the illogic in easy points. But no, you chose obfuscation. Face it, Socrates, you ain’t.
I understand them just fine. If only you didn’t keep inserting what you think I said, or meant, you might not have a problem either.
Do you even know what I said? I understand it was in ferrin’er talk and all, but there’s nothing strawman about it. This is not the first antiwar Pit thread where someone thought they were clever by dragging out Apartheid as soon as they find out I’m South African, like it’ll suddenly make me roll over or something. It always makes me laugh, because all it does is reveal who’s ignorance outweighs their intelligence. Like I’m supposed to feel guilty about what was done* to* me. Talk about blaming the innocent victim.
Which Hinkle is not.
:dubious:
MrDibble, how many people have to tell you “you are wrong” for you to even consider the notion that you might be, you know, wrong?
While I of all people certainly understand the glorious feeling of martyrdom that comes from grimly standing firm in the face of all opposition, the fact that even Der Trihs hasn’t chimed in with a “Me too, MrDibble!” should, at this point in the thread, give you some indication that maybe, just maybe, you might be less than “right” in this regard.
Or, as we say in some parts, “That boy ain’t right.”
Again with the appeal to popularity. That shit doesn’t fly with me. If people were actually to address my point, rather than flinging post-dated apartheid poo or just flat-out insulting me, I’d rethink. But even Miller gave up and went for bullshit non-arguments. I’ve stated my case quite clearly, more than once: Hinkle chose to take part in the wrongful occupation of Iraq, he doesn’t deserve my sympathy. If people show me what’s wrong with that simple statement, I’ll be most happy. Pointless and flat-out wrongheaded analogies don’t do it. Sidetracking it to his family doesn’t cut it. Attempting to play Socrates really doesn’t work either.
The only argument that might come close (that no-one’s actually stated flat out) is something like “Hinkle’s a human being and all human beings deserve our sympathy”, but as I’ve already stated, that’s not my default position.
Never Mind!
In my view, an understandable statement and position, given MrDibble’s view of the Iraq war.
I for one would be interested to see a cogent rebuttal to this, and only this, statement.