Patriotism cum stupidity

Of course not - the point is action and civil support. If you have a religious or ethical problem with potentially killing another being, then of course you don't have to be drafted into active service. But, in every military there are massive logistical needs which have no active combat component inherient in them. I object to people who find ways around the entire service part of the system (thereby avoiding personal responcibility at the cost of others), while using the social-program part of the system for their own betterment.

 

Am I the only one here who doesn't give a damn about any war or any country?
I only give a damn about myself.

 

1) Get a clue about my opionions and what I've argued.
2) Get a clue about my so called "dodge".
3) Get a clue in general.

3 will be hard, but I'll help you with 1 and 2.

I am not the kind of guy that tries to escape form my duties and you're implying. And despite how much I've explained that you obviously fail to understand while claiming that you do so. I will fight for freedom, human rights and so on if neccesary. I've stated this over and over, but you are stuck on my opionion on drafting for military. The armed forces in just one way to fight a battle. A battle doesn't even need to armed. Unless I'm mistaken the UN human rights resolution gives everyone the right to choose their profession. I don't want to be a soldier, just as much as I don't want to be a firefighter or police. These are all people that are needed for a working society, but I just don't want the government to force a profession down my throut, even so for just a short period of time. People who want to be soldier may choose to be that, people who want be firefighters should be just that and so on. But I want to be a software developer working on graphics, and so shall I be. Would however my freedom or values be threatened, sure I would fight to ensure it remains. But that's not the same as fighting in the Swedish army.

On my so called dodge. I did not break any laws. In fact, the law explicitely states that I don't have to under my circumstances. To elaborate further, I grew up in a family of Jehovas Withnesses. While I'm not particularly religious anymore and not very active I'm still an official registered member of the congregation. The Swedish draft law has a special clause that excludes member of JW from having to do military service. Not too long ago it was extended to even exclude us from having to do the tests and assigning to military positions in event of war. My older brother had to do the test, but not me.
Why this special treatment of JW's? For two reasons, 1) 100% of the JW's have since day one refused to do the military service, 2) putting JW's into jail will not change their positions 3) JW's are to 100% productive, non-criminal and very society-friendly people. Our government has recogniced these facts, and given that putting JW's into jail is not going to change anything and will only be a burden on the taxpayers and given that this is very likely to be the only "criminal" act done by them ever in their lives it makes sense to just give in and exclude them from military service instead. To me, this is a small step in the right direction, and I feel very happy that I was granted the right I should have under the UN resolution of human rights. Would I have to fight for this right, then I would do so. My father have been in jail for this, and I would be willing to do the same if neccesary. What I would like, is that this right not be limited to JW's only, but to everyone.

As for why patriotism is counter-productive. It works like with religion. It creates a "we" and "them". While it may help within your special group, it creates conflicts outside. To me, I don't see why there should be a "we" and "them". I'm open to everyone, regardless of nationality, religion, race etc.

Patritism is for the weak-minded. People who can't figure out their opinons and values themself and need someone to guide them for doing so. My opinons and values are clearly distinct from those of our prime minister, or those of domestic media, or local mentality. I'm an independent individual. I don't need someone to tell me what to think. I wish you were as independent too.

 

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?

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?

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.

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?

I told you what my specific problems are...with you, and pages of text later you still seem intent on dodging around it.

Seems natural.

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.

Oh, your draft dodging commentary were tongue in cheek? Is that why you defended them to me like this

"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?

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?.

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?

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?

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 is it just that you didn't read the initial sentence very carefully?

No, I didn't pass it up, I looked for a specific quotation that dealt specifically with chauvanism in the context being discussed.

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.

Really?

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.

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.

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?

With the way I define patriotism perhaps, not the way you define patriotism for yourself by your own words here and elsewhere.

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?

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...?

Let's complain and repeat ourselves instead...better times. ?

Lots of "musts" and "justs" you throw around.

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...

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.

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...

I assume you are going backwards? In that case, the initial post I asked you to finish replying 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?

Guess not.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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".

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?

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?

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 do seem to be on the sexual innuendo kick, don't you?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

Obviously, I couldn't actually have a valid reason to find fault, right?

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?

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?

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?"

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.

Hey, nice to see you aren't trying to put anyone down. Hey, anyone else remember this:

 

You mean, kinda like Dubya Bush?

Did you serve?

 

Patriotism is for people who believe in their country. It does not make them weak minded any more believing in a nonexististent being (God) makes you weak minded (Whatever I think personally about them).

 

Sigh, first if you dont believe in God, shouldnt you fight for everyones chance to live a free life harder, since this is the only chance they have at it? Im a hindu, but I believe my religion has many things in common with other religions. I think my faith is part of the reason that I am more chariatable. I would imagine that those who are religious are also more chariatable than those who are not. Does that make us weak mindended. I guess you would think so Heathen.

On another note about being a soldier (serving your country during war). You do not have to carry a gun or work for the military to help your government, during times of war, you can help by being a helpful contributor to that society.

Please remember that its the lonely soldier that helps keep your rights yours. Sometimes we forget that its the soldier that bleeds/dies so others may live a certain way (whatever way that is). If the good citizen does not fight for good, evil wins.

later,

 

Epic, you misunderstand the point I'm trying to get across, however before you start hurlinig anymore accusations at me please ask yourself what assumptions do you make about life.

 

Because the Budweiser in Germany is the Budweiser from Budwar, Chechoslovakia, and not the Budweiser from the USA

To add something to this discussion:

It may be true that there are resntiments against German goods or French wine in the States.
It is also true that the peace demonstrants in Germany hand out flyers with lists of USA based products we shouldn't buy anymore.
It's also true that many of these products are made in the EU under the licence of the original home company and not imported from the States.
Last but not least it's even more true that very few people consider to buy USA based products (American cars for example - why one would buy an American car in Germany will always be beyond me in this case).

But another thing is very true:
The Arabic world is reconsidering their contracts with US/UK based companies large scale and shift to German or French companies.
In the last months business with the Arabic world became much more fluid than before.
The customers I have from the UAE are much more willing to talk lately.

Basically it appears to be a shift around where in the end nobody really get's hurt.

BTW - did you know that the financial interconnection between Germany and the US is the largest worldwide?
Almost 70 billion of US money is invested in Germany and on the other hand almost 250 billion of German money is invested in the US?
These ties can't get cut that fast - neither by boycotting US products in Germany nor by doing the same with German goods in the US.

If some restaurants in the US don't sell German Beer or French Wine anymore -fine! Why not?
If German restaurants don't sell Coca Cola (but Afri Cola instead - they have the nicer bottles anyway since the 70's) and Marlboro's anymore - fine! Why not?
Both of these very minor actions are more for publicity reasons than for ideology.

But that's only my uneducated opinion - feel free to ignore me.
War or not, I think that world could be "in better hands" nowadays.

 

I think some of you guys get paid by the word.

 

Tell me 'bout it. That this guy has such a "hard-on" for me that he'd type out page replies. Oh well, this will end soon.

On Demalion:

Here's how it's going to be. You've stated on multiple occasion that I'm a Sophist and have accused me of using Sophistry in my replies, as well as being cyclical.

Thus, by your own confession:

(a) I have an argument which is plausable
(b) I have a consistent argument

This, means that:

(a) My argument is plausible untill you can show that it's not: Which due to the very nature of the internet and the degrees of freedom between us is impossible in a tangible aspect.
(b) You have yet to make a comment which have necessitated that I deviate from this cyclical argument - which means that you're not showing or proving anything. Thus, by your own confession of "Sophistry," it's a plausible scenario in which no fallicies have been proven.

Your wasting my time. Get a life. This is pointless - I mean read what your writing.

See, I mean look at how hard your trying to nail me on something. You're making yourself look like a desperate man with a grudge or worse. Lets put this comment into context, shall we?

You had previously stated this:

Thus, we've established that simplistic ideas contained within your pretty basic sentance structure are "too complex for me." You then went on to state:

So, to that sarcastic comment I responded:

I stated genious as, on page one we established that you are - in fact - superior (in ways that are incoherient to me) in utilizing linguistics to protrey a line of argument.

Thus, I was informing the one whose comments are " too complex for you [vince]" that his useage of that words actually states that not only is what I'm saying Plausible, but in the absence of contradictory proof - correct.

Now, how does that look in full? You try too hard to be mean and put me down...

Again, cute - especially considering we're talking over the internet.

I'm still a bit fuzzy on what exactly "made you think so," is it:

Which isn't what I'm stating. I've said several times that I added that comment, which was in responce to his arbitrary entry on my name into this conversation to infuriate me (which alone I don't mind) Actually, I stated this on page 1 as seen here:

Which is all I was doing. I didn't say that he can't make a statement against me, nor did I say he was lesser or an idiot, or that he can't talk good or pee in the toilot without hitting the seat - all I said is that his anti-Patriotism/Anti-Vince comment should be put in context with his past actions (Which I'll address later on [very bottom] in the post, so don't worry yourself too much)

Wow... you need help. If you insist on taking a philisophical approach to this Sophistry debate - then I can assure you that I will end this debate as the realm of plausibility has ended and your intent to discredit me and find discontinuality in my arguments has reached new low. For someone whose stated that my ability to comprehend information is so weak, you've definatly proven to be... not strong... on this topic.

Infact, according to your line of reasoning which is a parrallel to this pseudo-18th century philisopical ideology that all of life is a dream with no tangible basis outside of the conscious mind of the beholder.

What your saying is basically, That although my argument does, infact, "resemble a premise, support, and conclusion" - you could never say that my argument isn't true and correct.

You've turned this and put the burden of proof on me, to prove that I'm correct - but this isn't how it works. You, as the one whose taken objection to my stated opinions and stated that there "Sophist" in nature must prove that although they are plausible, they are wrong for this or that fallacy or wronghood.

Now, the really cool part (where you really killed yourself) is that you've stated that you, just like the 18th century philosophers, can never prove that the comment is correct. For who knows - as you stated? I mean, I (aswell as the whole world) could be nothing more than a manifestation of your single onsciousness. It would be impossble to physically disprove this - just as it would be physically impossible to prove that my argument is false.

Thus, you can either:
(a) Assume it's correct (as evidence can't say it's not and anything CAN be, untill proven why it can't.)
(b) Assume that it doesn't matter (in which case your whole argument falls apart as my comments are correct - atleast for me at the min.)

I love Kyle, I'd much rather chat with him. He's literate, understands what I'm saying, and is well versed in interdisciplinary topics - was just chatting with him in the thread on Time Travel.

PS. Kyle, I'm not much into Philosophy lately, but I read "On Non-Being" when I was younger and I don't how I'm such a Sophist. I'm not aruing just for the sake of argument (as some others here are), I provide justification and background (eg. As in Humus's case), and my ideologies are part of a central core, they subscribe to an underlying train of thought which has held consistent.

Unless you think I can argue and "turn" arguments as well as say.. Protagoras.. or maybe even Gorgias.. but, I'm hardly that good, nah... Thats more like Joe DeFuria.

As for his comment:

My conclusion isn't a fallacy as it's my belief and it supportable. Humus, in his last post, has stated that he was exempt due to him being a JW. This is fine and I support (as stated as recently as the top of page3) that anyone who has a theocratic, moral, ethical problem with active service shouldn't have to fight. It's just plain wrong, and I'd never subject someone to that:

Yet! My objection comes from the specific Swedish law and the way it's done as it's ingeniously clever:

As I stated a few pages back, in Sweden, they have one hell of a government run social welfare program that it's citizens are the reciepients of. In order to do this (in the classical abstract image of "Guns vs. Butter"), the Swedes must each serve or be allowed to have a physical and in the event of a military build-up they shall serve.

Now, here's the cool part. You don't have to be an active member of the army, but can take part in civil service thats concurrent to the military - or as in the US take non-combat roles in the military. Each of these are viable and great acts that allow you to be supportive of the government that provides such benefit to it's citizens.

I mean, in the horrible case that Sweden must raise an military for defensive needs; why can't he have taken the Physical on the condition that he will serve in the civil defense or non-combat roles?

I'd atleast (and I don't mean this negativly) expect that his religious condition (especially as he self admits to not activly practice, but is "labeled as") it would restrict him from physical action in a manner similar to a 70 year old - who can be conscipted in Civil Service during times as seen below:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/louv/20030112-9999_1e12louv.html


The following shows the conscription ages and duration per EU country. Rather, the 'Alternative Service' should be taken note ofhttp://skopiestelos.freepage.gr/english/eu.html

I mean, is that really too much to ask? Be serious, the country does this for a reason. And I truely believe if a 70 year old can civil serve - then Humus can aswell to support his country in the remote chance of a threat to Sweden that necessitates a build-up - I mean, he's removed himself from the entire loop and then talks down upon those in the loop who will protect his nation. I can't help but feel thats wrong and that he's side-stepping his responcibility (eg. that the 70 year olds can do though) and is almost spitting on those who don't have loop-holes to hide from and play the game strait. But, perhaps you feel diffrent - and I won't say thats wrong, I just disagree immensly.

Ok, I'm tired of this... I've said what needs to be said. If you want to bitch about me not writing 20,000 words - then F* it. You don't like me anyways and I could really care less. Enjoy your venomous hate of me.. I hope it really hurts.

 

Oh, that served a purpose other than a put down, of course.

OK, I thought we had quoted a definition of sophistry, but apparently some one did not choose to read it.

Let's start with an excerpt close to what you are trying to distort:

"A plausible but misleading or fallacious argument."

Hey....hmm...plausible must mean your argument is consistent! I mean, that's what you keep saying, right?

plausible: " 1. Seemingly or apparently valid, likely, or acceptable; credible. 2. Giving a deceptive impression of truth or reliability."

Hmm...oh wait, it doesn't. But maybe if you de-emphasize "Seemingly" strongly enough, or ignore every time I mention "resemblence", you can, just maybe, pretend it does.

Hey, let's look at some other actual excerpts from the discussion on "sophistry"...not that I haven't mentioned them before, but your sidestepping to hide behind "plausible" seems to be trying to pretend they don't exist.:

"Using specious arguments or discourse." Obviously, specious (" Having the ring of truth or plausibility but actually fallacious") means an argument is valid?

"The practice of a sophist; fallacious reasoning; reasoning sound in appearance only."

"a deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone"

Oh, yeah, my establishing your argument is sophistry sure does seem to mean I am proposing your argument is valid, doesn't it?

What a strong foundation to build a post on, Vince.

I'm not trying to show that it isn't plausible, I am trying to show how it is plausible but is not valid. Which I did a few times, actually. Your counter is that "plausible" means "valid", and that therefore I can't disprove that since we are on the internet.
I think I've demonstrated your counter to be invalid as well. That doesn't mean you have to recognize it, and in fact your words establish that you have every intention of avoiding doing so.

You're a chimp at a keyboard, Vince. Prove me wrong?

Hey, I can I have fun with sophistry too, you know.

Perhaps you should follow your own advice?

Since I'm the one looking desperate, sure, let's take a gander at your context establishment.

Ignoring the name mangling, this does seem to be a true representation of that one sentence in the post.

No, I wasn't discussing sentence structure, I was discussing the concept that someone might enlist and not feel others should be drafted. I later said you still failed to grasp that, and you seem to be intent on proving me correct while adamantly stating that I am not.

But your statements still resemble a logical sequence.

No, I went on to state: "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?" Would you have me believe that the first part of text was not excluded deliberately?
The question refers to you replying to the full text of my first post besides quoting one sentence and simply saying "This sentence is the only valid thing you said.", something which indeed has not happened. It seems rather obvious that it refers to this, because I said "first post" and "reply to" in a sentence structure that lends itself to that meaning...something I pointed out before in a section of my text that you, for some reason, also did not reply to.

Your statements do still resemble a logical progression, though it seems rather evident that the resemblence is superficial.

Yes, you did respond that way at some point, but no, I wasn't being sarcastic in that statement. Your response that you are quoting was in reply to me using the word sophistr, not anything else. Since you are disagreeing with me, your use of "genious" seems to be sarcastic, and intended as a put down. Your "line of reasoning" doesn't seem to do anything at all to address that, though its structure does resemble something that does.

In case anyone has forgotten the discussion of sophistry from above, let me refresh your memory: "The practice of a sophist; fallacious reasoning; reasoning sound in appearance only."

Either you aren't putting me down, and are being serious in that you recognize the deficiency in your argument, or you are putting me down and just think that display of "reasoning" above did something to hide that.

Since you just spent a lot of text defending the validity of your comments, it seems to me the first possibility is precluded, but my reply above addresses either possibility.

Was the purpose of your post to make sense? I must inform you that you seem to have failed.

Hmm...do you intend to bait me with opportunities for one liners, or is it unintentional?

The most credit (in terms of thinking, not honesty) I can give you is that you are intending to bait me by making statements as blatantly nonsensical as the above, to draw attention away from your own put downs by inducing me to describe how nonsensical your statements are. It seems to me that you could then quote those descriptions by me, without your own text that inspired them included, and then make a case that I was "putting you down".

Perhaps that is too convoluted, but since I do in fact think you are intelligent, the question I'm trying to answer in the face of your statements is what you are using it for when you are making them. You might think I am being sarcastic about your intelligence, instead of simply meaning what I am stating, but what I am disparaging is your honesty, not your intelligence. I think the above discussion clearly illustrates why, though there is nothing stopping you from ignoring such support again.

You argument was made on the internet, and I addressed it on the internet. Words and stuff can be good for things like that...you know, "communication".

When I quoted your first reply, and said I took issue with it, that might have been a clue. When I answered you the last few times you asked, and quoted you again, perhaps you could have decided to read it.

When I said:

after a sequence of statements, perhaps it could have provided some indication to have read the statements?

No, it was the text I was describing in that way:

What hypocrisy? You consider him a hypocrite for believing differently than you about whether a national mandate should override his personal moral code, and then making a critical statement about how you interpret patriotism in the context of the discussion. The only way that makes sense is if you believe his beliefs preclude him from holding an opinion on patriotism that is critical of yours, as otherwise it seems pretty clear to be consistent with his moral stance, and not hypocrisy at all.
You continue to try to state that is not what you are doing by just repeating that he is being hypocritical, as if that label is something self-evident. A consistent theme I've covered at length before, and you've decided not to address.

Your entire viewpoint seems to hinge on refuting that your viewpoint can be invalid...look at your sophistry argument at the beginning.

No, you just attempted to dismiss his statement by calling him a draft dodger.

I must have misunderstood "Seriously, don't you feel like a scumbag?" and the context in which your brought up "draft dodger", though I continue to provide examples that lead me to believe that I'm not.

Nor did I claim you did, but including such obvious statements does allow your statement to resemble a supported argument.

No, that's not all you said. You also said that he was a hypocrite for offering an opinion on patriotism because his opinion of "patriotism" as you display it is a negative one.

OK, I'll see I guess.

OK, I've read that sequence a few times, and what I see is a bunch of put downs that make an assertion about my "worthiness", and attempt to provide validity for the assertions by the simple expedient of repetition.

Sort of a familiar theme for your arguments, which is why your entire post depends on the rather amazing denial of the applicability of "plausible" and "sophistry" at the beginning.

Actually, I was demonstrating an example of your reasoning, and your commentary about "no tangible basis outside of the conscious mind of the beholder" is in actuality describing the flaws in your own support that I am addressing.
Treating it as something I was actually proposing as valid allows you to, again, avoid actually showing that it was invalid and reflects your assertions.

No, I can say it, and I can provide a coherent support for that statement, but a sophist, such as yourself, need never believe it.

You could just dispute my description of sophistry, as you try to do above. You've just failed to do that, and wedded yourself to proposing something that is insupportable in an attempt to do so.

Which I've done repeatedly, and continue to do. Your reply is simply to repeatedly deny that I have, and ignore the support I've given. It seems pretty clearly stated in my posts, and I think you look extremely foolish in your attempts to say otherwise. For example, by saying that I haven't shown your comments are sophistry by maintaining that "plausible" means "valid and true".

No, I said that a sophist need never recognize that comment is correct. If your assertion that I was proposing that was a valid argument were true, your argument makes sense. But, I've demonstrated it isn't...though it doesn't stop you from ignoring when I demonstrate that.

I ask you to keep quoting it in its entirety and propose that. I'm not saying you can't, as you just did that in this post I'm replying to, but I am saying that it serves to illustrate my assertion of sophistry, and I'm happy to have someone assisting me in doing so. People who read you doing so are free to agree with me or not as they see fit.

See, when you spend a lot of text saying something is foolish, and you finish by saying that same something is just like what you are doing, you aren't actually helping prove your case. Just a helpful hint.

Ok, thank you for establishing support for my assertion of sophistry for me. You are saving me quite a bit of effort.

And, of course, because you didn't say "demalion, you are illiterate, don't understand what I'm saying, and aren't well versed", I can't "prove" that is what you are intending to communicate.

I'll let you literate and well versed people talk amongst yourselves and leave your note to Kyle unaddressed.

I tend to think we've rather thoroughly established otherwise. But there is nothing requiring you to recognize that as being valid.

And his moral objection is not to serving in such a capacity, but being called to serve in such a way in defense of an action to which he is morally opposed. Which is why I asked if you'd actually read what he said, and continue to wonder.
You know, it was you who brought up Nazis, Vince. Do you perhaps recognize the striking similarity of what you propose is the only right way to act, and the actions of Germans at the time? You continually ignore any concern being valid except his "self evident duty to his nation", and have proposed things like "laws are self-evidently right" to do so. You already said you consider this the reason Humus reacts to your description of patriotism the way he does...what is disturbing to me is that you don't react that way yourself.

Is this why you stopped addressing my commentary on "chauvanism"?

I'd guess because his moral code includes taking oaths and obligations seriously, and his government decided to give recognition to the demonstration that it dictates giving up the liberties you keep bringing up rather than violating that morality.
I thought the government was never wrong, Vince?

You seem to have dropped your "law" and "crime" arguments as well, though you still seem to be doggedly pursuing "immorality" in the face of rather clear evidence to the contrary.

Hmm...so, because that law says someone up to 70 can be conscripted, you are trying to say that his "religious condition" makes him as "feeble" as a 70 year old. Since you quoted something factual (to my knowledge), obviously your point is proven. Though, it seems you didn't clarify the text of his exemption.

Hmm...so, because you show the ages for conscription and conditions of service established elsewhere, you are "proving" that he is morally deficient by ignoring what he stated of his morality. Not sophistry at all.

What, the country does his exemption for a reason? Oh, no, that would make your argument look silly. You mean the country does the things you quoted to try and distract from the issue of the exemption and his moral stance, right?

And, you don't see that as saying "70 years old serve, therefore Humus isn't entitled to 'talk down' to 'true patriots' because he is exempt.". I know, because you said you don't. The lack of me repeating a discussion establishing that that is exactly what you are saying, and then relating it to the discussion above where you say you aren't trying to say Humus isn't entitled to criticize you because he isn't a patriot, is because I think it is extremely obvious, and that I think that I have done so clearly before. Since those explanations were ignored or edited by you in your replies, and this post already contains one repetition, I don't see the point in providing another.

I maintain that what leads you to that is "chauvanism". I've demonstrated why before. For the record, it isn't your opinion that makes that the case, but that you view it as self evidently right and as grounds for dismissing his viewpoint. My issue with you is that I personally can't stomach your sentiment being called "patriotism", and you repeatedly proposing it with such arrogance. Which is why my focus is on the way you are saying Humus' feelings are wrong.

Actually, it is not editing down I object to, but editing when it so obviously serves to distort. It is just that as far as our conversation has went, you've demonstrated them as being synonymous.

Well, the initial reaction did turn my stomach. The subsequent posts have done that as well on occassion, but the overall feeling I've had is one of bemusment. I don't think I'll be getting any ulcers, but thank you for your concern.

 

First rule of engagement: Never get involved with Demalion in a battle of semantics and/or logic.

Other first rule of engagement: Never discuss politics with Vince unless you agree with him or like being verbally assaulted.

That is all, soldiers. Carry on.

 

good rules to live by.

 

Better watch out though - if you even say the most Politically Correct, blanket statement that has the ability to hurt or make anyone feel lesser than anyone else because evereyone isn't explicitly stated to be on the same plane - you will face the wrath.

 

Vince, the reason you continue thinking my stance is unacceptable is that you still haven't understood it fully. I'll make myself perfectly clear:

I support drafting in times of war if found absolutely neccesary, and in such circumstances I would serve in non-armed forces. Would Norway get another Hitler kind of leader and invade Swede, then I would join if I was called in. I see no problem in serving as a field technician, do supporting logistics or otherwise serve the military.

In times of peace however, calling people into military service, or even alternative civilian service is to me an unacceptable intrusion of my freedom. It's forcing a profession down my throat.

To make my point clear, I'll make the analogy between a military (or alternative) servant (hereafter called soldier) and a firefighter. Both are required for our safety and security. The soldier protect us against threats of political nature. The firefighter protects us from the threat of deadly fires and protects our property from destruction. If the government sends you a letter tomorrow saying that you are now a firefighter and expect you to start serving in a few months with hardly any payment, would you just accept it? Would you feel it would be a "I need to serve my country" kind of thing, or would you be pissed that someone takes your freedom of choise of profession away? I would certainly be pissed. There are enough people who want to be firefighters anyway. And firefighter should most certainly have full payments for their important job. The same with serving in military. Being a soldier is a profession, they should be fully payed for their service and people should have the freedom to choose this profession if they want and choose not to be a solider if it's not in their area of interest. There are enough people who want to be soldiers anyway.

I pay taxes, and expect the government to arrange that a fire department protects me from fire. I don't need to serve as a fire fighter to have deserved this protection.
Again, I pay taxed, and expect the government to arrange that a military forces is available to protect me from any arrising military threats. I don't need to serve as a soldier to have deserved this protection.

IF however, a serious crisis happens, say a wildfire is spreading like mad and taking huge amounts of forrest with it and quickly approaching areas where people live, sure I would help if I could. I expect the trained firefighters to take the lead in the effort of getting the fire under control, but I would help in any way I could if it would be neccesary.
Same if a military crisis happens, I expect the trained forces taking the lead in the efforts. If however it would be neccesary, I would help the way I can.

And, last but not least, I would not join any efforts that goes against my value, ethics or actions which I don't support. If someone say I must join to fight a fire I don't see as a threat or maybe as something positive, like the olympic fire or the traditional May-fires, I would certainly object. The same way, I would not join any military actions I don't support. I would not join an invasion of Norway regardless of if the government says I have to. It's wrong, so I'm not going, end of discussion and no arguments of patriotism is going to convince me.

 

@humus, what you said makes sense if the only options were firefigter, or soldier. But what if the government said you want social benefits(welfare, health care, clean environment,...) you needed to help serve the government for a year or two. And I would have no objections if they gave many options: pick up litter, help the elderly, build low income housing, run after school programs, becoming a soldier, and many other professions.

I dont see the problem in the government telling you to take a year or two of your life to help better the society around you.


later,

 

That's the wrong way of approaching a problem. I pay taxes for my social benefits and expect the government to provide them. It's the governments task to make sure these are provided to me, it's not my task. There are enough people who want to work in health care and other welfare services anyway. There's no need to force anyone. Would there be a problem getting for instance enough people to work in health care, then instead of just forcing people into it you should instead make efforts to make working in health care a more attractive option. Increase payment, improve benefits, invest in related education to get more qualified personel on the labor market, advertise with job offers and so on.

 

humus what about people who dont want to work, but feel they are entitled to every social benefit we pay taxes for.

Also in the event of a bad economic cycle, i dont see the problem. There are many parts of the US that have bad health care because people dont want to live there. No amount of money will get me to live in Alaska, just to darn cold.

later,

 

What a very interesting idea! I would support something like that, wholeheartedly. Lots of people need the assistance, but I can't think of one single person receiving state/federal aid that couldn't contribute to society in some way.