11-26-03 02:55 PM Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hey Optional777, er I mean, ARogueTrader -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote from ARogueTrader: You are now claiming to be a moderate conservative? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't have to "claim" anything. That you see only see extremes is your problem, not mine. It would appear that you are uncomfortable being called a moderate conservative, and consider the term a use of "extremes."
Show me what was muddled and unclear about the initial post. Show me where the logic and reasoning was incorrect. If you read the argument that began this thread, feel free to show me where the reasoning was incorrect, and where the fallacy in the reasoning process was. You have not countered the initial argument in any manner. You assert that Bush is using lies couched under the banner of patriotism, that we are in danger of being turned into a totalitarian state, and that the ad in question is cause for alarm. That is merely your opinion. It is impossible to dissuade you from that opinion, thus you will always consider it to be logical, reasonable, and unassailable. I, who do not share your opinion, believe it to be illogical, unreasonable, very assailable, and quite frankly, laughable. I assert the Bush ad used fallacious reasoning in the conclusion that 9 people running for president from the democratic party were against the war on terrorism. I showed why the reasoning was fallacious and false in its conclusion. Can you counter that assertion of mine with facts or a plausible defense of the reasoning offered for the conclusion that his political opponents are generically opposed to a war on terrorism? If you can't do this, then my argument stands unchallenged with anything but your opinion. Go ahead, make a case for your opinion.
Is Bush acting primarily on his own? I would say so. Does he feel self righteous in the process, envisioning himself on some crusade against evil? I would say so. Again, it is in Bush's approach to problem solving I have issues with. He acts in a unilateral manner that is similar to how other world leaders who were totalitarian in approach acted. Give examples, not fluffy conjecture. 1. The war in Iraq was primarily of our own efforts pushed by Bush, not a joint effort with NATO and other trusted allies. 2. The rejection of Kyoto treaty.
Sarcasm appears to be your stock method of argumentation. That you fail to see that the sarcasm is a means of trying to enable you to understand my opinion - since normal discourse obviously does not - is not my concern. Sarcasm is not known as a means to elevate understanding or enable others to grasp opinion. Constant use of sarcasm is recongnized as a form verbal abuse. Main Entry: sar·casm Pronunciation: 'sär-"ka-z&m Function: noun Etymology: French or Late Latin; French sarcasme, from Late Latin sarcasmos, from Greek sarkasmos, from sarkazein to tear flesh, bite the lips in rage, sneer, from sark-, sarx flesh; probably akin to Avestan thwar&s- to cut Date: 1550 1 : a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain <tired of continual sarcasms> 2 a : a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual b : the use or language of sarcasm <this is no time to indulge in sarcasm> Many people find it difficult to determine what constitutes emotional abuse. The media is full of information about physical and sexual abuse, but emotional abuse seems to be much more difficult to define. A few writers have begun to address this form of abuse, provide new insight into this form of abusive behavior, and explore the damage caused by it. Most of the information here will be taken from the book, The Emotionally Abused Woman, by Beverly Engel. "Abuse is any behavior that is designed to control and subjugate another human being through the use of fear, humiliation, and verbal or physical assaults. Emotional abuse is any kind of abuse that is emotional rather than physical in nature. It can include anything from verbal abuse and constant criticism to more subtle tactics such as intimidation, manipulation, and refusal to ever be pleased." (p. 10) According to Engel, there are ten behaviors that characterize emotional abuse: domination, verbal assaults, abusive expectations, emotional blackmail, unpredictable responses, constant criticism, character assassination, gas lighting, constant chaos, and sexual harassment. Following are brief descriptions of each. Domination A dominator needs to control everything. He decides who you talk to, where you go, what you wear, how much money you have, what you do and when. They frequently will use anger or threats to get what they want from you. They have all the rights, you have none (p. 13). Verbal Assaults An abuser will use "berating, belittling, criticism, name calling, screaming, threatening, blaming, and using sarcasm and humiliation." (p 14). These assaults induce fear in the victim and passivity. Character Assassination According to Engel character assassination "Occurs when someone constantly blows your mistakes out of proportion; gossips about your past failures and mistakes and tells lies about you; humiliates, criticizes, or makes fun of you in front of others; and discounts your achievements." (p. 17-18). Any one of these on occasion may be used by individuals. However it is the constant use of these behaviors used specifically to get one personal needs met at the expense of the other that are destructive. Victims often feel helpless, guilty, not good enough, like they deserve it. Engel states that "True emotional abuse is distinguished by the following: It is constant, as opposed to occasional. The intent is to devalue and denigrate rather than to simply state a complaint. The intent is to dominate and control rather than to provide constructive criticism. The person has an overall attitude of disrespect toward you, rather than just not liking something specific that you are doing." (p. 22) The saddest thing about this type of abuse is that despite the tremendous damage it does to the victims, it is rarely identified as abusive behavior. Many of the victims who have experienced this type of emotional abuse, have been convinced of their inability to function in the world without their partner. They are convinced that they deserve the treatment or that there is nothing they can do to make it right. Some even say, "They only say (or do) that because they love me and want to help me be a better person." Like any victim of mind control techniques, the victim is unable to see the abuse because it has been cloaked in the guise of caring or love. And the victim that believes that this is love, is more at risk for either returning to an abusive relationship or getting into another one after leaving the first.
âsighâ You are the one who labeled me as right-wing and my views as "extreme in nature." Do you even read what you post? No you didn't. You merely stated your opinion. That is all. Your "reasoning" has nothing to do with facts, but your perception of them. You said it yourself - you have made an ASSERTION. "The war on terrorism" as it currently exists is being waged by the Bush administration. You said "a war on terrorism." The two are not one and the same. THE war on terrorism is being objected to by Dems/Libs on a daily basis. They are against it. They would have a new war on terrorism based on principles and tactics that they themselves cannot envision let alone agree on. As it stands, they indeed are against THE war on terrorism in its present form. Thank you for the examples. Now, what's your point? That the president decided on the basis of his own thinking and that of his aides, to pursue a particular path of action without a broad consensus of our "allies"? SO WHAT? Presidents and leaders around the world, totalitarian and democratic, have done so forever and will continue to do so. I don't understand why you feel the President has to have the approval of every Tom, Dick, Jane, Gerhardt, and Jacques around the world before taking action. That is not his job. His job is to protect the citizens of this country and to do what he feels is best for his country. That is why he was elected. He does not require the approval of other world leaders to do so. And doing so does not make him a bad person or a bad leader. You of all posters have the gall to wax about verbal abuse when you yourself have done so numerous times here on ET? How hypocritical (and typical). But the difference between us is that apparently it bothers you a great deal. Seems you can dish it out but can't take it, eh? I can't believe you cut and pasted all that. Hilarious! Optional, you need to rest your sphincter in a major way and learn not to take things so seriously. Really, it's time you stepped away from the computer - there is more to life than arguing politics on ET. Oops, I was being sarcastic there! Please don't think I was trying to abuse you. I notice you did not post a response to my answers to your statements regarding the Guard, Israel, your biblical point-of-view assertion, and the issue of this country's responsibility for 9/11. Their omission is curious.
So you are saying the Guard would not be effective in helping to combat terrorism here at home with a little training? No. As I've said before, they wouldn't be as effective as professional soldiers. Do you have any idea of the time limitations the Guard troops are under? How long it would take to train them? And how long could we expect them to put aside their jobs and families? Do you have any military experience at all? Do you know how long it takes for policy to become effective in our regular armed forces let alone our Guard and Reserves? Simply saying "with a little training" does not make it so....You attempt to discuss that which you know nothing about. You claim I am discussing something I know nothing about. Do you have any fact to support such a claim? Would the Guard be as effective as trained solders? Perhaps not, but even if less effective is that a reason not to use them? They are a resource and can be used in the community in the war on terrorism. The Guard was good enough to assist at airports after 911, and their presence helped to calm those who were fearful of another terrorist attack. Please take the time to carefully re-read these comments by Gary Hart, and you will find nothing unreasonable or unrealistic in them: But who, in addition to our public safety agencies, our police and fire departments and emergency responders, should help respond to an attack and keep the peace and restore order? Might there not be the need for some kind of military capability? Once again, based upon their understanding of classical history, our founders anticipated the future. They created such an army and called it the militia; citizen-soldiers under the immediate command of the various States that can be deployed in times of emergency. Since the late 19th century these militia have been known as the National Guard and they were created and given Constitutional status as the first responders and the first line of defense in the case of an attack on our homeland. Our Commission on 21st century national security insisted that the National Guard be given the principle mission of response to homeland attack. These are people like us, teachers, office-workers, bankers and business people, nurses and medical personnel, who are or quickly can be trained and equipped for the primary homeland security role. They also do not conjure up the danger of military rule so feared by republicans since the Greek city state.
Your copycat approach is ineffective. It obviously strikes a chord with you, so it is in fact effective. You don't deny implementation of the copycat approach. I deny that it is effective, and suggest it is the work of someone who is failing to make an effective argument or counter an argument. These techniques like sarcasm, copycat responses, name calling, etc. are common internet argumentation techniques that demonstrate the lack of ability to carry on a discussion on a high level.
So you are saying you read the entire speech with an open mind? As open as yours. Your reply to my comment was non responsive. Either you read the entire speech with an open mind, or you didn't. Why not simply answer the query?
I began this thread so people who have an open mind can begin to understand how Bush and company operates, and the danger of that kind of thinking. No, you began this thread with an opinion that Bush and company's thinking is dangerous. Nothing more. What I did was make an argument. Here is the argument. 1. Bush claimed that his 9 opponents are against the war on terrorism. 2. Bush provides no reason for his conclusion. So I suggest that Bush made his comments on the basis of the following reasoning: 1. Bush declares war on terrorism. 2. Bush develops a plan for administration and execution of that war. 3. Bush makes an argument for war. 4. Bush presents data to support his conclusion that his plan for war is the right plan. 5. Based on the data presented the plan is approved. 6. Those who oppose the plan are labeled traitors and unpatriotic by many of those who are pro war. 7. Much of the data presented by Bush in his case for war comes into question, and many of those who supported the war on the basis of presented data begin to rethink their position. 8. A groundswell begins to grow that displays doubt about the war (reflected in public opinion polls.) 9. An ad is run that calls those who are opposing Bush's plan as against the war on terrorism. There are a couple of components here. One is the war on terrorism, which is generic in nature. Like the war on drugs, or a war on crime, etc., the second aspect is the plan for executing that war. The plan is not inclusive in the concept of the war itself. There are and were alternative plans available. The democrats are in fact critical of the Bush's plan and execution of the war, not a war on terrorism in itself. The Bush ad is false logically, as it argues from conclusion which is without a logical foundation. 1. Bush declares war on terrorism. 2. Nearly everyone agrees that terrorism is bad. 1. Bush develops a plan to fight terrorism and executes that plan. 2. Democrats criticize that plan. 1. Bush's ad declared these democrats criticizing the plan as not supporting a war terrorism. Anyone reasonable person can see that Bush's conclusion of the democrats not favoring a war on terrorism does not logically follow from the facts. The war on terrorism is not the same as Bush's plan and his execution of how to win the war on terrorism. Criticizing Bush's plan is neither unpatriotic, treasonous, or supportive of terrorism. Bush's ad is a method of propaganda to support his agenda, and like much of political propaganda it rests on false conclusions. Historically those who have used false propaganda to support their agenda and destroy political opponents have been deemed dangerous and unethical by historians.
If those who react to us are consistently negative, we can conclude we are blameless, or have some responsibility in the relationship. If you were completely objective, not American, you could see that the United States is guilty of many acts that generate hatred among other countries. While many were shocked by 911, is it really a surprise that the way we have operated with our policy could generate that kind of response? Are we to blame for what happened? Maybe not, but we are partially responsible, as we do make choices that are often self centered. So because terrorists killed 3,000 of our countrymen, we are responsible for that? You are assigning those who kill us a blanket rationality, arguing that because they have acted in a negative way toward us we have done something negative to them deserving of their actions on 9/11. Bin Laden attacked us because we had troops and equipment on Saudi soil, something he considered sacriligious. Why were our troops and materiel there? As a result of the first Gulf War and to have them close by in case they had to be used again in the region. You can argue that by virtue of having troops and equip. there, this infuriated bin Laden to the extent that 9/11 occured, and thus the US is partially responsible. But does that make the presence of those men and machines there wrong? Should they not have been there? Was bin Laden's response - the killing of 3,000 noncombatants - thus justifiable? Only to fanatics, I would argue. One could say the US is responsible for 9/11 only because we were so "self-centered" that we also took on the responsibility of kicking Saddam out of Kuwait and safeguarding the region - to the utter relief of most of the world. Shame on us. When something happens to anyone, they can feel completely innocent. Whether or not they are completely innocent is a different matter. 911 was a symptom of a larger cause than on event. One approach is to assume that we are total victims of such attacks, and that we should destroy anyone and everyone who attacks us without any thought to why they attacked us. This line of thinking requires no change in behavior, no self-reflection, no attempt for introspection about our foreign policy. Another approach is to deal with the criminal behavior, and also reflect on why such incidents happen, and what part if any we have had in pissing people off to the point that such acts of terrorism happen. If you conclude we are absolutely blameless in foreign policy, that is your conclusion....not mine. This is not a justification that what the terrorist did. What they did was wrong. However, unlike Islamic law where punishment of a crime is decided on the basis of the actions---not the motive, our system of crime and punishment is different. We have degrees of murder. We take into account circumstances and other factors that lead to a crime when we determine punishment and/or reform. While a man who kills his wife in a fit or rage because he came upon her during the act of sleeping with his brother results in her death, the death is same as if he had been planning her death. However the court looks upon the motive of the one charged and possibly convicted of murder and sentences accordingly. One murder may be manslaughter, temporary insanity, first degree, second degree, self defense, etc. The death was the same in every case, a murder. The crime however was viewed differently according to our understanding of the gray area of human behavior...unlike Islamic law which has no allowances for circumstances that led up to the motive for a crime. I favor our system of crime and punishment over Islamic law's concept of crime and punishment. Our system seems more evolved to me, and analyzing what our role and relationship with the rest of the world that leads to such hatred of America seems more evolved than vigilante self righteous justice.