anti-protest humor with a lot of good quotes (MP3)
- Thread starter Legion
- Start date
Then why'd you do it? *boggle*kyleb said:
Joe DeFuria
Legend
kyleb said:
Hrumph.
I guess one man's sound logic is another man's sophistry....
kyleb said:
To clarify: calling an opinion "sophistry" is a convenient, yet piss poor, way of avoiding discussing an issue and denigrating the other party at the same time.
Perhaps my sarcasm didn't drip far enough the last time.
Hrm, I always thought that sophistry was a study that teaches its students to argue any point successfully. I believe that it was a line of study in ancient Greece that these people were hired upon completion to write or create arguments for politicians or the wealthy in order they may be able to get a desired outcome. It did not matter if the argument was truthful or not and the students were trained to confuse their opponents or outright prove the premise of their opponent was wrong. In reality though the work does not pursue the truth and this is why so many hate a sophist.
that is basically Sabastion, aside from the fact that distaste for sophists is has never been particularly wide spread. the majority tends not to be bemused by such things and hence have little opinion one way or the other; while those of the few often belong to consortiums that find such practices as effective tools to meet their goals. in the days of Greece such techniques went generally unchallenged; and those who chose too speak up were often compelled to drink of the hemlock, or some similar fait. also, much of the field of law and politics, as well as media and advertising, are rife with sophistry even today; i have seen some comments that are destined to become classic examples from Donald Rumsfeld recently.
oh and Russ, i understood you the first time. if you find it denigrating to have your arguments labeled as sophistry, i recommend you lay off the rhetoric, at least when dealing with people who are versed in the subject but chose not to involve themselves with it anyway. if you have never formally studied the subject, i highly recommend you look into it. Protagoras is the first and probably the best example and Gorgias as well, particularly his essay "On Non-Being" which i pointed out last time we came upon this subject, which give a good basis by which to understand how the technique is applied in more modern times.
oh and Russ, i understood you the first time. if you find it denigrating to have your arguments labeled as sophistry, i recommend you lay off the rhetoric, at least when dealing with people who are versed in the subject but chose not to involve themselves with it anyway. if you have never formally studied the subject, i highly recommend you look into it. Protagoras is the first and probably the best example and Gorgias as well, particularly his essay "On Non-Being" which i pointed out last time we came upon this subject, which give a good basis by which to understand how the technique is applied in more modern times.
kyleb, I didn't notice anyone attempting to be a sophist. There is no one here playing that game AFAIK. Russ was not playing sophist AFAICT. Clearly he believes that the girl(as do I.) was lacking in any sort of legitimate answer to the Iraqi mans question. BTW I don't sense a sophist in your postings either.
Your outright dismissal of the interpretation that Russ suggested is not any sort of defence/rebuttal of his position but rather a shameful attempt at changing the subject which is that the young lady was not able to give the Iraqi a legitimate solution to regime change in Iraq. What we have listened to is not an unusual event but rather common as well as an inditement of the poor logic the young lady clearly supports in her attempt to support the anti war protest.
The military action was indeed even in retrospect clearly the best/most expedient way to solve a variety of problems not only for the Iraqi people but for the sake of mid east stability not to mention substantial action against terrorism by the US. That my friend has become painfully clear to most any whom opposed the war and the removal of the Saddam regime in the most embarrassing sort of way, they were flat out wrong.
Your outright dismissal of the interpretation that Russ suggested is not any sort of defence/rebuttal of his position but rather a shameful attempt at changing the subject which is that the young lady was not able to give the Iraqi a legitimate solution to regime change in Iraq. What we have listened to is not an unusual event but rather common as well as an inditement of the poor logic the young lady clearly supports in her attempt to support the anti war protest.
The military action was indeed even in retrospect clearly the best/most expedient way to solve a variety of problems not only for the Iraqi people but for the sake of mid east stability not to mention substantial action against terrorism by the US. That my friend has become painfully clear to most any whom opposed the war and the removal of the Saddam regime in the most embarrassing sort of way, they were flat out wrong.
sophistry consists of things like semantic arguments such as the claim that "it doesn't" is an answer and not a lack of one as i positioned earlier, as well as acts of rhetoric such as constructing a set of guidelines by which a person is intitled to have an opinion in order to discredit it. also, claiming that a situation provides justification for the means by which it was reached over alternatives that were dismissed is another act of rhetoric, although i can see how one might find it more comforting to believe otherwise.
MrsSkywalker
Newcomer
kyleb, I love the irony of your last few posts! You made up a definition of sophistry that turned you into a sophist, according to your definitions of the term. You don't think that you use rhetoric in your posts? You don't see how this whole line of argument is rhetoric??
In actuality, you are incorrect in your comprehension of sophistry. In very basic terms, in order to be a sophist, one must have knowledge or forethought that they are being deceitful. They have to know that they are lying, and then presenting the info as bona fide fact despite their knowledge. Rhetoric isn't always an example of sophistry, and opinion is certainly not sophistry. I don't know where your definitions came from, but you seem to be trying to make a simple concept turn into a large, complicated, lost art form. It's really quite simple. As far as literature on the subject goes, it's probably the biggest form of sophistry there is. It's a basic concept which theorists and phillosophers and professors try to make complex. It's like all of those pretentious art majors who look for deeper meaning in a photo of a duck. Sometimes a duck really is just a duck. Sophistry is just presenting an argument which appears to be valid, while knowing it is not. The art form comes in the way you go about convincing people you are right, not in the actual definition.
Russ was not being a sophist, and you were not being a sophist. You made a poor attempt to change the subject by insulting someone when you had no valid response. You got busted. Let the sophistry crap go.
If you have a valid response to the question the Iraqi refugee asked, hell, if ANYONE does, I'd love to hear it. I haven't heard one yet. So here's the question again, as a refresher:
How could peace be obtained in Iraq without removing Saddam Hussein?
In actuality, you are incorrect in your comprehension of sophistry. In very basic terms, in order to be a sophist, one must have knowledge or forethought that they are being deceitful. They have to know that they are lying, and then presenting the info as bona fide fact despite their knowledge. Rhetoric isn't always an example of sophistry, and opinion is certainly not sophistry. I don't know where your definitions came from, but you seem to be trying to make a simple concept turn into a large, complicated, lost art form. It's really quite simple. As far as literature on the subject goes, it's probably the biggest form of sophistry there is. It's a basic concept which theorists and phillosophers and professors try to make complex. It's like all of those pretentious art majors who look for deeper meaning in a photo of a duck. Sometimes a duck really is just a duck. Sophistry is just presenting an argument which appears to be valid, while knowing it is not. The art form comes in the way you go about convincing people you are right, not in the actual definition.
Russ was not being a sophist, and you were not being a sophist. You made a poor attempt to change the subject by insulting someone when you had no valid response. You got busted. Let the sophistry crap go.
If you have a valid response to the question the Iraqi refugee asked, hell, if ANYONE does, I'd love to hear it. I haven't heard one yet. So here's the question again, as a refresher:
How could peace be obtained in Iraq without removing Saddam Hussein?
Most of the peace needed in Iraq couldve been had thru the forceful diplomacy used to gain control for the oil for food program as most of the deaths incured since post 91 are from the sanctions then the misshandling of the oil for food by Saddam.
Some could argue that Saddam might not have given in to that but him having almost completely given in to the last inspections regime because of forceful diplomacy say otherwise.
Dictators have their 'fanatical' phase which wanes over time... as they get older. They remain still dangerous and repressive no doubt but nowhere as bad as they used to be. Stalin was nowhere as bad in the late 40's as he was in the 20's and 30's.
But the question again doesnt deal with other issues at hand. I almost always answer back to the Iraqi that he is partially right BUT what would he do or say if such and such happens... if clash of civilizations happens... if a serious wmd attack happens and instead of a few thousand more iraqis to be oppressed that we see millions of Iraqis die in an enlarged conflict... Not to mention others in the area or in the west... how could we justify the Iraqi invasion then if something worse than Saddams -present- dictatorship happens as a consequence to the war... I say present as Saddams recent repression was a shadow of its former self. Still bad but nowhere what it was up till the uprising in 91...
Some could argue that Saddam might not have given in to that but him having almost completely given in to the last inspections regime because of forceful diplomacy say otherwise.
Dictators have their 'fanatical' phase which wanes over time... as they get older. They remain still dangerous and repressive no doubt but nowhere as bad as they used to be. Stalin was nowhere as bad in the late 40's as he was in the 20's and 30's.
But the question again doesnt deal with other issues at hand. I almost always answer back to the Iraqi that he is partially right BUT what would he do or say if such and such happens... if clash of civilizations happens... if a serious wmd attack happens and instead of a few thousand more iraqis to be oppressed that we see millions of Iraqis die in an enlarged conflict... Not to mention others in the area or in the west... how could we justify the Iraqi invasion then if something worse than Saddams -present- dictatorship happens as a consequence to the war... I say present as Saddams recent repression was a shadow of its former self. Still bad but nowhere what it was up till the uprising in 91...
MrsSkywalker
Newcomer
While most of your post was at least coherent (still wrong, IMO, but coherent), which is more than most of the "peaceful negotiations" supporters, I cannot even believe you said this. "Yes, let's do nothing...they are just Iraqis, it's ok to let them suffer a few more decades until Saddam's too senile to realize he signed a peace accord." No offense, but that opinion quite literally turns my stomach. Have you not watched the news and seen for yourself the torture chambers? Did you not listen to the various MP3s people have posted containing discussions with Iraqi refugees? You you are telling me that you honestly feel that we should have waitied until Saddam mellowed in his old age???
He's not a dying relative everyone hovers around waiting for their inheiritence. He was a ruthless dictator, whose regime, in fact, was getting MORE brutal the older he got. It is more than a little puerile to assume that he'd calm down in his golden years. It was a chance I don't think any Iraqi is sorry we didn't take.
We all understand how bad Saddam was. But the truth is in the last few years things had pretty mucvh quieted down. Saddam even made sure Udai the crazy one of his two sons wouldnt inherit power. Its not about justifying Saddams rule . Its putting it in perspective of the consequences that were put forward by many analysts and CIA ect...
The regimes brutality was much worse in the past than now... You have to look at the whole picture. Its like saying we should have gone to war versus Russia over Cuba... Was it so bad that some missiles were in Cuba that we should have invaded it with nuclear missiles read to launch?
To lose a small communist dictatorship in Cuba with its small number of missiles was a good enough reason to justify nuclear war? Or in the case of Iraq a biological attack (so far thankfully averted) as retaliation? Im sure many Iraqis are happy we took the the chance. Some exiles did come forward to say however that they thought the chances were too great and didnt want war on their country. But to objectively examine the chances taken is what Im asking for here...
As for doing nothing I never said anything of the sort. We could have continued forceful diplomacy. If we could open every door in the country with forceful diplomacy to inspectors we most likely could have taken over the oil for food program and maybe even the jails over human rights issues. The inspectors were walking into every building in the country for months before the war without any warning at any time they chose.
The fact the regime accepted the inspections regime last november tells me it was weak in the first place... the fact we knew it didnt even control much of the northern part of the country tells me that as well
pax said:
What do you think we just did? Forceful diplomacy to gain control of the oil for food program, indeed.
I beg to differ. Everything I've read on the subject says otherwise, that Cusay was the heir apparent. Uday was a loose cannon playboy with an uncontrollable temper, who was partially paralyzed in an assassination attempt in '96. Cusay is the cold, mean bastard who commands the Republican Guard and Hussein's special police, and who Hussein intends to succeed him. Here's the latest, straight from Uday's personal letters discovered in one of his palaces in Baghdad:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101030421-443114,00.html
pax said:
The Soviet Union placed nuclear missiles in Cuba that could hit Washington within 12 minutes of launch, and New York within 15 minutes. They could have wiped our capital and our largest city off the face of the earth practically instantaneously. Before that point in history, the USSR had no missiles whatsoever that could hit the US, only Western Europe. Those Cuban missiles threatened to alter the entire balance of power, against the US. So yes, Kennedy was exactly right to stand up to that threat.
pax said:
You haven't been reading any testaments on that issue from the inspectors themselves. Read these, then try to claim that the inspectors had full, anytime access to any site in Iraq they wanted:
http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/1998/mj98/mj98albright.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/unscom/interviews/ritter.html
(don't miss the part about the "Agriculture Ministry Incident")
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/unscom/interviews/butler.html
There is enough anecdotal evidence straight from the UNSCOM and UNMOVIC team members floating around the web to convince even the most hardened sceptic that Iraq has never ceased obstructing the weapons inspectors, even in the face of US invasion the past half year. If you want more, just Google Scott Ritter or David Albright, for starters.
MrsSkywalker said:
Going a little bit OT, and not only directed to you, but I've noticed this in several discussions here, especially from people who do not support aforementioned "peaceful negotiations". Is it really necessary to belittle most of the people who have a different opinion in such an arrogant way?
Lezmaka said:
ya, i know about the dictionary definitions, but you and MrsSkywalker might want to hit up the library and read up on the subject sometime if you are interested in seeing how it actually is more than a simple concept and most definitely a large, complicated, albeit far from lost and only debabtably an "artform." also, just because one does not understand the practice well enough to understand that they are engaging in it does not change the fact that they are doing so to serve a purpose; regardless of the fact that one can argue otherwise.
MrsSkywalker
Newcomer
When we debate on topics for which we are passionate, then sometimes arrogance does find it's way into our tone. But it isn't just us "warmongers" who do it...I think you will find that at some point EVERYONE takes on an arrogent tone, whether it's to get the point across, to illustrate our strong feelings, or, in some cases, as a last ditch attempt to win the argument.
You want to see arrogance and belittling? Start up a topic that just says, "I like the US".
FBG1 I tihnk its a pretty weak understanding of the actual nature of the arms race not to mention overstateent to say the missiles in Cuba couldve have altered the balance of power... The same threat was even worse a couple years later with nuke subs... and there was no such change in the balance. Nukes at 30 min or 12 doesnt make a strategic diff.
The invasion of Iraq was not forceful diplomacy. Forceful diplomacy couldve been had in stages and even involved military engagements tho not all or nothing invasion that was actually done. Ill let you read oup on it for yourself. The idea all out war can be called diplomacy makes no sense to me.
Did Iraq keep on playing games before the war? Yeah but outright obstruction wasnt the case... it was hide and seek and some sneeking around but nowhere what it was before the 98 halt to inspections. And the idea Bush has that diplomacy is "do this or else all out war" is not the kind of diplomacy Im interested in seeing much of on the international stage.
Snyder Im so used that kind of talk here and online that I basically indulge in it far too often myself hhe.. then again I dont think theres a newsgroup Ive ever been in that didnt have the debate degenerate to some degree by both sides of an issue... You grow an armor so thick after a while that such comments bounce off harmlessly... now if I could only believe that myself so I can stop doing the same damn thing :\ hhhe... Been online since march 94 and actually indulged in some bbs way back as early as 1983 on 300 baud modem (tho the phone charges to the local university back then were hell)... Still I can tell you talking down to someone is almost universal online...
The invasion of Iraq was not forceful diplomacy. Forceful diplomacy couldve been had in stages and even involved military engagements tho not all or nothing invasion that was actually done. Ill let you read oup on it for yourself. The idea all out war can be called diplomacy makes no sense to me.
Did Iraq keep on playing games before the war? Yeah but outright obstruction wasnt the case... it was hide and seek and some sneeking around but nowhere what it was before the 98 halt to inspections. And the idea Bush has that diplomacy is "do this or else all out war" is not the kind of diplomacy Im interested in seeing much of on the international stage.
Snyder Im so used that kind of talk here and online that I basically indulge in it far too often myself hhe.. then again I dont think theres a newsgroup Ive ever been in that didnt have the debate degenerate to some degree by both sides of an issue... You grow an armor so thick after a while that such comments bounce off harmlessly... now if I could only believe that myself so I can stop doing the same damn thing :\ hhhe... Been online since march 94 and actually indulged in some bbs way back as early as 1983 on 300 baud modem (tho the phone charges to the local university back then were hell)... Still I can tell you talking down to someone is almost universal online...
MrsSkywalker
Newcomer
And what makes you think I haven't? Just because I don't go around quoting essays and authors as the basis for my opinion does not mean I'm uneducated.
You think sophistry is some huge, complicated subject. I personally find it to be an extremely simple concept, and no amount of reading on the subject has changed that opinion. Everyone has subjects that they just "get", and everyone has subjects which they struggle with...for me, that would be calculus. I'm not a math minded person
There are a thousand ways to bake an apple pie. Everyone has their own unique style, different spice, special way of slicing the apples...that doesn't change the basic concept that they are making an apple pie. There are a thousand ways to practice sophistry in debates, but that doesn't change the basic concept that they are trying to win an argument with deceit. I could read a million essays on the various methods of pie baking, but that would not change my opinion that a pie is a pie. I could read a million essays on sophistry, but that would not change my opinion that a lie is a lie.
Wow. How Dr. Suess was that?
