3
   

Snubbing Dubai - Creating more terrorists

 
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Mar, 2006 07:26 am
Bill, allow me to present your strawman in all its glory....


Quote:
Your attempt to place the blame for your anti-Arab bigotry on the current administration is neither logical nor supported by the facts.


You presented a strawman. You argued I held the views. You attributed a position to me that I didn't express then you argued against that position. Classic strawman.

Whether your argument against the position was a good one or not doesn't matter. It was a strawman.

The left's new talking point? That's a new one to me. Care to present your evidence of the left claiming they are biased against arabs because of the right? I can't find that anywhere. Middle America is biased perhaps but I see little of the left being that way.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Mar, 2006 01:21 pm
parados wrote:
Bill, allow me to present your strawman in all its glory....

Quote:
Your attempt to place the blame for your anti-Arab bigotry on the current administration is neither logical nor supported by the facts.


You presented a strawman. You argued I held the views. You attributed a position to me that I didn't express then you argued against that position. Classic strawman.
Were that true; you'd have a point and I'd burn the Strawman to the ground myself with a full retraction. But it isn't true:
Earlier, parados wrote:
"Any complaints about boogeymen and racist reactions to muslims point to the people that have used those arguments for the last 4 years. They created the present atmosphere."
This is the kind of garbage the left's been using to defend themselves for their bigotry, and by parroting it; you volunteered to be counted with them. I see no other rational explanation for this statement... care to offer one?

To build a Strawman; I would first have to present your argument in a weakened form, and then counter it. I did not. I responded directly to the quoted words above... and can't be held responsible for your failure to articulate a more accurate picture of your position. The quoted text above remains a Non-Sequitar and my reasonable response to it is no Strawman at all. Sorry to bust your bubble.

Loosen up your definition of the bolded "your" in what you quoted above and you'll see my rebuttal was more of a blanket statement for any and all who were parroting the garbage you asserted.

Retract the Non Sequitar nonsense; and you'll see we have no quarrel since we're in agreement on the greater issue of the Ports and Arab bigotry as well.

parados wrote:
The left's new talking point? That's a new one to me. Care to present your evidence of the left claiming they are biased against arabs because of the right? I can't find that anywhere. Middle America is biased perhaps but I see little of the left being that way.
Pay attention Parados, and you'll see that rationale both on this board and in lively discussions between political rivals... like Hannity and Combs for instance. For a written example of this Non Sequitar rationale; one need only reference your post. :wink:
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Mar, 2006 01:59 pm
I see. I just need to change the meaning of words then I would understand your argument wasn't a strawman. "your position" didn't really mean my position

By the way Bill. Read my quote then ponder the fact that all arabs aren't muslims nor are all muslims arabs. A racist response to muslims does not equate to anti-arab. Just a little more straw there for the stuffing it seems.

Next pile of straw. "the people that have used those arguments.. for the last 4 years." doesn't necessarily reference the administration unless you happen to think the administration has been espousing those exact things. I didn't have the administration in mind when I made the statement.

I particularly love this defense after building a strawman
Quote:
I responded directly to the quoted words above... and can't be held responsible for your failure to articulate a more accurate picture of your position.
It means you can redefine my position any way you want without it being a strawman, doesn't it?


So to recap. My statement about people advocating racism against muslims created an atmosphere became your argument about MY personal anti-arab bias caused by the administration. It certainly looks to me like you redefined my statement in 3 distinct ways. There doesn't seem to be much of my original statement left in your strawman at all.



Quote:
Pay attention Parados, and you'll see that rationale both on this board and in lively discussions between political rivals... like Hannity and Combs for instance. For a written example of this Non Sequitar rationale; one need only reference your post. Wink
Nice evidence to support your claim. I'm sure you would let me get away with the same thing. Pay attention Bill and you would see your argument is a strawman. There, I win. :wink: Oh, and perhaps you should divorce yourself from the RW talking points while you are at it. :wink:
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Mar, 2006 04:54 pm
parados wrote:
I see. I just need to change the meaning of words then I would understand your argument wasn't a strawman. "your position" didn't really mean my position
You've deliberately avoided the meat of my point to focus on a fractional example, made, to help you get your head around it, for the purpose of presenting my argument in a weakened state... before concluding you've neutralized it. (Therein lies the classic Strawman example you've been searching for Idea)

parados wrote:
By the way Bill. Read my quote then ponder the fact that all arabs aren't muslims nor are all muslims arabs. A racist response to muslims does not equate to anti-arab. Just a little more straw there for the stuffing it seems.
Inconsiquencial wordplay that neither adds nor takes away from either of our points.

parados wrote:
Next pile of straw. "the people that have used those arguments.. for the last 4 years." doesn't necessarily reference the administration unless you happen to think the administration has been espousing those exact things. I didn't have the administration in mind when I made the statement.
This is a bold faced lie. Back-peddling now is futile since you elaborated in Ebrown's thread here. This strategy is beneath you and I'll likely ignore your posts should you choose to continue it.

parados wrote:
I particularly love this defense after building a strawman
Quote:
I responded directly to the quoted words above... and can't be held responsible for your failure to articulate a more accurate picture of your position.
It means you can redefine my position any way you want without it being a strawman, doesn't it?
No, it means exactly what I wrote. Not being a mind-reader; I have little choice but to respond to what you actually write, rather than how you feel. You parroted an illogical leftwing excuse for bigotry and were called on it. Your agreement or lack thereof with the proposed Port deal is not a factor in distinguishing this Non Sequitar. Retract it or live with it, but there is no Strawman in either pointing this out or defining the most common underlying rationale behind it.

parados wrote:
So to recap. My statement about people advocating racism against muslims created an atmosphere became your argument about MY personal anti-arab bias caused by the administration. It certainly looks to me like you redefined my statement in 3 distinct ways. There doesn't seem to be much of my original statement left in your strawman at all.
Backpedaling away from your obvious intent is a sorry substitute for coherent argument and it is a tedious tactic to endure and correct. Again; defend your Non Sequitar Nonsense or retract it. You've sidestepped the issue long enough.

parados wrote:
Quote:
Pay attention Parados, and you'll see that rationale both on this board and in lively discussions between political rivals... like Hannity and Combs for instance. For a written example of this Non Sequitar rationale; one need only reference your post. Wink
Nice evidence to support your claim. I'm sure you would let me get away with the same thing. Pay attention Bill and you would see your argument is a strawman. There, I win. :wink: Oh, and perhaps you should divorce yourself from the RW talking points while you are at it. :wink:
Rolling Eyes I would recommend you learn the definition of Strawman before touting it about foolishly. All you have won is an award for backpedaling and sidestepping your Non Sequitar nonsense.
Here is what you actually wrote:
"Any complaints about boogeymen and racist reactions to muslims point to the people that have used those arguments for the last 4 years. They created the present atmosphere."
No amount of back of backpedaling nor misdirection will get you out from under the Non Sequitar Nonsense above. Only a retraction will. Idea

Before backpedaling further; may I remind you that you elaborated on your fallacious argument here. You may also recall being thoroughly spanked for it by Finn, here.

Now; either attempt to defend your Non Sequitar nonsense or don't. I'm bored with correcting your false accusations, futile attempts at misdirection and denial.

This concludes today's lesson in how not to duck an accusation of Non Sequitar nonsense by pretending the accuser is guilty of illogical reasoning himself.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Mar, 2006 07:32 am
Bill, to answer you point by point....

OCCOM BILL wrote:
parados wrote:
It is pretty funny after all the claims that "Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda" Now we find those claims about Iraq have less substance than the claims that UAE had ties to Al Qaeda. (The crown prince of UAE spent time in Afghanistan on hunting trips with OBL.)

Any complaints about boogeymen and racist reactions to muslims point to the people that have used those arguments for the last 4 years. They created the present atmosphere.
Non Sequitar. I recall no leader saying we should dislike or distrust Iraq because they are "Arabs".
Iraqis aren't arabs. It was pointed out to me a couple of years ago that they are Persians. I don't think I have referred to them as Arabs since that time. I didn't call them Arabs in my statement.

Quote:
I recall leaders, both Democrat and Republican in lockstep saying we should dislike and distrust Saddam because of his decade of deception in regards to WMD, after actually using them. The resumption of hostilities in Iraq had nothing to do with partisan loyalty and most certainly had nothing to do with bigotry.
I said nothing about WMD. I referenced the argument that Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda. Ties to terrorism was not the only reason for invading Iraq but it was one of the major ones. It turns out the ties Saddam had to Al Qaeda are less than those that the UAE has. See the 9/11 report. The UAE crown prince and defense minister spent time in Afghanistan hunting with Osama. The decision to not use cruise missiles against Osama in 1999 was because members of the UAE royal family were there and fear that they would be killed or injured. Saddam never met with Osama. The UAE royal family did meet with him. It doesn't equate to the UAE supported Osama but it does point to stronger ties than Saddam had.

Quote:
To extrapolate an anti-Arab bias from the inconsequential fact that Saddam's Iraq was made up of Arabs is a sorry reflection of a lack of critical thinking skills.
I never said Iraq was Arab nor did I say an anti-arab bias exists. I made no such extrapolation. That is your strawman.
Quote:
Before, during, and theoretically after our action in Iraq; the UAE have been our allies, and have allowed the use of their Ports and Air Space for our Anti-Saddam purposes. Where is the anti-Arab sentiment in this simple historical fact?
None that I can see. But I never said anything about an anti-arab bias.

Quote:
Your attempt to place the blame for your anti-Arab bigotry on the current administration is neither logical nor supported by the facts.
Your strawman conclusion based on the points you made that have nothing to do with what I said.
Quote:
The United States, and indeed this administration, has too many Arab allies for such unsubstantiated conclusions.
True, so why did you make such a conclusion? I didn't.

Quote:
Yes, the United States does have Arab enemies who've been known to hijack airplanes; so paying particular attention to Arabs at our airports should be a simple reflection of common sense. One can't tell the difference between an Arab friend or foe in a line before a metal detector. However; one can damn sure distinguish which Arab leaders have been our allies from those who have not. (You're not likely to see our destroyers parked in enemy ports or F-16s lined up at an enemy airport.)
True, but really has little to do with my statement.

Quote:
The bigotry being demonstrated now shows no partisan boundaries, nor had it in the past, so proclamations that it's the Republican's fault are demonstrative of even less coherence.
And my statement about "people" showed no partisan boundaries. It was a seperate paragraph. I certainly didn't intend for it to imply the administration promoted racism against muslims. In fact the administration has been pretty clear it doesn't support that.
Quote:
I can't understand for the life of me how those convinced our actions against true Arab enemies reconcile their disagreement with same while promoting bigotry against our Arab allies. The hypocrisy is astoundingly inconsistent with the over-the-top sense of fair-play I'm grown accustomed to reading from the Left.
Lets see if you are consistent in denying the strawman again.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Mar, 2006 08:31 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
parados wrote:
I see. I just need to change the meaning of words then I would understand your argument wasn't a strawman. "your position" didn't really mean my position
You've deliberately avoided the meat of my point to focus on a fractional example, made, to help you get your head around it, for the purpose of presenting my argument in a weakened state... before concluding you've neutralized it. (Therein lies the classic Strawman example you've been searching for Idea)

parados wrote:
By the way Bill. Read my quote then ponder the fact that all arabs aren't muslims nor are all muslims arabs. A racist response to muslims does not equate to anti-arab. Just a little more straw there for the stuffing it seems.
Inconsiquencial wordplay that neither adds nor takes away from either of our points.

parados wrote:
Next pile of straw. "the people that have used those arguments.. for the last 4 years." doesn't necessarily reference the administration unless you happen to think the administration has been espousing those exact things. I didn't have the administration in mind when I made the statement.
This is a bold faced lie. Back-peddling now is futile since you elaborated in Ebrown's thread here. This strategy is beneath you and I'll likely ignore your posts should you choose to continue it.

I said -
The administration does x
people do x and y
That does not equate to the administration does x and y nor did I say the administration does x and y.

If I did say the administration is promoting an anti arab agenda then please point out where I said it. A statement where I said the administration has used 9/11 and terrorism as a stick to get its way in no way says they are racist against muslims or arabs.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Mar, 2006 09:16 am
Well, that's ONE way to start a Sunday...
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Mar, 2006 09:47 am
Im late to this thread and intend to read it all the way through but first I'd like to address the title of the thread by asking "Since when has the bush administration given a rat's ass about the consequences of it's actions, and why should they start now whining about the "consequences" of someone elses' who's opinion just doesn't happen to agree with theirs"?
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Mar, 2006 02:11 pm
That's an awful lot of space; to not answer a question Parados. The meaning of the catalyst paragraph was clear, and the sentiment was repeated several times in Ebrown's thread and by leftwing commentators everywhere. Denying what you say is a sorry substitute for meaningful conversation. Until you come up with a plausible alternate meaning forÂ…or either support or retract your Non Sequitar Nonsense; we have nothing left to discuss. Your penchant for focusing on inconsequential word play is as boring as it is tedious. Most of this exchange could have been avoided; if you'd just own up to your sentiments. Till then; good day.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Mar, 2006 03:18 pm
Non sequitur de profundis with the accent on "fun."
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Mar, 2006 04:36 pm
Choose the non sequitor statement -

A. The hypocrisy being demonstrated on this issue is only surpassed by the ignorance of the average U.S.-American, who's being scared by the false boogie-man, even while being convinced that taking out a real one was a mistake. Fascinating.

B. Any complaints about boogeymen and racist reactions to muslims point to the people that have used those arguments for the last 4 years. They created the present atmosphere.

C. Neither

D. Both of the above.


Not to rub salt in the nonsequitor wound or anything.

(The correct answer is probably D.) Laughing
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Mar, 2006 04:49 pm
Yet another spelling for non sequitur. Sorry, couldn't resist correction since you want to use Latin phrases but don't spell them correctly. Just funnin'! Laughing
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Mar, 2006 09:37 pm
I sure hope you aren't implying Bill and I have to be able to spell it before we can do it. :wink:

That dang chisel always makes my u's look like o's and Bill's u's look like a's. At least my u's don't look like v's.. Laughing
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Mar, 2006 09:39 pm
My bad, LW. Embarrassed

Parados: B. Is the correct answer.

A. Is merely a statement of opinion based upon observation. You're not asked to follow anything that doesn't follow.

B. Presents a conclusion that isn't supported by the information provided... it doesn't follow = Non Sequitur. Your error is in assuming that the results of Republican wolf crying in the past is the cause of the bigoted fear mongering taking place now... simply because it preceded it.

While statement A. may qualify as fallacious depending on your opinion of the accuracy of my assumptions: Nothing in statement A. follows the pattern described above; and is therefore not Non Sequitur. :wink:

Ps. I can provide references for the fallacious definitions above, if need be.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Mar, 2006 10:24 pm
Your hearts in the right place. I think.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 10/01/2020 at 07:32:08