For those who still don’t understand why the Iraqis are shooting at us, and base all their support of Bush’s policies on the Ends-Justifies-the-Means philosophy (Saddam was bad, therefore what we did was good), and don’t comprehend why the world doesn’t love us, I offer the following recollection:
I spent several weeks of my life in Romania in connection with some movies I wrote that were filmed there. And whenever I went anywhere with whatever Romanian guide was assigned to me, the guide would always bring up Ceausescu. Ceausescu was the Romanian dictator from the mid-60s through to the late 80s, finally overthrown by his people in fierce battle in 1989 and subsequently executed. Wherever we would go, guides would say, “And this was a palace Ceausescu was building before we overthrew him.” “And this was where Ceausescu’s favorites were housed before we overthrew him.” The fact that they had taken charge of their lives and tossed out a parasite–a parasite the U.S. had supported until the mid 1980s, by the way–was a source of great national pride.
The Iraqis have no national pride. They’re the United States’ bìŧçh. To seize control of your destiny engenders pride. To have someone do it for you and then not leave causes frustration, self-loathing, and anger directed at your intended liberators. And outside of the country, it’s seen as presumptuous and arrogant.
Get it now?
PAD
• 
“Firstly, we Canadians must be a nightmare to you folks in the US… our governing party are the Liberals!”
In name only … for the most part. Despite years of shouted promises, they didn’t change ANY of the major right-wing initiatives of the preceeding administration. In fact, they just gave us more of the same.
“Why do wealthy Canadians come to the US for heart bypasses and other major surgery? Because the medicine is good and there’s no wait.”
Thank you. You make our point. If the U.S. medical system is so great, why aren’t POOR people lining up to make use of it. Oh, wai, I used that word “poor”. Silly me. Yes, the US is wonderful … if you’re rich. A country great this does not make. (To misquote a certain green gnome.)
“If you are poor you are not going to get turned away at the door of a hospital because you don’t have insurance.”
Denzel Washington starred in an excellent film which disproved that myth. JOHN Q. Heard of it? No one has been able to shoot it down because the director was careful to get his facts straight.
“Do you truly think this happens in the states? Or are you guessing because you think we’re evil? The reality is there are plenty of government health programs for poor US citizens.”
Tell that to many of my friends in the US who dread the idea of getting sick as they don’t want to lose their house over medical expenses. Tell that to my aunt who holds a valid US citizenship and wound up in hospital there a while ago. Only a day-and-a-half, no major procedure or anything … and still owed over $6000 for it. Tell that to a friend who made the mistake of being in the US when he found out he was diabetc the hard way and woke up in an American hospital to discover his great grandsons would probably be still paying off his debt to the wonderful American health care system.
“p.p.s. Okay. Cerbeus is cool. And he’s Canadian. There, have I made it up to you?”
OK. But Sim is a jerk nonetheless.
>p.p.p.p.s. But Celine Dion truly sucks and I am never forgiving you for that, you bášŧárdš.”
Hey, I’m Canadian and I have no use for her, either. That’s why we’re so happy she goes on world tours. That way we’re rid of her for that time :p
“Varjak – I wholeheartedly agree with you… it seems the concept of manners and civility is a dying one in today’s world.”
Heinlein saw it coming 20 years ago. Read one of his last novels, FRIDAY and worry about the passage where he describes this (correctly, I fear) as one of the major signs of a society on its way out.
I’m about as conservative as they come. I enjoy reading PAD’s rants because the leftist extremism is always entertaining.
But when the man has a good point, you have to give it to him.
The nationalistic pride of the Iraqis is going to suck big time. Quite probably, without an Iraqi statesmen of amazing calibre, Iraq is going to be a crippled government, always looking for a hand out.
The better way is to let the people do their own overthrowing. But the question is, could they? Or had Saddam gotten too powerful? If WE are having a hard time with all our resources, what makes us think ragtag revolutionists could have done it?
Such choices are beyond difficult. Where’s Solomon when you need him?
Anyway, PAD, this conservative salutes your point. Well made.
Yes, let us all salute PAD’s random, non-sequitur analogies in which he take a single aspect of nation building and uses it as a staging point for another of his incoherent rants. Note that nowhere in that sentence is left-wing, liberal, or peacemonger. Thankfully, this being America, there are equal opportunities to be a çøçkšûçkër republican or democrat alike. Which is what he is.
You’d think a writer would know that analogy is among the weakest ways to defend an argument. But no. You’d think if someone wanted to criticize the Bush Presidency in regard to the war, they would try to cite actions taken without precedent — i.e., NOT acting without UN Security Council Approval. But no.
But wait, there’s more Johnny!!! You get tired arguments of “more soldiers die every day, while the lives of Iraqis remain unimproved” type-garbage. Wow! Amazing! I suppose you know something about the shi’a, sunni, and kurdish populations that no one else knows about, SINCE THE COUNTRY IS A BIG FRIGGIN’ SINKHOLE OF INFORMATION. Amazing as it may seem, the situation has not resolved itself as of yet. Criticize USAID for being hopelessly naive in their reconstruction plans. Or criticize the lack of consensus building in the UN that led to US unilateralism. If you want to criticize from a moral standpoint, at least do so under a scheme that obeys some kind of categorical imperative, rather than the chum bucket you seem to operate from.
Whatever. I may be an áššhølë, but PAD is a gøddámņëd tool.
Luigi Novi
I must say that I have always liked your posts. 🙂
*Luigi Novi: Ya know, I’m really sick and tired of people responding to opinions by comic book professionals by pointing out that they can’t argue about politics because they’re comic book professionals.*
You’ve missed the point. Sure, everyone is entitled to their opinion. That goes for writers, doctors, garbagemen, and chipmonk proctologists. I couldn’t care less what job PAD has. The entire tone of his post was this is how it was in Romania (forgive the error), so it is obviously that way in Iraq. Afterall, a tour guide told me so. And, of course, anyone who doesn’t “get it”, as PAD says, must be an idiot. I called him on it. There’s a deeper cultural issue which he completely ignores because it conflicts with his opinion.
*The ability of any person to draw a conclusion or develop a belief and articulate or argue it stems from their ability to properly obtain all the relevant facts, and to illustrate their point with logic, consistency, and objectivity.*
DING! DING! DING! Exactly.
*If you want to disagree with me, do so by pointing out where the logic is faulty, or inconsistent, or biased, not by invoking my occupation, which has nothing to do with it.*
I have done this. However, everyne who disagrees with me has said: “Oh, he’s just seeking synpathy for poor vision,” (Not true) or he’s insulted PAD for being a comic book writer (Again, not true.) and preceded to tear down these straw men rather than acknowledge I just might have a point regarding culrural differences, or, heck let’s go out on a limb here–since the Irawis are celebrating Sadaam’s sons deaths, I might have a *gasp* valid point? I say thee nay! It tis inconcievable.
*So let’s get this straight: Peter’s occupation, and for that matter, anyone else’s has absolutely, 100%, NOTHING to do with the validity of their arguments or opinions.*
You will not find any post hear where his right to have an opinion is invalid. You will instead find, at least twice, where I said he can have any opinion he wishes, no matter how ignorant or insightful. But he’s going to have to be prepared to be called on it. Judging by his reaction, I’d say he was not. His problem, not mine.
*Argumentum Ad hominem. Attacking the person instead of their argument.*
There’s is also a name for your argument: Straw Man, in which you do not debate the actual issue, but instead declare your own, precede to break it down, and declare you have won the original debate.
*Perhaps debating honestly and objectively isn’t your forte.*
I’m a third year law student. I debate to win, not to win friends and influence people.
*So he doesn’t know anything about you, but you know enough about his knowledge of history?*
I’ve read enough of his work to have a good idea of his socialization, yes.
You see it as your place to determine what his qualifications are to discuss a given topic, but when he points out that your own qualifications to post messages are less than ideal, it’s a schoolyard taunt? It seems that this is just your hypocrisy stemming from your resentment over his having an opinion you disagree with.
*Riddle me this, you seem to believe I have nothing but conyempt for the lowly profession of writer. If that were true, why would I care that a “lowly comic book writer” disagrees with me? That doesn’t follow.
*Given both Jamie’s and your own reliance on stuck-up ad hominem arguments, perhaps it is your own ability to debate with maturity that is in question, rather than Peter’s.*
An ad nom argument in an argument against ad homs. Gotta luv dat one.
*First you used an ad hominem argument, and now you’ve attributed words to him that he never said.*
So I didn’t cut and paste the whole quote. You’re reading an awful lot into it that isn’t actually.
*You indicated that his occupation was somehow germane to his ability to argue a point regarding international politics.*
No, I did not. I said stick with what you know, which is darn good advice.
*Not once did you ever make any statement about Peter’s reaction to someone disagreeing with him, nor have you demonstrated where he displayed this reaction.*
Well, I’ll be honked. I could have sworn that clinched fist, foot stomping tantrum where I’m a poor typing snotty poster and it doesn’t matter if I the My Left Foot Guy and have type with my eyebrow certainly seemed liked that type of reaction.
*The problem isn’t that you’re legally blind. It’s that you’re a poor debater.***
Thanks for your input
–a parasite the U.S. had supported until the mid 1980s, by the way–
Sorry for breaking up the debate, but what does “support” mean in this sentence? This was the first I’d heard of the U.S. “supporting” the brutal communist dictator of Romania, and I did a little research on this and couldn’t find anything that really supported this comment.
PAD writes his political commentary like it’s a sermon from the mount. That alone deserves some contempt in light of how much information there is to synthesize.
Ah, yes. I’ve seen this argument, too. The approach is more or less “You can have your opinion as long as 1) it is the same as mine; or 2) you explicitly state that it’s an opinion so that my opinion, not so explicitly labeled as such, sounds more like a fact in comparison; or 3) you make every effort to come off as apologetic for your opinion, as though you don’t have the right to disagree with me. Either (any) way, the important opinion–mine–will hold the high ground.”
Well, Varjak, thanks for showing us what a friggin’ idiot you are. Disagreeing with a person’s methodology is not tantamount to disagreeing with their position. In this case, i am also anti-war/pro-diplomacy.
Thanks for your time, slappy.
Sorry for breaking up the debate, but what does “support” mean in this sentence? This was the first I’d heard of the U.S. “supporting” the brutal communist dictator of Romania, and I did a little research on this and couldn’t find anything that really supported this comment.
A little more research will give you this quote from the AOL on-line Encyclopedia:
Ceausescu worked to make Romania independent from the Soviet Union, which was Europe’s top Communist power. This policy was supported by the United States. But Ceausescu was a dictator and placed strict controls on the lives of the people. He also established economic programs that caused severe shortages of consumer goods. Ceausescu illegally used his power to gain great wealth and put many of his relatives in high government positions. By the late 1980’s, the United States had withdrawn its support of Ceausescu.
PAD
Dan, I didn’t read anything in Varjak’s post that indicated it did. He was commenting on the use of the comment “sermon on the mount.” In what way do Peter’s posts come off that way? In what way is he not simply expressing his opinion like everyone else?
And thank you, Jason. 🙂
Jamie: You’ve missed the point. Sure, everyone is entitled to their opinion. That goes for writers, doctors, garbagemen, and chipmonk proctologists. I couldn’t care less what job PAD has.
Luigi Novi: Then you should not have brought it up as a supposedly relevant point, Jamie. In doing so, it was you who digressed from the point, not I.
Jamie: The entire tone of his post was this is how it was in Romania (forgive the error), so it is obviously that way in Iraq. Afterall, a tour guide told me so. And, of course, anyone who doesn’t “get it”, as PAD says, must be an idiot.
Luigi Novi: Nope. He never said that. “Idiot” is a word you’ve attributed to him, but he never used it in his log on Romania. Your Straw Man just fell apart.
Jamie: I called him on it. There’s a deeper cultural issue which he completely ignores because it conflicts with his opinion.
Luigi Novi: Whether the cultural differences between Romania and Iraq might lend themselves to an explanation of the how the situations are different may very well have been a good topic. Unfortunately, you did not call him on it, because you never bothered to enlighten us with an examination of these differences, which I, for one, would’ve been very interested to read, Jamie. Not once in your first post did you even mention this point. You instead made a devil’s advocate statement from the supposed point of view of an Iraqi, and then made an irrelevant comment about Peter’s occupation, which has nothing to do with the validity or invalidity of his opinion. You didn’t even mention this in your second post. Or your third. You didn’t get around to bringing up the point of the analogy until your FOURTH post. So please stop saying that you stated from the start that Peter’s “analogy” was ridiculous, because that’s just plain untrue.
Jamie: I have done this. However, everyne who disagrees with me has said: “Oh, he’s just seeking synpathy for poor vision,” (Not true) or he’s insulted PAD for being a comic book writer (Again, not true.)…
Luigi Novi: My, you do like to rewrite history yourself, don’t you? The idea that everyone who disagreed with you has resorted to these two statements is a flat-out LIE. Do you honestly think the people here can’t go through the log and see how it’s untrue?
Luigi Novi: So let’s get this straight: Peter’s occupation, and for that matter, anyone else’s has absolutely, 100%, NOTHING to do with the validity of their arguments or opinions.*
Jamie: You will not find any post hear where his right to have an opinion is invalid.
Luigi Novi: Nor did I say you did. I said that validity OF his opinion has nothing to do with his occupation, not the validity of his RIGHT TO HAVE ONE.
Jamie: You will instead find, at least twice, where I said he can have any opinion he wishes, no matter how ignorant or insightful. But he’s going to have to be prepared to be called on it. Judging by his reaction, I’d say he was not.
Luigi Novi: Again, what in his reaction indicated that he was not prepared for disagreement?
Jamie: There’s is also a name for your argument: Straw Man, in which you do not debate the actual issue, but instead declare your own, precede to break it down, and declare you have won the original debate.
Luigi Novi: Wrong. First, I responded to that something YOU SAID, Jamie. You stated that he should stick to writing funny books because International politics wasn’t his forte. I stated that one had nothing to do with the other, and that his opinion on the matter—and for that matter, your assessment of it, rises or falls on its own merits, not in relation to what his occupation is, as if the only thing he’s good at is what he does for a living. Whether he writes comics does not preclude an ability to debate on either politics, or any other topic.
Second, I never declared that I “won” anything, for the simple reason that I don’t hold such a childish view of the role of debate.
That’s not a Straw Man Argument. It’s a response to what you said.
Luigi Novi: Perhaps debating honestly and objectively isn’t your forte.
Jamie: I’m a third year law student.
Luigi Novi: So what? My sister is a law school school GRADUATE, and a practicing lawyer, and I can assure you that whenever she gets into an argument with me, she couldn’t form coherent logic with Mr. Spock pointing a gun at her head.
Law school teaches you torts, and precedents, and so forth. It does not make a poor debater who can’t resist using logical fallacies into a good one.
Jamie: I debate to win, not to win friends and influence people.
Luig Novi: Perhaps that’s your problem. Putting aside the fact that I never said anything about winning friends or influencing people, debating has nothing to do with “winning” anything. An argument is a search for the truth, or a medium for the expression of ideas. Not a battle.
Luigi Novi: So he doesn’t know anything about you, but you know enough about his knowledge of history?*
Jamie: I’ve read enough of his work to have a good idea of his socialization, yes.
Luigi Novi: You’ve read his fiction. That does not necessarily qualify you as to his knowledge of history.
Jamie: Riddle me this, you seem to believe I have nothing but conyempt for the lowly profession of writer.
Luigi Novi: No, and if you actually read what I wrote in regards to that, you’d see what I did say.
Luigi Novi: Given both Jamie’s and your own reliance on stuck-up ad hominem arguments, perhaps it is your own ability to debate with maturity that is in question, rather than Peter’s.
Jamie: An ad nom argument in an argument against ad homs. Gotta luv dat one.
Luigi Novi: It isn’t an ad hominem argument. I pointed out that your own arguments were poor on their merits, not on the fact that you’re a law student, or blind, or pro-war, or any other aspect of your pedigree.
Luigi Novi: First you used an ad hominem argument, and now you’ve attributed words to him that he never said.
Jamie: So I didn’t cut and paste the whole quote.
Luigi Novi: Um, no, that is NOT what you did, Jamie. You did NOT simply “not cut and paste the whole quote.” You took part of one sentence Peter stated, and ended with words that he never used. That has nothing to do with “not cutting and pasting the WHOLE quote.” What you did was FABRICATE something that he never said, and pass it off as if he did. Again, this is what he said:
You post snotty, you’re not entitled to get huffy if I respond in kind.
This is what you supposedly quoted:
You post snotty, you’re not entitled to your opinion
Again, this supposed quote, and your explanation of it, is a flat-out LIE. So much for your third year law school debating skills.
Luigi Novi: You indicated that his occupation was somehow germane to his ability to argue a point regarding international politics.
Jamie: No, I did not. I said stick with what you know, which is darn good advice.
Luigi Novi: No, it was not. It was a snotty, stuck-up comment that had nothing to do with the issue.
The fact that someone is good at one thing does not mean they can not also have interest or ability in another area, and invoking the one has no place in an objective, mature critique of the other. The fact that he writes comics has nothing to do with the validity of his argument on international politics. There are many people who educate themselves on history and politics by reading and watching the news because they want to keep abreast of what’s going on in the world, and to express their opinion on current events. Mentioning their primary occupation when disagreeing with their opinion on current events is not “good advice.” It’s condescension.
Luigi Novi: Not once did you ever make any statement about Peter’s reaction to someone disagreeing with him, nor have you demonstrated where he displayed this reaction.*
Jamie: Well, I’ll be honked. I could have sworn that clinched fist, foot stomping tantrum where I’m a poor typing snotty poster and it doesn’t matter if I the My Left Foot Guy and have type with my eyebrow certainly seemed liked that type of reaction.
Luigi Novi: It’s easy for it to seem that way if that’s the way you want it to seem, Jamie. The fact remains that Peter does not generally react badly to people who merely disagree with him, and only insults people when they insult him first, and so that reaction had to do with your snotty reference to his occupation and his opinion on Iraq being mutually exclusive, not with the mere fact that you DISAGREED with him.
To attribute his reaction to mere disagreement, and not to your snide comment—THAT is a Straw Man argument.
Jamie: Thanks for your input
Luigi Novi: Any time. 🙂
Interesting article at 1010WINS news online, the website the for the NYC newsradio station.
It’s at this
According to the story, John LeBoutillier, a former Republican congressman from New York, and his partner, Houston businessman Richard Erickson, will open a museum just blocks from the future Clinton Presidential Library that will be devoted to mocking him.
I found myself wondering if those who weren’t fond of Nixon, Reagan or Bush had done the same with their Presidential libraries. As if anticipating this, LeBoutillier stated that other such Presidential libraries do not require such immediate rebuttal the way Clinton’s does, arguing, “Reagan, Nixon, that’s the past.”
Ah. I see. THAT’s in the past. I get it.
Actually, Luigi, the “sermon from the mount” comment was addressed as if it was made solely because I disagreed with PAD’s opinion. My correction was that i was questioning his methodology. And i still am. He makes blanket statements, and backs them up with retarded vignettes and analogies. No doubt PAD is a good writer, and probably a very intelligent man, but there is no friggin’ way anyone should have cart blanche against criticism. And he deserves it here.
A little more research will give you this quote from the AOL on-line Encyclopedia.
Fair enough. That’s what I get for using Compuserve.
After doing even more research, I found out that the “support” of the US for Romania amounted to Most Favored Nation trading status, in reward for, as the AOL encyclopedia suggests, anti-Soviet policies; the typical product of an often tragic “enemy of my enemy” Cold War strategy.
On the other hand, according to the Human Rights Watch Report for 1989, the Bush Sr. administration brought the hammer down on Ceausescu, revoking MFN status and applying significant political pressure, measures for which HRW gave tremendous credit at the time.
For the HRW report, go to the link below.
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1989/WR89/Romania.htm
Nevertheless, your point stands, albeit now in a more nuanced perspective.
‘I may be an áššhølë,’
Posted by Dan T.
Good to see you being honest with yourself
Not too sharp there, eh steve? I would hate to have interrupted you in the middle of sucking PAD’s dìçk, but thanks for the input.
Just out of curiosity, all these people who’ve said that PAD should stick to writing comics, because politics isn’t his forte…..
how many work as political commentators?
Not too sharp there, eh steve? I would hate to have interrupted you in the middle of sucking PAD’s dìçk, but thanks for the input.
Posted by Dan
Oh, I’m all a quiver and in utmost awe over the eloquence and intellegence of your retort.
And if I were sucking PADs dìçk, they at least he, unlike you, is getting a bløw jøb that he didnt have to pay for.
Oh, steve… man. So easy. So very easy. How long did you spend editing that first sentence? I mean, geez. I suppose it sounds good enough though.
You’ve brightened up my day, holmes. Suck away!!!
And if I were sucking PADs dìçk, they at least he, unlike you, is getting a bløw jøb that he didnt have to pay for.
If you were, I think you’d have Kathleen looking over your shoulder, wondering what the hëll was going on, to say nothing of PAD’s reaction.
“Oh, steve… man. So easy. So very easy. How long did you spend editing that first sentence? I mean, geez. I suppose it sounds good enough though.
You’ve brightened up my day, holmes. Suck away!!! (edit from Steve- Mr. Intelligence here obviously doesnt know what the meaning of ‘if’ is…Typical.)
Posted by Dan”
You think I’m easy? Hey, YOU were the one who called YOURSELF an áššhølë. When you’re stupid enough to leave yourself that wide open, you should expect somebody to use the opening.
Actually, you didnt call yourself an áššhølë, you said you MAY be one. Of course, now you’ve proved it beyond any and all shadow of a doubt. Congrats.
Of course after this you will no doubt pollute this topic with more your blatent ignorance and predjudice against anyone who would have the AUDACITY to state an opinion other than your own (Because, as your posting style suggests, you are just SOOOOOOO intelligent ), and you are completely free to ,do so.
However, I am no longer going to play your childish and pathetic game. All you do is call people names, as if you know that you cant back up your argument, and quite frankly the likes of yourself just isnt worth any more time than you’ve already wasted. Pathetic. Truly.
Go ahead, unleash your pathetic little neurotic name calling tirade. on me. I can use a laugh.
Steve
Mercy, mercy, mercy. Masochists and sadists meeting yet again.
*Luigi Novi: Nope. He never said that. “Idiot” is a word you’ve attributed to him, but he never used it in his log on Romania. Your Straw Man just fell apart.*
If you didn’t gather from his post that if someone didn’t “get it,” that someone must be ignorant, what in the world did you think his point was?
The idea that everyone who disagreed with you has resorted to these two statements is a flat-out LIE. Do you honestly think the people here can’t go through the log and see how it’s untrue?
Malarky. Anyone who addressed my post mentioned one or both.
*Luigi Novi: I said that validity OF his opinion has nothing to do with his occupation, not the validity of his RIGHT TO HAVE ONE. *
I disagree. A gardener may know everything there is to know about rebuilding a car engine, but I wouldn’t go to him for advice even though he ‘watched some guy do it once and is certain it will work for me.” I’d go to a car mechanic.. And a specialist at that. Call it the right tool for the right job, if you so desire.
Luigi Novi: Again, what in his reaction indicated that he was not prepared for disagreement?
The general condescending tone, comb8ined with the, “Get it?” implied he was lecturing down with no no possible room for a reasonable person to disagree.
First, I responded to that something YOU SAID, Jamie. You stated that he should stick to writing funny books because International politics wasn’t his forte.
And it isn’t, anymore than brain surgery is mine. That’s the key reason I’ve never critiqued any cranial surgery.
I stated that one had nothing to do with the other, and that his opinion on the matter—and for that matter, your assessment of it, rises or falls on its own merits, not in relation to what his occupation is, as if the only thing he’s good at is what he does for a living.
This is completely subjective. Whether is a good writer or even good at anything he does for a living is subjective opinion. It’s no different than liking vanilla ice cream rather than chocolate. Whatever I decided he’s good at is my opinion, and is neither right nor wrong.
An argument is a search for the truth, or a medium for the expression of ideas. Not a battle.
A noble notion, but I’m a results oriented person.
You’ve read his fiction. That does not necessarily qualify you as to his knowledge of history.
You don’t think you can glean someone’s general point of view from his body of work? You can’t be serious. What do you think writing is if not an expression of the writer’s inner thoughts?
It isn’t an ad hominem argument. I pointed out that your own arguments were poor on their merits, not on the fact that you’re a law student, or blind, or pro-war, or any other aspect of your pedigree.
Actually, I was referring to your “immature” comment, but that’s no big deal.
Um, no, that is NOT what you did, Jamie. You did NOT simply “not cut and paste the whole quote.” You took part of one sentence Peter stated, and ended with words that he never used. That has nothing to do with “not cutting and pasting the WHOLE quote.” What you did was FABRICATE something that he never said, and pass it off as if he did.
Malarky. I pointed out his “snotty” answer with my post and fabricated nothing.
The fact that someone is good at one thing does not mean they can not also have interest or ability in another area, and invoking the one has no place in an objective, mature critique of the other. Mentioning their primary occupation when disagreeing with their opinion on current events is not “good advice.” It’s condescension.
No, it’s called having a good šhìŧ detector, if you’ll pardon the profanity.
It’s easy for it to seem that way if that’s the way you want it to seem, Jamie. The fact remains that Peter does not generally react badly to people who merely disagree with him, and only insults people when they insult him first, and so that reaction had to do with your snotty reference to his occupation and his opinion on Iraq being mutually exclusive, not with the mere fact that you DISAGREED with him.
Bullocks again. His entire post left no room for disagreement. The whole tone was “This is the way it is. Get it?” (And for the record, that his not a direct qote from him, lest I be accused of lying again.)
Tell me, when Sean Penn assured us everything was hunky-dory in Iraq and we didn’t need take any action, did you believe him, or did you say, “He’s an actor, what does he know?” Penn knows nothing of Iraq, WMD, or terrorism, but was just as cocksure that no one knew better than anyone else of the situation in Iraq.
Sorry, but I can’t check my brain at he door for that, or automatically assume I have the only rationale conclusion on a situation I’m not even a part of.
To attribute his reaction to mere disagreement, and not to your snide comment—THAT is a Straw Man argument.
If he’s insecure about his job how his job relates to his credibility in my eyes, I’d say he needs to not worry about what some pissant he’ll never meet in his life thnks about it. Judging by the fact that he started his next post by defending himself against my “silly” comment then listed the newsmagazines he subscribes to establish his legitimacy, I’d say he’s not off to a good start.
I’m, at least, admit I could be wrong though. I’m not a psychologist.
Wow. I’m really shocked. You haven’t flamed/been flamed much, have you?
Well, anyway. Steve, my good man, it’s not that i’m annoyed by you, or that i left an opening. Or even that i care. If you haven’t figured it out yet, there’s a reason any retard can post online. Man. Really, for future reference, you shouldn’t let anything a poster writes ever piss you off. It makes you look vaguely ridiculous.
For the record, everything i said strips down to one point. PAD, with no particular expertise, makes blanket statements regarding the middle east that are not up for discussion. Simple. I wouldn’t posted at all, since you’re more likely to get hit by a truck than have a fruitful discussion online, but the man keeps filling his log with increasingly retarded sermons. Such is life.
Not too sharp there, eh steve? I would hate to have interrupted you in the middle of sucking PAD’s dìçk, but thanks for the input.
Okay, I do think this was waaaaaay out of line.
Do ANY of you who enjoy hurling taunts think that maybe alls you’re doing is negating your own arguments? For example, if I see a post where there is a cohenrent argument, but then at the end of the post he calls someone a “c0cksucker” or a “five year old” or even a three yearold, I’m not gonna take them seriously anymore.
Much worse for those of you who chime in ONLY to insult others.
Come’on guys. We’re all intelligent adults, bad typists maybe (myself included, and hey I’ve got my own blog and write for a hobby, so you know, typos don’t indicate whether or not you can’t debate/argue), but I think we ALL could put maybe just a little effort into being respectful. Or at least be more creative with the insults 🙂
Luigi Novi: Nope. He never said that. “Idiot” is a word you’ve attributed to him, but he never used it in his log on Romania. Your Straw Man just fell apart.
Jamie: If you didn’t gather from his post that if someone didn’t “get it,” that someone must be ignorant, what in the world did you think his point was?
Luigi Novi: First, what I gathered from his essay was that it was his opinion, one based on his observation, not that anyone who disagreed with it was ignorant.
Second, you didn’t say anything about ignorance. You said, “And, of course, anyone who doesn’t “get it”, as PAD says, must be an idiot.” Peter never said that anyone who disagreed with him was an idiot. That was a word you inferred, and it was that word, not “ignorant.” “Ignorant” and “idiot” are not the same thing. One is clearly an insult, the other, while not a favorable assessment, is not.
Luigi Novi: The idea that everyone who disagreed with you has resorted to these two statements is a flat-out LIE. Do you honestly think the people here can’t go through the log and see how it’s untrue?
Jamie: Malarky. Anyone who addressed my post mentioned one or both.
Luigi Novi: You didn’t say anything about addressing your post. You said that anyone who disagreed with you. Not everyone who posts in reaction to yours will necessarily reference you by name.
Luigi Novi: I said that validity OF his opinion has nothing to do with his occupation, not the validity of his RIGHT TO HAVE ONE.
Jamie: I disagree. A gardener may know everything there is to know about rebuilding a car engine, but I wouldn’t go to him for advice even though he ‘watched some guy do it once and is certain it will work for me.” I’d go to a car mechanic.. And a specialist at that. Call it the right tool for the right job, if you so desire.
Luigi Novi: What does that have to do with my statement being confused with the one you interpreted? I said the validity of his opinion has nothing to do with his occupation, and you inferred that I was accusing you of saying that it had bearing on his right to have one. You’re changing the subject of this particular exchange. The ORIGINAL point referenced was the connection between occupation on political opinion. The one at this point was your misinterpreting one comment I made for another.
But since you want to shift it over to that…
You stated that a gardener may know everything there is to know about rebuilding a car engine, but you wouldn’t go to him for advice even thought he “watched some guy do it once and is certain it will work for me.” This analogy falls apart for three different reasons.
First, you state first that the gardener “knows everything there is to know about rebuilding engines.” Then you state that he asserts that he can do because he “watched some guy do it once.” If he watched some guy do it once, then he doesn’t know everything there is to know about rebuilding them. So you contradict yourself right there. Is he an expert or not?
Second, while Peter has some fame in a specific, esoteric area, he is, in regards to politics, a private citizen. Whatever views, observations or opinions he states are those of just that: a private citizen, and so it holds as when any of us post an opinion here. In your gardener/mechanic analogy, you said you wouldn’t go to him for advice about rebuilding cars. In other words, if I understand correctly, if you needed your engine rebuilt, and needed a pro, you wouldn’t go to him, right? (Correct me if I’ve misunderstood this.) This is where the analogy with Peter falls apart. Peter isn’t a professional on international relations/politics, and no one ever said anything about anyone “going to him” in a professional capacity. Did anyone here mention Fox News or CNN or the New York Times hiring him as a Middle East policy analyst? No.
The third way in which the analogy fails is the same in which I’ve been stating it up until now: The fact that the guy is a gardener has NOTHING to do with why he’s not good at rebuilding engines. (Since you gave two contradictory estimates of his engine expertise [knowing everything about them, and only having seen one guy do it once], and this explanation requires the given that he’s not good at it, we’ll assume the latter.) The reason he’s not good at engines is clear, as you yourself stated: HE DID NOT STUDY OR LEARN ABOUT THEM. The fact that he merely saw some guy do it once does not qualify him to do it himself. The fact that he is a gardener has NOTHING to do with it. Someone could very well be a gardener, and also know how to rebuild engines.
Peter’s views on international politics have nothing to do with his being a writer. If you find something fallacious in his reasoning, you should point it out, and explain it. The only time you even tried to do this was in your FOURTH post, in which you opined that cultural differences between the Czechs and Iraqis meant that his argument of national pride was invalid, a point that you still have not elaborated on. Indeed, I think you might not even have brought up the point of his being a writer if he stated an opinion that you agree with. You only say it because he stated one you disagree with. I’ll say it again: What exactly is the nature of the cultural differences between the two, and how does Peter’s argument fail to take it into account?
And btw, since this is your belief regarding qualification, may I ask in what way are you, as a third year law school student, qualified to discuss it? I’m just curious, and I’d like to read what you have to say.
Luigi Novi: Again, what in his reaction indicated that he was not prepared for disagreement?
Jamie: The general condescending tone, combined with the, “Get it?” implied he was lecturing down with no no possible room for a reasonable person to disagree.
Luigi Novi: In my opinion, it did not imply that.
I saw nothing more than Peter giving a very strongly opinionated essay. What exactly is it about “Get it” that by definition, means there is no possible room for reasonable disagreement? What? Can you tell me? Why won’t you admit that this is just an interpretation, one that many others on this board did not make? Why are you acting as if your interpretation of a statement is somehow what he intentionally implied? Since when does “Get it” mean there is no room for disagreement? And what exactly indicated a condescending tone? (I notice you mentioned a condescending tone “combined with” the “Get it” comment, indicating that there was something else additional besides that remark that you deemed as such.)
Luigi Novi: First, I responded to that something YOU SAID, Jamie. You stated that he should stick to writing funny books because International politics wasn’t his forte.
Jamie: And it isn’t, anymore than brain surgery is mine. That’s the key reason I’ve never critiqued any cranial surgery.
Luigi Novi: Again, you’re changing the subject.
1. I referred to your comment about his occupation as an ad hominem argument.
2. You responded by saying that my saying so was a Straw Man argument.
3. I responded that I did not use a Straw Man, because my pointing out that you were using an ad hominem one was based on what you said about his occupation, not something that you did not say.
You are now responding not to that thread, but back to the original point to which I responded in item #1. I’ll say it again. I have not used a Straw Man, because my comments pertain to that which you did in fact say, not what you didn’t say.
Try to stay on point, okay?
But again, if you want to go back to that original pre-digression point, current events and politics is distinct as a topic of debate from brain surgery in that in American philosophy, the public is both required and encouraged to learn about it and express itself in it, and doing so, while sometimes entailing complex, detailed matters, does not require the specialized training that brain surgery does. Your argument again implies in a condescending, snotty manner, that private citizens like myself or Peter are not qualified to form opinions on matters of politics, which is false.
Luigi Novi: I stated that one had nothing to do with the other, and that his opinion on the matter—and for that matter, your assessment of it, rises or falls on its own merits, not in relation to what his occupation is, as if the only thing he’s good at is what he does for a living.
Jamie: This is completely subjective. Whether is a good writer or even good at anything he does for a living is subjective opinion. It’s no different than liking vanilla ice cream rather than chocolate. Whatever I decided he’s good at is my opinion, and is neither right nor wrong.
Luigi Novi: Oh my god.
Dude, what are you talking about??
We’re not talking about whether Peter’s writing is good! Are you that absent-minded? Christ, you even included a quote by me in this exchange that SHOWS that that’s not what the point is about!
Where, in what I just said above, did I indicate that an assessment of his writing is objective, rather than subjective? Who said that it wasn’t a matter of an opinion, or that it’s a matter of right and wrong? Putting aside the fact that both you and I have indicated that we both like his writing (given that we both frequent this site regularly, and your admonition to him to stick to writing comics), the POINT of that quote above is that his arguments on a political topic have NOTHING to do with whether—I’ll say it again, WHETHER—he’s good at writing.
That’s the THIRD time you’ve changed the subject.
Luigi Novi: An argument is a search for the truth, or a medium for the expression of ideas. Not a battle.
Jamie: A noble notion, but I’m a results oriented person.
Luigi Novi: The only “results” of debating on a message board is to express your views, and to learn about those of others. I’m not sure what criteria you’d use to measure “winning,” but if the apparent quality of one’s arguments versus another’s is one, then given your total inability to maintain a coherent exchange, your constant changing of the subject, your inability to distinguish between an interpretation of someone’s words and a foregone conclusion, and your tendency to rely on invalid ad hominem equations between the validity of a person’s argument and their occupation (not to mention other logical fallacies), I’d suggest a more practical position on debate would be in order for you, since a so-called “win” isn’t likely in your case.
Luigi Novi: You’ve read his fiction. That does not necessarily qualify you as to his knowledge of history.
Jamie: You don’t think you can glean someone’s general point of view from his body of work? You can’t be serious. What do you think writing is if not an expression of the writer’s inner thoughts?
Luigi Novi: That’s number FOUR, Jamie.
We’re not talking about his view or his inner thoughts. We’re talking about his knowledge of history and politics. Not the views he draws from that knowledge. Staying on track that much trouble for you, eh? Or do you really have that much trouble distinguishing between two different things?
But since you ask (and this is now the THIRD time I’ve answered a extraneous question), the degree to which you can glean a writer’s view or thoughts from his work varies with the writer, the work, the topic in question, and the specific detailed aspect of that topic. Can you sometimes determine such a thing? Perhaps. But generally I don’t think one can with certainty. Certainly not to the degree that people seem to do when they “protest” some supposed message or theme in a book or movie, and certainly not to the degree that you seem to think you can, Jamie. I can understand where Peter was coming from when he had Entropy tell Genis in Captain Marvel #5 that George W. Bush’s entire presidency was based on G.W.’s desire to validate his own worth by making his old man happy, but then again, that’s because I already knew what Peter’s position on Bush was from his columns and logs. I wouldn’t pretend to be able to read his view on any given topic from the way he may treat a topic in something he writes. One of the things writers have to do is to get inside the mind of characters that both hold feelings the writer agrees with and disagrees with. How many times has some parent or other member of the thought police raised a controversy based on some message or theme that they thought an artist intended in his work?
People thought that Chris Ofili’s “Blessed Virgin Mary,” a work that was part of an exhibit at the Brooklyn Museum a few years ago, and which featured a depiction of the Virgin Mary surrounded by elephant dung was anti-Catholic, but Ofili himself is Catholic. People thought the same of Kevin Smith’s Dogma, but he too is Catholic. And what about that doctor who raised a ruckus on A Current Affair because Todd McFarlane did an issue of Spawn featuring the KKK spouting epithets toward black people, when it was obvious that they were the villains of the story, and were depicted as such, just as they are in any story in any movie or TV show with an anti-racism theme? For that matter, what about Frederic Wertham, and the ridiculous messages that he saw in comic books?
I certainly didn’t get from Incredible Hulk #380 that he was anti-death penalty. Peter, is also, if I’m not mistaken, is pro-choice, but in a story in X-Factor #77-78, a doctor developed a test to determine if a fetus is a mutant, which would give parents the option to terminate the pregnancy on those grounds. X-Factor failed to get to his clinic before Wildside of the Mutant Liberation Front mortally wounded the doctor, but as he lay dying, he asked Rahne (Wolfsbane) to allow his computer to finish transferring the specs on his test to a disk and give it to the government. Rahne was so offended at the idea of parents terminating pregnancy because the fetus was a mutant, that she destroyed the computer. And in the current Captain Marvel series, the main character has gone from a benevolent hero to a psychotic murderer with no moral center. So how do you explain this? Are you saying that Peter is a proponent of psychosis and murder? Or that George Lucas is in favor of blowing up planets?
Luigi Novi: It isn’t an ad hominem argument. I pointed out that your own arguments were poor on their merits, not on the fact that you’re a law student, or blind, or pro-war, or any other aspect of your pedigree.
Jamie: Actually, I was referring to your “immature” comment, but that’s no big deal.
Luigi Novi: And what did I say? I said to Dan Taussig his own ability to debate with maturity, and yours, may be in question because of the way you both relied on ad hominem arguments. That wasn’t an ad hominem itself. It was my opinion of your own arguments.
Luigi Novi: Um, no, that is NOT what you did, Jamie. You did NOT simply “not cut and paste the whole quote.” You took part of one sentence Peter stated, and ended with words that he never used. That has nothing to do with “not cutting and pasting the WHOLE quote.” What you did was FABRICATE something that he never said, and pass it off as if he did.
Jamie: Malarky. I pointed out his “snotty” answer with my post and fabricated nothing.
Luigi Novi: A lie.
I’ll review it again:
This is what Peter said:
Noooo no no. You write a snotty posting, I responded with a dose of your own medicine, but hey. I’m supposed to feel bad because you’re legally blind? I don’t care if you’re the guy from “My Left Foot.” You post snotty, you’re not entitled to get huffy if I respond in kind.
This is how you responded, Jamie:
You post snotty, you’re not entitled to your opinion
I never said that, It’s your blog. You may be as insightful or ignorant as you please. I merely suggested you shouldn’t be such a crybaby if someone disagrees with you.
He did not say “you’re not entitled to your opinion,” and if you assert that he did, you are, quite plainly, a liar. No one reading this has to believe me. They can just scroll up and see the evidence for themselves. Not once in that post did he ever say anything about your entitlement to your opinion. He said that if you post a snotty remark, you’re not entitled to get huffy if he responds in kind. You’re supposed quote from him was fake.
Luigi Novi: The fact that someone is good at one thing does not mean they can not also have interest or ability in another area, and invoking the one has no place in an objective, mature critique of the other. Mentioning their primary occupation when disagreeing with their opinion on current events is not “good advice.” It’s condescension.
Jamie: No, it’s called having a good šhìŧ detector, if you’ll pardon the profanity.
Luigi Novi: I thought you said it was giving good advice? Now it’s something else? Is “having a good šhìŧ detector” another phrase for “giving good advice”? Or are you just flip-flopping back and forth again?
In what way does mentioning his primary occupation when disagreeing with his opinion on Iraqi pride “having a good šhìŧ detector”? I didn’t understand this at all. Could you elaborate?
Luigi Novi: It’s easy for it to seem that way if that’s the way you want it to seem, Jamie. The fact remains that Peter does not generally react badly to people who merely disagree with him, and only insults people when they insult him first, and so that reaction had to do with your snotty reference to his occupation and his opinion on Iraq being mutually exclusive, not with the mere fact that you DISAGREED with him.
Jamie: Bullocks again. His entire post left no room for disagreement.
Luigi Novi: In what way? You disagreed with it, didn’t you?
He put it on his public blog where people who read it could post their thoughts and disagree with it, didn’t he?
Jamie: The whole tone was “This is the way it is. Get it?”
Luigi Novi: Yeah, that was his observation, and the opinion he formed from it. In what way did that leave no room for disagreement? What “tone”? What is it in what he said that indicated there was no room for disagreement? What? Where? Tell me. What indicated this so-called “tone”? In what way does saying “Get it?” mean “there’s no room for disagreement”? I didn’t get that. Nor did many others here. He started off his blog with “For those who still don’t understand why the Iraqis are shooting at us…, and proceeded to explain why he thought they were doing so. He ended with “Get it?” as his way of asking if the reader understood now why (according to him) Iraqis are shooting at our soldiers. Nowhere in that do I get “anyone who disagrees with me is wrong/ignorant/an idiot/.”
That is an interpretation, and you’re acting as if your interpretation of his intention is somehow a fact. If you got this reaction from that remark, why didn’t you simply ask him if that was the case? Why assume a condescending intent, and thereby go out on a limb and accuse someone of it when you’re not sure, rather than simply ASKING HIM to elaborate on that comment or explain it? Were you afraid of what he’d say? Wouldn’t it have been better to tie up that loose end by being certain about this theory, so that your argument would be stronger?
Jamie: Tell me, when Sean Penn assured us everything was hunky-dory in Iraq and we didn’t need take any action, did you believe him, or did you say, “He’s an actor, what does he know?” Penn knows nothing of Iraq, WMD, or terrorism, but was just as cocksure that no one knew better than anyone else of the situation in Iraq.
Luigi Novi: Neither. If I had heard that statement when he made it (I don’t recall having heard it), I’d have reserved judgment because I didn’t have the ability to assess the validity of the statement one way or the other, and, as in all matters, I try to consider information from as many different sources as I could, of which his would’ve been only one. The fact that he was there might have been one point by which to judge his statement. The fact that some unfavorable conditions might’ve have been hidden from him would’ve been another. The fact that he’s an actor would not have had anything to do with it one way or the other.
The problem with this argument is that you are focusing on a positive rather than a negative. Specifically, focusing on what one is rather than on what one isn’t. You’re focusing on what a person IS (an actor, a writer, etc.), rather than on focusing your argument on what they DON’T have (i.e.: knowledge of the topic at hand). The problem with this silly little insistence on an ad hominem argument of yours is that you seem to think that knowledge in one area precludes knowledge in another, which would mean that if I see someone posting on an astronomy board that the speed of light is 168,000 miles per second, I can’t correct him by saying that it’s really 186,000, because I work in market research, and my vocation is in illustration rather than astronomy. Sure, you could argue that I might know that figure because I looked it up or because I’ve always loved astronomy and have some knowledge of it, but then, why does the same possibility not hold true for Peter and politics? If an actor working on a TV show said they wanted to be a reporter on CNN, would you say that their being an actor precludes it? That would be a fallacious argument, because the real question is whether they have knowledge in broadcasting, which isn’t precluded by being an actor on a TV show. Thus, NYPD Blue star Andrea Thompson left acting to become a reporter for CNN, which she was able to do because she had knowledge and experience in broadcasting. (Indeed, I wonder what might have been your reaction if she made an opinion on Iraq you disagreed with at the time she was still on NYPD Blue. Pointing out that she was an actress would ignore the fact that she had experience and interest in journalism, and therefore might be knowledgeable of the matter.)
If you want to argue why a given statement is invalid, you have to do so by illustrating where the logic is faulty. You said you’re in law school. I don’t know if you intend to be a courtroom litigator, but if you want to voir dire a witness’ expertise in a given area, you’re going to have to ask them what they’re qualifications are in that area, not ask them if they hold another occupation in another area. If you limit your voir dire to the latter rather than the former, and without showing any relevance, and the judge rules that line of questioning irrelevant, you can have a sidebar and argue with him all your want about the benefits of your promotion of the ad hominem argument you’re trying to use, but I’d imagine you’d be laughed out of court.
Jamie: Sorry, but I can’t check my brain at he door for that, or automatically assume I have the only rationale conclusion on a situation I’m not even a part of.
Luigi Novi: You didn’t say that Penn said he had the only rational conclusion. Only that he formed one of his own.
Luigi Novi: To attribute his reaction to mere disagreement, and not to your snide comment—THAT is a Straw Man argument.
Jamie: If he’s insecure about his job how his job relates to his credibility in my eyes, I’d say he needs to not worry about what some pissant he’ll never meet in his life thnks about it.
Luigi Novi: Again, a condescending interpretation that you subscribe to simply because it’s one that’s consistent with your predisposition toward him.
Why does responding to a condescending remark necessarily indicate insecurity? Does the fact that you have responded to me mean that you’re insecure about my opinion of you?? Or does this argument only work when you’re insulting Peter?
It’s not insecurity. You made a fallacious argument, and he called you on it, much as I have. The only one who connected insecurity in his job with his credibility in your eyes is you. “Insecurity,” much the rest of your statements, is merely rhetoric, rather than any conclusion based on evidence or reason.
Put it this way:
You mention his occupation when remarking on his political opinion. He points out that one has nothing to do with the other. Now one of at least two things is possible:
1. He is insecure about how his job relates to his credibility in your eyes.
2. He is merely pointing out that your argument is fallacious.
Now either is possible. So here’s the question: What evidence (not interpretations, but evidence) do you have that points to one over the other? The fact of the matter is, you don’t. You are simply deciding that which gives you justification in your mind to continue attacking him.
Jamie: Judging by the fact that he started his next post by defending himself against my “silly” comment then listed the newsmagazines he subscribes to establish his legitimacy, I’d say he’s not off to a good start.
Luigi Novi: In other words, you describe any kind of response from him to you in the most negative way possible. If he states a political opinion you don’t like, he’s just a comic book writer. If he points out that he reads and studies the issues, and brings up some of the sources he uses because the subject came up in the previous log, then he’s insecure. He’s dámņëd if he does, and he’s dámņëd if he doesn’t. What a fûçkìņg hypocrite you are.
This blog is for Peter to interact with his fans. Naturally, he responds to them, sometimes to agree, sometimes to disagree, sometimes to answer questions or respond to comments. What you’re saying is that the ideal situation would be for what we say here to not have zero effect on him, and that he not react to any of it at all? Thanks, but I like that fact that talks back, thank you very much.
PAD, with no particular expertise, makes blanket statements regarding the middle east that are not up for discussion. Simple.
Simple but wrong, and easily disproven: If I truly considered them not up for discussion, then I would have clicked on the simple option on my journal menu which would have prohibited responses.
My patience, however, is being sorely tried on the language I’m seeing here…language which is coming, more or less, solely from people who hold opposing viewpoints and therefore are not doing themselves any favors.
I’m trying to keep it so that parents looking over their kids’ shoulders won’t be upset by the language on this site, and many of the by-now-predictable ad hominem attacks are crossing lines. In future threads, I *will* simply delete entire postings that have language and/or insults I consider counterproductive.
PAD
I completely disagree with Peter’s politics and think he’s wrong in most of his political opinions. That said, he’s got as much right to his as I do to mine. Now, past that obvious point, I will much more quickly side with him than with someone whose opinion is almost 100% identical to mine, if that person is:
a. Offering only profane insults.
b. arguing just to hear themselves argue, as two posters are doing. I don’t even bother to read it all now; it’s just dumb.
I once saw a rather crude quote on the net: “Winning an argument on the Internet is like winning the Special Olympics. Either way, you’re still retarded.” Again, a little mean-spirited, but a fair observation. None of us are ever going to change each others minds in a forum where we don’t even have any face to face contact. The very best we can hope for, which is too seldom reached, is that we keep discussion at a civil level. Most of us all fall short as tempers begin to flare, but the point is to strive continuously for civility.
Just out of curiosity, who are the two posters arguing just to hear themselves argue, Rob?
Peter, I apologize for my prior language. 🙂
Luigi: I forget :). There’s simply too much in this thread for me to go back and read it all.
Geez, Luigi. Tell you what. I’ll let whoever feels like thinking I’m a lying, hypocritical, martyred, antisocial whatchamacallit or have warm fuzzies about me, rather than write another treatise on the subject.
You’re right. A debate board is a place to express opinions, and I have not changed mine.
Well, maybe one doesn’t have to write a ‘treatise,” but I repeatedly asked you to elaborate on two specific points:
1. If a private citizen or writer cannot form a valid political opinion, what qualfies you to make such a statement yourself?
2. How exactly is it that the cultures of the Romanians and Iraqis are different to the extent that Peter’s notions of national pride to do not apply, and on what reference or knowledge of the topic do you base this on?
…and you have done nothing but use Straw Man, ad hominem arguments, and fabricated quotes. You have not offered one solid argument on this topic, even when asked. Your posts are houses of cards, and you’ve put the final nail in the coffin by deliberately and repeatedly evading the question.
Take care.
The problem with your argument is that the overwhelming majority of post-war attacks have been limited to less than 1% of Iraq’s area — the “Sunni Triangle,” as it were. Most of the people attacking US troops are holdovers from the old regime and tribes loyal to Saddam; in other words, people who had a lot to lose in the fall of the old regime and nothing to gain in a new, democratic one.
Actually, a Sunni stronghold is not a Ba’ath stronghold – Saddam was never popular in that area.
I will announce my disability, since it’s germane to the healthcare argument: A few months ago I had (free!) surgery for a macular hole in my right eye. I can sorta read with it now. But I bet I know why wealthy Canadians go to America for hospital stays, from my own experience.
As it happens, by a happy accident, the only bed available for me when I checked in to Moorfield’s Eye Hospital in London was in a a private room that wasn’t being used. Ordinarly, you pay for that. But you know what? It’s only marginally better than what you’d get free normally from the NHS. You still share a loo with the entire ward, the door to the room opens into the ward itself, there’s no call button, the only phone available to you is a pay phone on the ward (unless you bring your cell, but of course you aren’t supposed to turn it on inside a hospital), etc.
In other words, it’s the frills. The room I had in the US when I had my tonsils out as a kid was more than four times the size of my premium private room at Moorefield’s. I can still remember seeing our family doctor, some other docs and nurses, and both of my parents at the foot of my bed in that room. In the room I had here in London, there was space for my bag at the foot of my bed, and that’s all. I could go on….
(When my father was dying, his room at Holy Cross was smaller than the one I’d had as a kid, but we still had the whole family in there. There was room for one chair in my room at Moorfield’s.)
If I had money, sure, I’d rather stay in an American hospital because it’s nicer. But the truth is, the care I got at Moorefield’s was medically top-notch. And it was free.
Now, understand, when I say “free”, yes, of course I pay taxes of various kinds. But I’m not working at the moment, so I’m not paying taxes, and I couldn’t have paid for my eye surgery, either. But I didn’t have to.
Nor did I have to wait long for it. In fact, they would have been happier if I hadn’t freaked out and delayed my decision – they were ready for me a week earlier than I was ready for them.
What kind of taxes do I pay when I’m working? 20% income tax. I think the personal deduction at the moment is somewhere around four thousand pounds or more. I don’t have to pay state taxes, there are no county taxes, and my real estate taxes (or “rates”, as they call them here) are about six hundred pounds a year for a house that is pretty nice for London. That’s actually less of a bite out of my income than I paid in the US.
I think Peter’s point was a good one. And I find it a bit scary that some people arount here can’t see the difference between Hitler and Saddam. But then, if there’s one thing we learn from history, it’s that we don’t learn nothin’ from history….
Jamie said: A gardener may know everything there is to know about rebuilding a car engine, but I wouldn’t go to him for advice even though he ‘watched some guy do it once and is certain it will work for me.”
WHAT??? Wait a sec. This makes no sense! I know that if I watched a guy do an oil change once, I would by no means consider myself knowing everything there is to know about it.
If a gardener DID know everything there was to know about rebuilding a car engine, I wouldn’t care what he did during the day time. That night, I’d lure him over to my place, offer him beer and money and let him fix my car.
So he works as a gardener…That doesn’t mean he CAN’T fix cars if he knows how to.
I consider myself to be a jack of some trades. Even though I have a degree in journalism, I have also, at one point or another, done accounting, graphic design, photography, acting, singing, and computer consulting, amongst other stuff.
Just because I currently work in retail DOESN’T mean that I’m NOT proficient at anything else. In fact, I consider myself more proficient at some of my hobbies/other interests than I am at my job skills!
And this is why the whole “So-and-so does THIS job, so they shouldn’t stick their nose into an issue which doesn’t concern the field they’re working in” argument is just plain wrong…
Exactly, Jago, this is the problem with the argument put forward that Peter cannot have a valid political opinion because he writes comics. If one can educate themselves in a given area, they can most certainly form a solid conclusion in an area somewhat removed from their chosen profession.
Peter, for example, used to work in ad sales. Could he not provide valuable advice or criticism to a friend who needed help tweaking a story prior to his becoming a writer? What if he gave the advice right after he sold his first novel or comic story? Would it be valid then? Or what if he wanted to give his view on a matter of ad sales now, given that he’s no longer in that field? Such a dividing line (professional in the field vs. not) seems wholly arbitrary. It ignores the fact that it’s all about whether the statement he gives is true/reasonable or not.
I am reminded of a story on comets and other Near-Earth Objects (NEOs) that I saw on the Discovering or Learning Channel, and how a very small portion of NASA’s budget is devoted to tracking all the potentially hazardous objects that could cause an impact on Earth, and so some amateur astronomers build their own telescopes to track them using old-fashioned photographic plates. One in particular built his observatory, with a telescope made largely of wood that could be slid forward or backward on wheels. If I recall accurately, he had tracked and therefore named a large number (perhaps the record holder for the largest number, I’m not sure) of comets/asteroids, an unusually high number for a civilian, non-professional scientist. What do the promoters of this snotty little ad hominem argument make of that? There’s just too many examples we could easily cite or research that shows being a pro in a field is simply too arbitrary a criteria for judging a particular point of debate invalid.
I am loathe to beat a dead horse. Win. This is the last pst on the subject.
1. If a private citizen or writer cannot form a valid political opinion, what qualfies you to make such a statement yourself?
I made an offhand comment that got undies in a bundle. Yes, iI think he’s wrong, and I said so in a smart alce of the cuff way. It got everyone’s undies in a bundle. You’re right, it was dumb, spur of the moment and I should have explained things better and apologized if someone had broughyt that up reasonably. Instead, PAD mocks my disability and pìššëš me off. I’m stubborn. No way am I going to apologize to a man that does that even if I have to defend that the moon is made out of green cheese.
End of story.
2. How exactly is it that the cultures of the Romanians and Iraqis are different to the extent that Peter’s notions of national pride to do not apply, and on what reference or knowledge of the topic do you base this on?
Muslims “respect a might makes right” philosophy. The Iraqis don’t trust us now because Bush I “offered” them support to over throw Sadaam an they got slaughtered when they didn’t have our support. We have to now gain respect in their eyes by showing srength in the face of these attacks.
I’ve already explained why I attacked PAD’s credentials, so I am not airing out mine.
Jamie: This is the last pst on the subject.
Luigi Novi: Hate to disappoint you, dude, but I got another one right here.
Luigi Novi: If a private citizen or writer cannot form a valid political opinion, what qualfies you to make such a statement yourself?
Jamie: I made an offhand comment that got undies in a bundle. Yes, iI think he’s wrong, and I said so in a smart alce of the cuff way.
Luigi Novi: An “offhand” comment whose central argument you continued to repeat and promote in several subsequent posts?
Uh…no.
I don’t think so.
While you may not have prepared or thought out the initial comment, you cannot use that explanation for the continued defense of it throughout the thread. Now that I’ve discredited each of your arguments for the shams that they are, you’re trying to backtrack. Guess what, Jamie? It’s not working.
Jamie: You’re right, it was dumb, spur of the moment and I should have explained things better and apologized if someone had broughyt that up reasonably. Instead, PAD mocks my disability and pìššëš me off. I’m stubborn. No way am I going to apologize to a man that does that even if I have to defend that the moon is made out of green cheese.
Luigi Novi: So in other words, you reserve the right to make such mistakes, but not others who may respond to them in the same less-than-constructive way? If you acknowledge that you made an unwise comment that made others angry, why can’t Peter or others be forgiven for the same thing? Why insist on the both the right to make such mistakes and how others be obligated to respond to them with more maturity? Sure, Peter might’ve responded without referencing your typing or disability, but you sure didn’t give him much motive by refusing to apologize for the first salvo you made until right NOW. Why couldn’t you just say, “Look, Peter, I’m sorry I made a condescending remark to you, and I’m assuming you would not make a similar one to me about my disability if I hadn’t done so.” Why admit you were wrong, but not grant him the same opportunity to come halfway himself?
Hey, hear that chirping sound? (Turns toward the window) Oh, look!
The hypocrites are in season!
Jamie: End of story.
Luigi Novi: Really? Hmm….is that anything like “Get it”?
I ask, because you insisted Peter’s use of that remark indicated that there was no room for disagreement—an interpretation that I myself just don’t see, personally—but the phrase “End of story,” on the other hand, actually is used by some people to indicate just such a thing.
Luigi Novi: How exactly is it that the cultures of the Romanians and Iraqis are different to the extent that Peter’s notions of national pride to do not apply, and on what reference or knowledge of the topic do you base this on?
Jamie: Muslims “respect a might makes right” philosophy. The Iraqis don’t trust us now because Bush I “offered” them support to over throw Sadaam an they got slaughtered when they didn’t have our support. We have to now gain respect in their eyes by showing srength in the face of these attacks.
Luigi Novi: What does that have to do with what Peter said about his observation of Romanians? He stated a people have pride when they’ve worked hard to claim their own independence, and that our invading Iraq to do this for them may have raised their ire. What you said about their reaction to George Bush’s policy in 1991 is probably true, but why does it mean that Peter’s isn’t? I don’t see how it’s a one-or-the-other situation. Can’t it be both?
Also, you have not illustrated why the statement is wrong specifically because of cultural differences between Romanians and Iraqis. Again, what is the cultural difference that would make Romanians proud after overthrowing their own dictator, but not so with the Iraqis had they done so with theirs?
Lastly, your statement ”Muslims “respect a might makes right” philosophy” sounds like a somewhat racist generalization. Which Iraqis? Sunni? Shiite? Salafi? Ahmadis? Deobandi? All of them? All of the world? I have a friend who’s a Sunni Muslim, and I don’t think he’d agree with your statement, or think very highly of you judging him in this way.
I just read an interesting account of the rebuilding effort in Iraq here:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/rydbom.asp
To those people who compare the creation of a democracy in Iraq to Germany after WWII:
It’s completly different. Iraq doesn’t know what freedom means, they only know dicatorship. Germany knew and existed throughout democracy and monarchy. Before Hitler took over Germans remembered various different governments, unlike the peoples of Iraq.
And someone mentioned that all germans stood behind Hitler. That was just propaganda. They cheered when Hitler was elected, not because they wanted war or kill jews, but because he spoke of freedom, peace and a united Germany. He appealed to the unemployed, to the poor, to the disappointed. And disappointed they were after the fall of the Weimar republic.
Hitler then used the holes in the Weimar laws, to bring the whole government to a stand-still and to be the only one with power left.
So when people realized who Hitler really is, it was too late. To be fair, any smart person would see through Hitler’s rethoric. But then german economy was so bad, people really wanted to believe his words.
Pascal
“There’s just too many examples we could easily cite or research that shows being a pro in a field is simply too arbitrary a criteria for judging a particular point of debate invalid”
Almost twenty years ago, the city of Ottawa decided to renovate part of the downtown core. Taking a pleasant neighbourhood with lots of old family-owned shops which had been there for decades and turning it into a large, indoor mall, with transit connections and reworked (less car-friendly) road network surrounding it.
As I tried in vain to negotiate this silly maze (called the “Rideau Center”, it was more appropriately referred to by most as “the “Ridiculous Center”) I had occasion to grumble about it. My passenger at the time, a professional Engineer, tut-tutted me and asked if I had a degree in civil engineering, or had taken any courses in transportation theory. Uh … no. Then how is it that I could make disparaging remarks about something which I knew nothing about. I probably didn’t even understand what they were trying to accomplish there.
Uh …
So I shut up. But, over the next few years I quietly accumulated a large file of articles and letters to the local newspapers. All of them negative concerning that tangled mess. And culminating in an admission by the city that it was a failure and needed to be changed drastically.
It was with great pleasure I brought the thick manilla envelope, filled with these clippings, to the aforementioned engineer and smiled as I told her “See? Sometimes you don’t need a PhD in ornithology to recognize a turkey when you see one.”
It was her turn to shut up.
Not to mention that pretty much anyone online who writes reviews (be it the eight million comics reviewers, the nine million movie reviewers, or the various Trek reviewers like … er … me) is doing so without benefit of an MFA in film studies or any such thing.
There is such a thing as an intelligent observer. At least, there used to be.
TWL
And speaking as one of Tim Lynch’s fans who loved reading his Trek episode reviews (he was one of three Trek reviewers whose reviews I regularly read), I can say that his recent announcement that he will no longer be reviewing Enterprise, while not entirely shocking, is sad, and his reviews (as those of David Sluss, another one of the three who announced his retirement) will be sorely missed.
Good luck, Tim. 🙂
I’m joining in a bit late, but according to your logic, PAD, we should’ve waited. Right? Until when? 35 years the bášŧárd was in power.
Also, according to that logic we should’ve never taken Hitler out. We should’ve waited for the Germans to get their heads together? Right?
Come on. Worst example ever.
PAD, let me put it in another way:
Lets say there’s a bully who threatens your family. A real threat that may mean death to you and your loved ones.
It’ll be great for your self esteem if you could take out that guy, right? But if he’s stronger and better armed than you, wouldn’t you just swallow your pride and call the police? I know you would. Well, the Iraqi people decided to take the “easy way out” and let the “police” do the job.
Maybe 6,000,000 Jews wouldn’t have died in the holocaust if someone came to their rescue instead of letting them “do it on their own”.
Posted by: Michael Bregman at August 1, 2003 08:14 PM
PAD, let me put it in another way:
Lets say there’s a bully who threatens your family. A real threat that may mean death to you and your loved ones.
It’ll be great for your self esteem if you could take out that guy, right? But if he’s stronger and better armed than you, wouldn’t you just swallow your pride and call the police? I know you would. Well, the Iraqi people decided to take the “easy way out” and let the “police” do the job.
Maybe 6,000,000 Jews wouldn’t have died in the holocaust if someone came to their rescue instead of letting them “do it on their own”.
So good to hear a voice of sanity. It is the greatest sin when a man sees transgressions and evil and does nothing. WHile the war in iraq had planning and excuse problems, our biggest mistake in that country was waiting as long as we did to take out its leader. The man was filling mass graves, and was working on weapons, or getting them (missiles modified to hold nuclear warheads were found. though no one mentions it.)
“he who tells the truth shall be chased out of nine villages.”
interesting to have peter davids village be one
by the way, cute censorship quote. explains some things on your site.