Anti-American sentiment

[papasmerf]

Slient,

Clearly anti-war does not mean anti-American.

But statements made by your elected officials and their appointed people have been anti-American.

I can not think of anyreason one would publicly insult the leader of a country, when they support th people of that country.

I can not think of one reason why an embassy would hold a Rally and as people to accept CLERICS over Revrands, in a decidely Christian community, if they support that community and nation.

 

[scubadoo]

Slient,

Clearly anti-war does not mean anti-American.

But statements made by your elected officials and their appointed people have been anti-American.

I can not think of anyreason one would publicly insult the leader of a country, when they support th people of that country.

I can not think of one reason why an embassy would hold a Rally and as people to accept CLERICS over Revrands, in a decidely Christian community, if they support that community and nation.

It's called politics Papa.

Can you really sit back and say that American officals haven't been slamming the franch, germans etc etc etc?

Polictics......it's a messy game.

 

[Liminal]

onus probandi??? That's what I been asking you to do...DUH! LOL!!

That's all I've been asking you to do all along. Feel relieved?

You might have a future as a comedian. I guess you thought using the Latin term for what I've been asking you to do might baffle some people. No such luck, this just makes you look more like a Poseur.

It's kind of pathetic to see you squirming like this.

In case you've quickly forgotten, this is an onus probandi example:
"But, rather than taking a hissy fit, try to explain and defend your postion. I've offered some very clear questions. Your stated postions are predicated on answers to these questions."

WFS, take this opportunity to explain and defend your position. If you had just answered my questions with a modicum of personal courage, this would be over for you now.

 

[Liminal]

Here is what I'm talking about...no substance

You asked me to look at your posts..this is what I found:

These examples comprise your entire post unless you simply cut and pasted an excerpt from a book/article. There is next to no original thinking. You obviously have no personal understanding of the concepts and piggyback on the work of others.


Example 1:
Capitalism doesn't need War, But Statism Does
http://www.freedomkeys.com/ar-rootsofwar.htm

Example 2:
Sorry for The Error
I have, by accident, conflated Winston's post with mine in the above quote. Obviously my response is:

Totally false. Here's a sound rebuttal of your view:
http://chronicle.com/free/v48/i35/35b00701.htm
Two Cheers for Colonialism By DINESH D'SOUZA

Example 3:
Are The Communists Organizing the "Peace" Protests?
Communist Peace Movements: Then and Now
By Stephen Schwartz
FrontPageMagazine.com | February 19, 2003

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Re...cle.asp?ID=6228

Example 4:
The Logic of Israel's Targeted Killing
by Gal Luft

http://www.meforum.org/article/515

U.N. Call for Palestinian State Spells
Suicide for Palestinians
Only individuals dedicated to freedom have a right to "self-determination" and to
create a state.
By Yaron Brook

http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/unpal.shtml

Example 5:
This is the Way to do it, *d*
http://www.georgejonas.ca/recent_writing.cfm?id=59

It's time for Kofi to get out of town
by George Jonas
National Post
January 29, 2003


This is why I think you are a Poseur.

Would you like another lesson? We might have to put you back a grade because you don't seem to have mastered some simple obligations.

 

[papasmerf]

It's called politics Papa.

Can you really sit back and say that American officals haven't been slamming the franch, germans etc etc etc?

Polictics......it's a messy game.

I think the most damning words about france and germany has come from france and germany.

Now that they seem to be groveling just a bit.

 

[Wired For Sound]

Liminal, A Pathetic Liar with nothing to Offer

Liminal,

what a truly sad individual. His (or her?) power comes from distorting and misrepresenting reality because he is a non-entity when it comes to any meaningful discussion. Liminal CAN'T offer us any arguments at all. Why? Good question. I think Liminal fears independent thought and projects his anger onto others in the form of smearing others with the concept: Poseur.

If anyone cares to examine my previous posts they will know who is telling the truth. I've offered several arguments about so many of things without quoting others. True, at times, in addition to my arguments, I've offered links to other peoples articles, or books, that provide good arguments that defend *my* position. It odd, but indeed true, Liminal is clueless to the concept: references. Liminal drops context in order to continue his ad hominem attack.

This lying bastard, doesn't care to represent the facts because he has never offered us any really arguments at all. Poor child, it's not hard to prove this. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.

But, at this point, Liminal has made a fool of himself. He is caught in the self refuting logic of his own definition."... A Poseur is someone who takes a free ride on the accomplishments of others." And Liminal tells us this by taking a "free ride" by using using the English Language. What a Poseur!

Given my distinction between using an authority(who are judged credible only to the extent that they themselves can use reason to prove their propostion), and appealing to an authority; if Liminal attempts mental gymnastics to weasel his way out, he's also caught in the rationally justifiable use of an authority. Why? Because humans are not omniscient. This needs to be repeated. Please repeat it a thousand times, Liminal.

Oh and your understanding of onus probandi is laughable. I hope you can also disprove that a Green Leprechaun is dancing on my shoulder. "There are no Leprechauns", you would say. Oh really?, prove they don't exist.


I have to wonder: If Liminal is male, is intellectual impotence his only problem?

 

[submissivedave]

SilentLeviathan, I like your name ... very political scien-cy ...

BTW, I think Hobbes is cool ...

SD

 

[SilentLeviathan]

Slient,

Clearly anti-war does not mean anti-American.

But statements made by your elected officials and their appointed people have been anti-American.

I can not think of anyreason one would publicly insult the leader of a country, when they support th people of that country.

I can not think of one reason why an embassy would hold a Rally and as people to accept CLERICS over Revrands, in a decidely Christian community, if they support that community and nation.

I am glad to see that you recognize that an anti-war stance is not anti-American. This latest war seems to have really polarized people. Unless you support it you are deemed anti-American. Now this is not universally true, but seems to be the prevailing attitude.

I think that the statements made the elected officals in question were in very poor taste. I think that those who made the remarks should have been disciplined more severly. Persoanal attacks are attacks of the lowest calibre.

That said, I believe that the personal attacks are not a sign of hatred towards the American people. Rather, they are a sign of frustration towards perceived stubberness and single-mindedness of the current admistration's view that war was the only possible solution to the current situation.

I'm not too sure what rally you are referring to, but I would assume that it would have something to do with encouraging people toview Muslims in a positive light. One thing you may or may not realize, Canada is a much more secular society than America. While we are both Christian majorities, religion does not play anywhere as big of a role in Canadian politics as it does in America.

SilentLeviathan, I like your name ... very political scien-cy ...

BTW, I think Hobbes is cool ...

SD

Thanks

 

[papasmerf]

Slver,

On 9-11-02 the Canadian Embassy held a ralley in Buffalo's La Sales park. The Ralley, of course was to be a memorial for 9-11-01. While portions of this event were supportive the closing invocation was done by a Mulim Clearic. He came out and began prying in Arabic. I felt this was a slap in the face to the 3000 plus who died and suffered on 9-11-01. A very disrespectful move by the Canadian government. By the presence of our local political leaders made it appear that they were also responcible for the ralley. But upon investigation it was the Canadian Embassy that arranged the program.

 

[Liminal]

Wired, calm down, no one is asking you about Leprechauns!

Just explain the original assertions that you put forward in this thread.

See what clear and concise communication is like?

 

[train]

While portions of this event were supportive the closing invocation was done by a Mulim Clearic. He came out and began prying in Arabic. I felt this was a slap in the face to the 3000 plus who died and suffered on 9-11-01. A very disrespectful move by the Canadian government

Look , it probably wasn't the brightest thing for the Embassy to do , but it is obvious from your reaction that you have transferred a healthy hate for terrorists to an unhealthy hate for all muslims . I'm pretty sure it was not meant as disrespect .

Canadian politicians have this naive view of the world sometimes where they want everyone to " play nice " and don't want to offend anyone American or Muslim .

 

[Liminal]

You don't use references, you subcontract the thinking to others

Most of your posts consist of links to others. You want others to do the reading, thinking, writing, and debating for you.

And from seeing your hysterical response to a simple request for you to explain your original assertions, doing the work yourself is not something you have the intellectual horsepower to do.

Talk of leprechauns, my gender, impotence, projecting anger, and omniscience is nothing but out of control bluster. It's silly and juvenile.

I was hoping you would be capable of calm, reasoned debate. I suppose the message is: Don't expect Wire to understand or defend his assertions.

You are sort of a papasmerf character...no, that's unfair. You are like papasmerf if he had access to a dictionary.

 

[SouthernMan]

In Simple Terms

Americans are proud of their Country.

Canadians are proud of their Country.

The war is a subject that is best looked at as something we can agree to disagree about. There will always be those to the Left and there will always be those to the Right.

What we are here for is the seeking out of pleasure carried out by the eternal Quest for Strange Pussy. So let's all have fun and seek out the SP that rocks your world, at least till the next one comes along.

 

[guelph]

Slver,

On 9-11-02 the Canadian Embassy held a ralley in Buffalo's La Sales park. The Ralley, of course was to be a memorial for 9-11-01. While portions of this event were supportive the closing invocation was done by a Mulim Clearic. He came out and began prying in Arabic. I felt this was a slap in the face to the 3000 plus who died and suffered on 9-11-01. A very disrespectful move by the Canadian government. By the presence of our local political leaders made it appear that they were also responcible for the ralley. But upon investigation it was the Canadian Embassy that arranged the program.

Why do you think that it was disrespectful? Can a Muslim Cleric not feel regret for the deaths? I do not understand why this is disrespectul?

 

[Cardinal Fang]

Re: Dear Wired for Sound......

You know nothing of fighting for freedom, other than from watching T.V. in the comfort of Canada.

People that live in glass houses should never throw stones Selina.

 

[papasmerf]

Look , it probably wasn't the brightest thing for the Embassy to do , but it is obvious from your reaction that you have transferred a healthy hate for terrorists to an unhealthy hate for all muslims . I'm pretty sure it was not meant as disrespect .

Canadian politicians have this naive view of the world sometimes where they want everyone to " play nice " and don't want to offend anyone American or Muslim .

No Actually i have no hate for Muslim, Jews, Christian or you name it.

I found it to be offencive from the POV of a comunity bound together in 9-11 and a decidedly a community of Christians. BTW check out Lakawana NY just up the road from buffalo

 

[Wired For Sound]

Entering into the middle of a continuing Debate

Just explain the original assertions that you put forward in this thread.

See what clear and concise communication is like?

I apologize to others about one thing, I've been a member of Terb since Aug 2001, and over the years I have debated several people about many issues. This is known to all the older members. Liminal is somewhat correct based on his limited information (But, there's nothing wrong with linking to someone elses argument. It doesn't necessarily mean that you can't, or will not, think for yourself, it could be, lack of time, or that they have a made a good case for *your* view. I know many intellectuals that do the same thing once in while. ) Most of the threads can no longer be found by doing a search. E.g. I had some really good debates with Dr Gonzo.

As for his questions asked of me earlier in the thread, I've also debated Selina and other leftists over the years. And this issue of the Iraq War, Peace movements. 9-11 and it's aftermath, Leftist ideology, "Collective" rights vs individual (natural) rights, has been an ongoing discussion since the birth of the Lounge.

Let me explain my lack of compliance, with an example. Imagine, someone entering into a conversation half way. And further -- imagine that he decides to ask you to cover old ground, yet again, without offering any substance because he's too cowardly to take a stand himself. He accuses you of logic errors without giving evidence and then introduces himself to you with an ad hominem attack.(Liminal will re-invent the wheel very shortly.) You would probably think: How dare this person accuse me of something I know to be false. Furthermore, he also refuses to take a stand himself, less he open himself up to criticism.

So, you may conclude, as I have: I will refuse to play his game. He's a coward. Until he is willing to take a stand himself and open himself up to criticism, like he wants others to do, I will not go over old ground for him.

Providing Liminal a justification for my assertions about *others* is not a moral obligation. He seethes with borrowed anger. Liminal, they know *my* arguments and their slience up until now does prove my point. (As much as I disagree with Selina, she does take a stand, I've said this before). I know you don't believe me, Limina, and I say: so what. I know this to be the case. Why I bother to respond to you has more to do with the fact that I truly think you have a malevolent nihilistic hate for those who oppose the left. You want to discredit them, not by the use of reason, but by the use of ad hominem attacks.

 

[Liminal]

Can you please explain this sentence - this would be a good start!

Wired, you are at your loquacious worst. You could use an editor, if only to get rid of the fat and reveal your true points.

But, I'd like you to explain the first sentence of your latest post:

"I apologize to others about one thing, I've been a member of Terb since Aug 2001, and over the years I have debated several people about many issues.

What are you apologizing for? You don't even complete the sentence correctly. Are you apologizing to everyone for being a TERB member?

You may be trying to say something here but you are not good at it.

May I suggest that answering my questions about your assertions will be a good opportunity for you to work on your sentence and paragraph construction. Making clear and concise communication your goal will help you understand your own positions far more and help expose weaknesses in your arguments before others discover them.

You may be offended by that, but it's good advice.

Again, all this talk about malevolence, nihilism, the left, and cowardice is plain silly.

 

[gryfin]

Let's be accurate, Wired

I've got to take issue with your characterization or, what might be termed, revisionism.

You said in your last post:

"Let me explain my lack of compliance, with an example. Imagine, someone entering into a conversation half way. And further -- imagine that he decides to ask you to cover old ground, yet again, without offering any substance because he's too cowardly to take a stand himself."

It was not half-way through a conversation - it was in response to your first post! Liminal challenged your extreme assertions quite legitimately.

You were not being asked by Liminal to explain your positions again. It was his first time asking you to do so. Again, you made extreme assertions without a shred of explanation or evidence.

As for ad hominem attacks, you seem to be in a league of your own. Justifying your assertions is a healthy part of any debate. It's something you should have taken up happily.