Vince said:
demalion said:
Hey, I did ask you to reply to my first post, Vince. Is that going to happen, or is my viewpoint stated too clearly to practice this level of sophistry?
Reply to what, and I shall respond.
Is it the "my first post" or the "reply to" that is tripping you up? That's as polite as I can ask such a question about a statement so simple.
Or did you mistype something?
You keep implying that I have this "self worth" type complex, but yet, you're the one whose trying your best to talk down on me.
I'm not implying that you have a "self worth" type complex, I'm stating it. I quoted what you said that made me think so, and pointed out why. Of course, it isn't fallacious at all to avoid addressing that by accusing me of talking down to you, is it?
You wouldn't be talking down to me, would you, and living up to your "proof by implication" attempt above? Did you get distracted between typing the above and this?
stop using "sophistry" as your implying that my argument is capable of being true,
Eh? I'm implying that your argument is capable of
resembling truth...well, not to me, but that's besides the point. When I corrected your definition the first time, it would have been nice if you read it instead of making me correct the new one you made up.
in which case without you demonstrating how it's wrong or fallicious you're indirectly confirming that I'm de facto correct.
Heh, arguing that you aren't practicing sophistry, by practicing sophistry. Nice one.
Let's see, your statement
resembles the structure of premise, support, and conclusion, but if I said "You say you exist, yet I've never seen you, therefore it is indirectly confirmed that you don't exist" that doesn't mean I'm making sense. Are you a Chimp at a keyboard? Artificial Intelligence plotting the downfall of humanity? Until I was willing to meet you myself (presuming I believed my eyes, or didn't think you were someone hired to pretend you were Vince), how would you go about proving me wrong by your criteria?
Hey, isn't sophistry fun? Maybe you should take kyleb up on his reading suggestions?
demalion said:
Ayep, I suspect because you pissed him off. I know your rants about patriotism piss me off.
It's ok, vent... tell us how you really feel. I got pissy because he arbitrarily injected me into this thread. You on the other hand seem to just have some problems.
I told you what my specific problems are...with you, and pages of text later you still seem intent on dodging around it.
No, you "had" to state something due to your own opinion of your self worth being greater than what you think he is entitled to. An opinion which I do not share. I'm not sure anyone else does, to tell you the truth, so it seems an unproductive feeling to allow to govern your actions.
I have an opinion about everything, in ever forum on this board.
Seems natural.
But, I don't post them, hardly the modus operandi of the person you portrey me to be.
Did you just say you don't post your opinions?
OK, first possibility is that you meant that statement exactly and are completely delusionial.
Second possibility is that you meant you don't post them
all, in which case I direct you to the ones you
do post.
The problem is, only the first possibility would refute what I said in even the smallest degree.
I hardly have this so called "self-worth" complex, but rather was putting his remarks into context in the same tongue-in-cheek/sarcastic/piercing way as he injected the first comment into this thread.
Oh, your draft dodging commentary were tongue in cheek? Is that why you defended them to me
like this
So, please... if you want to be Opera, do it to someone else.
"be Opera"? Hmm...well, our discussion is emotional, and though it doesn't seem all that dramatic to me a case could definitely be made. I'll accept that label from you, if you recognize that the post of yours I replied to set the tone. How about that?
So...you really didn't "have" to include the reply you did, did you? So the justification for it isn't a self-evident fact, but rests on something that might be disputed...which, in fact, I am taking the time to dispute.
I had to include the reply for the same reason he put me into this thread in the first place.
If I'm this egotistical, "self-worth" dominated guy, why didn't I go off on someone like Pascal? Because he wasn't a blatent ass about it and I repect him and his views.
But, you did go off on someone like Pascal. Is this an example of your "respect"?
What you stated was that you had to make a comment because you were pissed off, and that Humus didn't have the right to criticize you. What I take issue with is not the decision to comment, but the idea that you can throw around your evaluation of his right to criticize you under the blanket of worthiness-by-patriotism you seek to assign yourself. In fact, I seem to recall that I stated that the idea sort of disgusted me to the point of sickness. I understand you don't agree that is chauvanism, I just happen to think you haven't shown that belief to be valid, and have in fact demonstrated the opposite. Would be nice if we could have had a discussion about the text I provided, but you seem to have skipped around it for some reason.
Hey, feel like taking another gander at my
first post?.
Hardly the same for Humus and his views.
Yes, the way you "went off" on pascal is different in that post, though the underlying "put down" approach seems to be consistent. Nonetheless, it would seem your premise is incorrect.
Now, back to your patriotism comments.
Avoiding the draft is not necessarily treason, nor is protesting a war in progress treason, even if it is politically inconvenient. Though I'm sure politicians approve of such sentiments in times of war.
We can discuss whether it is legal or not (though Humus quite clearly stated his exemption is legal), or moral or not (though Humus has stated the moral impetus that would compel him to serve and in what capacity), but neither have to do with whether people can speak their mind about patriotism or war.
It strikes me that your regard of military service as being the only form of support and defense is a simplification resulting from not having served and having reflected on who and what in your country aided you in your ability to do so.
I certainly consider the politicians and policy makers to be the rightful focus of (verbal) wrath for disapproval of a war, and believe it or not, military personnel are capable of sharing that sentiment even when performing their duties.
Imagine that, someone going off to fight while sympathizing with the sentiments of peace protestors at home...miliatry personnel thinking the draft would be wrong but yet
enlisting themselves to make sure a draft isn't necessary...
Where do you fit in all this, Vince?
Sort of complicates things a bit beyond "you won't submit to the draft, so you shouldn't be heard and should be deported", don't you think?
I know you claimed you were being sarcastic with your reply to my comment about complexity, but you've consistently failed to address such issues.
What makes you stand out to me, Vince, is that you fail to address issues while practicing your often-used, self-aggrandizing, put-down laden way of making a point, and are doing it under the self appointed banner of "patriotism".
Hey, I just repeated the sentiments of my first post! Maybe you'll reply now?
If you'd read his post again, I'd think you might recognize that it's possible that it isn't the issue of pride and coherency among people to which he is opposed, but the attitudes and posturing people like yourself turn it into with the excuse of geographical borders.
Geographical how? I make no distinction between any group or entity aslong as they share a common bond, a common goal, a common nucleus of support.
Then why do you continue to lambast Humus for stating he would defend ideals, but has no interest in defending borders? Do my comments about taking you at your word make sense to you yet?
This is one barrier between our understanding that results from the set of certainties you consider to be absolutely true: you don't think that the way you carry on fits his concerns at all. I, someone who would only hesitate to call myself a patriot due to the behavior of people who use the label as you do, do not think he would be wrong to think that way about you.
Care to explain to me, in anyway, how this has to deal with my paragraph detailing
MY OPINION ("no doubt in my mind") on the effects of the 20th centuries conflicts and chauvinistic regimes?
Hmm? Look at the colon. Before it, I indicate there is a certainty on your part that is a barrier to communication. After it, I describe that certainty (that your promotion of national patriotism over personal morality doesn't fit his idea of how he should regard his nation). Then I end the sentence. Then I proceed to quote a description of chauvanism that fits such regimes, and your behavior, in my view.
Then you proceeded to confirm that, indeed, your certainty in that regard was a barrier, as you ask me to explain how what I had just stated related in any way to your paragraph.
Or are you going to stoop to such a level to chastise me for saying "no doubt in my mind" (as opposed to "No doubt") instead of IMHO? Get a hobby.
Or is it just that you didn't read the initial sentence very carefully?
Do I dare quote an excerpt from the definition of chauvinism?
Note: To have a generous belief in the greatness of one's country is not chauvinism. It is the character of the latter quality to be wildly extravagant, to be fretful and childish and silly, to resent a doubt as an insult, and to offend by its very frankness. --Prof. H. Tuttle.
Hmm.. wanted to see if this was part of a larger selection and google.com sent me to dictionary.com and hyperdictionary.com. (as well as a UofC pageon Tuttle
) Which leads me to believe that while you were looking up the word, you passed up the obvious defintion (eg. the one people who use the word use it for) which is:
No, I didn't pass it up, I looked for a specific quotation that dealt specifically with chauvanism in the context being discussed.
"Prejudiced belief in the superiority of one's own gender, group, or kind"
Do you see group and kind in that general definition? I see group and kind in that general definition. Do you see how that precludes the applicability of my specific discussion? I
don't see how that precludes the applicability of my specific discussion. But it sure was fun to explain something plainly stated again to you in lieu of actually discussing it.
I think you need to stop spinning the linguistics and start using some common sence as you just proved my point.
Really?
Tuttle was obviously distinguishing between Patriotism and Chauvinism - in defense of people such as Humus, who has lumped Patriotism in the group and has taken an anti-nationalistic PoV.
Hey, I guess there is hope that we are reading the same text. Didn't you catch that I would dispute Humus' attack on patriotism as well? The difference is simply that I view your behavior as chauvanism. I could have sworn I had just said that, but it is easy to lose track in all the run around.
If you were reading what I wrote, it [chauvinism] was being used to describe the rise of Nazism and Communism in the 20th century. A term that aptly describes them.
And aptly describes you, as I rather plainly stated.
Before you blow a gasket, an incomplete list of terms that aptly describe them (allocate as appropriate) that do
not aptly describe you, AFAIK, are "genocidal", "racial supremacist", "german", "communist", "oppressive". I include the last because you aren't a government yet.
So have I, but we were talking about you. The nature of my disagreement with him would be that I don't think a patriot necessarily ends up behaving as I perceive you to.
Ohh, I see... we're talking about me now. So, is this some sort of witch-hunt or what?
Err...no. Perhaps if you go back and read the "colon" sentence explanation, you can see why. You did realize I'm quoting your text for a reason, right?
You've just agreed to the basis of my argument with Humus;
With the way I define patriotism perhaps, not the way you define patriotism for yourself by your own words here and elsewhere.
and the reason I brought up his draft-dodging nature when he threw the Patriotism charge at me.
See what I mean?
For some people patriotism means nationalism (and the dictionary supports them by listing it as a synonym).
For some people patriotism is not synonymous with nationalism (and the dictionary supports them as listing specific factors for nationalism that are distinctly emphasized).
Some people (they seem to multiply during war time, strangely enough) take it further than either, and consider personal beliefs they hold as additionaly necessary to qualify as patriotism as self evident parts of its definition, beliefs such as deporting people for not allowing "nationalistic identity" to absolutely overrule their morality, or that people whose idea of "national identity" doesn't meet their personal criteria don't have a right to voice their opinions. I think that in such cases, this last group fits the the concept of "chauvanism".
I think Humus may think (haven't discussed it with him yet) that patriotism is either the first or last, and cannot abide by it.
I think that you fit in the last, and that the beliefs you hold qualify your view as chauvanism (though you'd like to circumvent the text I put forth about it), and that it is natural for him to reject patriotism in a discussion with you because of it, for exactly the reasons you state.
In case you are curious, I'm in the second, though if I were serving, my actions would be more closely defined as following the first..
Does that clear up all the conflicts in your mind about my statements?
Because comming from someone such as himself who despises nationalistic identity, it's no wonder he'd say something like what he did.
I'd say something like what he did to you, and I think pascal would as well. Yet you maintain his view on nationalism and chauvanism is why his viewpoint is invalid.
I could have sworn I said something like this before...?
But, lets bitch at Vince... good times.
Let's complain and repeat ourselves instead...better times. ?
You seem to be geting a bit loose in your interpretation of his statement, I think, at the same time you are getting more definite in your condemnation of his viewpoint. That combination doesn't worry you?
Ok, se let me get this strait. When someone says that they're within the age in Sweden in which their government mandates all males (age 18 to like 40 for active with upto age 70 to take part in civil defense) to register, have a physical and then if picked to serve in their military under a conscription based policy. Which is fair and just as their government is more socialistic with amazing social welfare and public programs, but sans a standing military. Thus, in return for the benefits of their truely great social system, as cizens they must apply and if chosen protect their nation for a specified amount of time.
Lots of "musts" and "justs" you throw around.
But, yet, some choose to find grey areas and loop-holes which allow them to become exempt from the process untill something like 2040.
2049? BTW, we ever going to bother to consider that the government decided on the exemption, and might have had a reason in its self interest for doing so, and that the details of the exemption might have some bearing on whether it is valid to conclude...
Thus, they're marginalizing the very basis of their society and hurting the nation as a whole based on the selfish needs of one (while living off the social programs). Morally, I find this as perhaps one of the lowest acts that could be committed - as not only is he avoiding his responcibility, but he's stealing by not repaying the government lawfully under the contract of citizenship. And Beyond even that, because his spot isn't filled, some other Swede, with a family and loved ones must take that place.
Yep, your Opera label was quite apt. Hey, you think there might be the slightest chance that your representation might not quite be accurate? I mean, not knowing all the facts and all...
Nah, just me.
This isn't right.. So, not only is he going to commit such actions, he's going to take what he's done and flaunt it publically by talking in such a negative light about Patriotism - the very thing that another Swede is potentially serving in his space for.
We're talking about people living their lives. Which is why I've asked repeatedly for the details that seem to be required (to me, but maybe I'm just not sane) to make the broad reaching and absolute condemnations you are.
I might even think, ya know, you not being in charge of his life and all, it might, like, sorta, almost just
maybe be that your opinion on the issue might not be the only valid one?
Vince, you keep wondering where the impression of your self importance comes from as you make it your point in life to judge and dismiss someone for something you haven't bothered to investigate. Fine to be curious and all, but you aren't even that, you're just interested in judging and don't even seem to be interested in what he's already stated.
...cuteness all around...
How could you say you'd have let it drop, when you repeat the same things I find fault with all over the place, and it was a continued demonstration of your doing exactly the opposite of "dropping it"? Didn't I make it clear that it was a sentiment and behavior I had long found repulsive? If you really were concerned about this being cyclical, why didn't you respond to my initial criticism directly?
(a) What criticism
I assume you are going backwards? In that case, the initial post I asked you to finish replying to.
(b) I would have dropped it as it was just a responce to his. I had no intention of posting here outside of that comment, as seen by the fact that I didn't post here prior to,
You would have dropped your constant practice of using put downs to handle disagreement, and your new twist of condemning Humus on the basis of your personal criteria for patriotism as discussed above?
(c) I'll post in responce to you, because you're so off the wall.
Guess not.
demalion said:
Hmm...ok, here is another barrier: you don't think you've demonstrated exactly that by the very post I'm replying to and the sentiments you expressed before it. I think it is pretty evident that is exactly what you are and have been doing.
Again, my post wasn't to show superiority, but rather a sarcastic responce to his prior statement dragging me in here... is this so hard to understand?
So you say, in yet another post rife with examples of you trying to argue based on the inferiority of the person you are speaking to.
Did I mention before that my problem is with your often demonstrated behavior? What, several times? Did I outline that I found your application of it to patriotism as something that necessitated my reply as well? Hmmm...
Just checking.
If it makes you feel better, I pondered typing, "Hey Humus, I love you too" But descided against as this was more substantive by showing his hypocracy and disdain for the very system that other citizens of his country will follow to defend this rights and family if necessary.
So you acknowledge you really didn't "have to" make your reply after all? Do you get tired of contradicting yourself?
Does the issue that what is "self evidently justified" being somewhat disputable beginning to impact on the barriers I listed?
It really is too bad that your demonstration of "patriotism" seems to me to be making it synonymous with "chauvanism".
Give me abreak, you didn't even know what "chauvanism" was a day ago.
Good to see you aren't trying to show superiority...and you aren't making up "facts" to suite you as you go along, either.
You sort of failed to show how my relation of the quoted discussion of chauvanism was invalid, though.
By the way, I know this may be too complex for you...enlisting myself doesn't mean I believe people should be drafted and then be happy about it.
Well, while that is definatly beyond my scope of understanding,
Another barrier. Does anyone else have trouble understanding this?
It's called sarcasm. You stated that it was "too complex for me," I agreed.
You may have intended sarcasm, because you thought I was attempting to demean your intelligence. It looked like plain truth to me, and still does. BTW, I don't happen to consider intelligence and understanding to be synonymous.
I presume you are proposing Humus did this to someone? I read your provided link, and I don't see it.
You are discussing a hypothetical draft, and since I don't view a draft as self-evidently right, I'd evaluate people on the actual actions they took in response to the actual need for them to serve. That would include Humus at such a time, and that would include you, as well.
Perhaps it is what I stated earlier being "beyond your scope of understanding" that would make this answer a surprise to you?
It's not a hypothetical draft if it's currently mandated by Sweden's legestalture.
You're right, I was discussing in the context of your example of "someone going and dying in his place", and I should have said "hypothetical situation".
It's called law - so by your above remarks ("self-evidently right"), I take it that you don't consider laws to be "right" or necessarily followed?
Err...Law's are
not self evidently right. It would be a trivial exercise to discuss what has been legislated at laws, and are laws in various countries around the world, that illustrate this. Only in your insistence that national mandate is self evidently right is that not obvious, and it continues to amaze me how you dispute my label of chauvanism.
As for "necessarily followed", maybe you could read my text replying to your definition of crime again? Ya know, where I ask you to show where he shows he is breaking the law?
http://csmweb2.emcweb.com/durable/2000/04/19/p17s1.htm
Interesting ideology concerning the value of government and legeslature. Should I consider this another case of ignorance or are you an anarchist?
You do like to simplify when it is in your favor to do so, don't you? So...when are you due to report to boot camp?
I don't get this logical construct of "sending someone in his place". Was everyone eligible drafted, or not? If not everyone eligible was drafted, did the government have criteria for preventing some from being eligible? If that is the case, where did Humus say that the lucky factor he mentioned was illegal instead of one of these criteria?
Whoa... did you even read what he wrote and his underlying ideologies? I can atleast respect him for doing what he believes....
Is the illegality of his exemption another one of those "self evident" things? You'll have to point out to me where he said he is violating law.
The immorality? He seems to be stating his morality pretty clearly.
Though it does seem legality and morality are equivalent to you in your statements.
You on the other hand are on an attempted witch-hunt and are totally irrataional. But, to each his own... if you really get off on this...
You do seem to be on the sexual innuendo kick, don't you?
My question to you now is, did you even ask these questions before you passed your judgement?
I listened to him over the course of several threads and picked-up on his ideology. What more is there to say? I asked several questions - he repsonded.
I notice you didn't say you asked him about the questions I specified. It might be enlightening to list the questions you asked and the statements that went with them.
Revolutionary concept? I know, it doesn't simplify things to equivalency to a sufficient degree to make you happy, so how about this:
If you believe in the draft as being something self evident that no one should disagree with, such that they disqualify his opinion on the issues, how the hell can you talk all this trash when you haven't enlisted yourself?
I skipped this because it's irrelevent if you comprehended what I followed it up with. Your really don't pick-up on much, huh?
No, it was not irrelevant, because the sentiment precluded you answering the actual question I asked, which was part of what was in bold, not the part you quoted and answered. The question that was specified was the validity of making such silly simplifications, then you went ahead and answered the simplficiation I made and ignored the question about validity as it pertains to yourself.
Perhaps if you'd pause in your put down hurling, you could pick up on some of the statements I'm making. The bolding of the text could have helped you out if you hadn't made up your mind beforehand that a put down was in order. Seems to be a frequent occurrence. Oh...hey, didn't I mention that a few times?
Doing so allowed you to skip over that I was proposing that it was the type of simplification you were proposing for dismissing his viewpoint, and spend a LARGE swathe of text arguing about it in isolation instead. An accident?
The "isolated incident" is the centre of this argument
I didn't say "isolated incident"...concentrating too hard on put downs again? I said you spent your time arguing against the simplified statement in "isolation". Which is exactly what you did do, to facilitate avoiding the issue I raised. Hey, but let's skip the central issue again, and cause me to repeat myself.
The draft is self-evident as it's the LAW - and the law is self-evident in Westernized democracies.
I didn't dispute the definition of the law in your argument, I disputed that he was breaking the law. I didn't dispute the definition of morality, I disputed that he didn't fit it, and that your portrayal of the moral situation was accurate.
Thus, as I showed in that "large swathe of text" - he broke the law, and if not the actual legeslative type due to a grey area, then he broke a moral and ethical boundry which is just as bad.
No, you didn't show that. I already discussed why before, and repeated it again. Doesn't help when you simply ignore what I say, though. Hey, did I mention I have a problem with your posts?
vince said:
So, in reductionist terms, we have a guy whose taken the draft - which is a duty - commanded by law - and not followed it - thus, resulting in a crime. Which if not legally, is morally wrong.
By your own definition of "law" and "duty" he is not committing a crime. Or did I misread? I read that he was exempted, I'd assume by law since draft laws tend to specify things like exemptions. Sort of makes the morality of it a bit more complex to consider, and consisting of things beyond your predetermination to condemn him for disagreeing with and criticizing you, it seems to me.
Ohh my!! Not only did I clearly state "Which if not legally, is morally wrong" which you even reiterated (proving it's a "crime" on some level as I defined it),
Your definition of crime did not contain "if not legally, is morally wrong", your conclusion did. I said your definition of law and crime did not apply, and repeated yet again that your moral interpretation was without justification.
but I further stated many times that I'm not pre-determined to condemn because he disagrees - but that my virtues and morals don't allow me to repect his actions and ideologies which lead to this action as he's stated many a times over many threads on many topics.
Your view of your virtues and morals is that they are indisputably right. Every time I say they are not, you completely misunderstand. Perhaps you could go back to our discussion about chauvanism above, and review it?
Lets stop trying to find fault with Vince just because you don't like me...
Obviously, I couldn't actually have a valid reason to find fault, right?
Have you discussed the exemption in question with him somewhere that I missed? It is good form to atleast have a some idea of the real factors behind what you are discussing when you try to impose your own definition of morality on others, isn't it?
Exactly, how do you know in what medium we've discussed anything over the past 3-odd years we've been here?
I don't...so I was asking if there was a discussion besides the one already linked that would validate your assertions.
Do you get a kick out of making me explain simple questions?
Where do you get off critizing me based on your position of a distant 3rd party with a hard-on for me?
It seems to me that you are saying I am not entitled to criticize you, because I'm a third party. I wasn't aware this was a Humus-Vince forum, so perhaps you'll excuse me for my mistake?
Again, your position is worse than the one you've proported I have. You state I'm ignorant of him and his ideology that I've found in OUR discussion - but yet, you criticize me based on my understanding of Humus? Who the hell are you and why does your ideology or thoughts or feelings in this debate superceed mine?
Here is an example of saying my thoughts and feelings supercede yours: "You are wrong and I am right, because you aren't entitled to speak".
Here is your statement.
Here is my reply. Please note what I criticize, and what I do not.
I'll leave it to the reader to decide which fits your assertion. Psst: scroll up the page to where Vince says "Where do you get off critizing me based on your position of a distant 3rd party with a hard-on for me?"
You tell me I'm trying to make him approve of my ideology, but yet, your the one doing that very same thing to me? Way to be the same creation you think I am.
Pardon? When did I say "you didn't enlist, therefore get back to me on opening your mouth when you have"? I thought I was actually taking time to reply to your assertions and point out what is wrong with your statements?
Oh, wait, that text you omitted that didn't matter at all! When you drop that, it does seem I did say that, doesn't it? Strange, that.
I'm bored with this.... When you've finally gotten some sleep and allowed your neural networks to become a bit more balanced in your subconscious and conscious thoughts about me - maybe I'll come back.
In the mean time, thanks for the enlightening talk. If only you weren't so similar underneath it all.
Hey, nice to see you aren't trying to put anyone down. Hey, anyone else remember this:
Vince said:
You keep implying that I have this "self worth" type complex, but yet, you're the one whose trying your best to talk down on me.
