Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - British tanker siezed by Somali Pirates

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

British tanker siezed by Somali Pirates
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

bacasper

Joined: 26 Mar 2007

Posted: Fri Jan 01, 2010 4:41 am Post subject: Re: British tanker siezed by Somali Pirates

Fox wrote:

bacasper wrote:

Fox wrote:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

ontheway wrote:

[q

The primitive form of socialism (more like tribal communism) practiced by American Indians was the cause of their glacially slow rate of development. They had no property rights and did not allow the ownership of land, nor did they allow any other form of wealth accumulation which means advancement was impossible.

.

Completely untrue. Indian chiefs/shamen had far more wealth (as they measured it back then) then some ordinary tribe member.

And as for the ownership of land many many bloody battles were fought with other tribes over prime hunting or fishing grounds.

To deny this is to deny reality.

Ontheway isn't in the business of facts. He has to deny that the Native Americans were extremely Libertarian because, if he doesn't, his entire world view crashes down. Suddenly Libertarianism isn't a recipie for a perfect utopia, but instead becomes a total social dead-end. But he a priori knows Libertarianism is a perfect form of society. QED, the Native Americans weren't Libertarian. His talk of land ownership is pure justification; anyone can see the reason most Native tribes didn't bother with things like deeds for specific plots of land is because land was in such ridiculous abundance that it was meaningless.

This post is needlessly ad hominem and uncalled for.

No, it's not. Ad hominem argumentation is saying someone's argument is wrong because of some irrelevent, (usually negative) fact about them. That's not what I'm doing here. Rather, I'm pointing out the reason for ontheway's behavior while reinforcing how baseless his assertions (and I use assertions rather than arguments quite deliberatively here) are. And there's no insults in my post at all (although the truth about his behavior certainly isn't flattering, I give you that).

I know you feel compelled out of extreme dedication to cheerlead and stand up for ontheway, bacasper, but this is a bit ridiculous.

An ad hominem attack is one which addresses someone personally instead of his arguments. You have done both here.

You can only speculate about the reasons for his behavior, while he is perfectly capable of giving them himself.

You apparently feel a knee-jerk response to disagree with anything ontheway says, but it is better just to address his ideas. That is all I am saying. Is that what you call "cheerleading"?

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Fri Jan 01, 2010 5:09 am Post subject: Re: British tanker siezed by Somali Pirates

bacasper wrote:

An ad hominem attack is one which addresses someone personally instead of his arguments. You have done both here.

As I said, ontheway doesn't make arguments, he makes assertions. There are no arguments to discuss. His assertions, however, were the target of my post's content. Several assertions of his that I replied to in the post in question:

1) The assertion that his societal model would bring about utopia-like results.
2) The assertion that Native Americans were socialists.
3) His assertions regarding the reason why Native Americans didn't parcel up their land European style.

But, you've chosen to ignore all that and characterize me as attacking him as a person. The closest thing that could even be characterized as "about ontheway himself" in that post is my claim that he doesn't deal in facts, but even that's ultimately a rhetorical device used to talk about his ideas (namely by saying they aren't based upon facts). My post is not ad hominem.

bacasper wrote:

You can only speculate about the reasons for his behavior, while he is perfectly capable of giving them himself.

You know what else ontheway can do for himself? Defend himself from whatever you found objectionable about my post. None the less, you feel it encumbant upon you to slip in quite often when I address him, generally in non-constructive fashion.

If you think things that he can do for himself are best left for he himself to do, then perhaps you should take your own advice?

bacasper wrote:

You apparently feel a knee-jerk response to disagree with anything ontheway says, but it is better just to address his ideas.

Disagreeing with ontheway is by no means a knee-jerk reaction of mine, and to be honest, it's ridiculous of you to say so. Sure, I disagree with a lot of what he says (almost everyone in the world does, actually). I'm not at all afraid to say when I agree with him, though. I've admitted to agreeing with him regarding the Federal Reserve and regarding professional licensing laws to give a few quick examples. Saying that I disagree with him as a knee-jerk reaction rather than responding to his ideas is a lie. It just so happens that most of his ideas are based purely on ideology rather than on reality. I understand they appeal to you, and I understand why they appeal to you, but that doesn't make them accurate.

Unlike some people here, I don't have some sort of "friends and enemies list" that I use to inform my responses. There are plenty of people I disagree with often, but very few who I don't at least occasionally agree with too. And I'm not shy about saying so; in fact, I make a point of saying when I do agree with them.

bacasper wrote:

That is all I am saying. Is that what you call "cheerleading"?

Yes, because it's part of what's become a pattern of behavior.

bacasper

Joined: 26 Mar 2007

Posted: Fri Jan 01, 2010 5:53 am Post subject: Re: British tanker siezed by Somali Pirates

Fox wrote:

bacasper wrote:

An ad hominem attack is one which addresses someone personally instead of his arguments. You have done both here.

No, I clearly stated that you did both - address his assertions as well as him personally.

Quote:

bacasper wrote:

You can only speculate about the reasons for his behavior, while he is perfectly capable of giving them himself.

You know what else ontheway can do for himself? Defend himself from whatever you found objectionable about my post.

And for myself, I can express my thoughts which is what I have done here without personally attacking anyone.

Quote:

None the less, you feel it encumbant upon you to slip in quite often when I address him, generally in non-constructive fashion.

You keep repeating that no one else agrees with him, when the truth is there are many on here in addition to myself who do. (Note I have not accused you of "lying.")

Quote:

If you think things that he can do for himself are best left for he himself to do, then perhaps you should take your own advice?

He may not want to accuse anyone of ad hominem, and I see nothing wrong with supporting another poster with whom I agree. It is important to get an idea of where the board consensus stands on an issue.

Quote:

bacasper wrote:

You apparently feel a knee-jerk response to disagree with anything ontheway says, but it is better just to address his ideas.

Actually, I did overstate the case a little bit here, as I have noticed that you did agree with him on occasion. It just does appear at times that you take issue with something for no other reason than that ontheway said it. (Yes, that is speculation, and I could be wrong on this one.) However since I used the word "apparently," it is wrong to call the statement "a lie."

Sergio Stefanuto

Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK

Posted: Fri Jan 01, 2010 5:57 am Post subject:

bacasper wrote:

An ad hominem attack is one which addresses someone personally instead of his arguments

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Fri Jan 01, 2010 6:41 am Post subject: Re: British tanker siezed by Somali Pirates

bacasper wrote:

No, I clearly stated that you did both - address his assertions as well as him personally.

I didn't do both. As I said, the closest I came to addressing him "personally" was a rhetorical device which was also ultimately addressing his ideas. There was nothing about ontheway the person in there beyond his ideas and how he "argues" for them.

bacasper wrote:

Quote:

bacasper wrote:

You can only speculate about the reasons for his behavior, while he is perfectly capable of giving them himself.

You know what else ontheway can do for himself? Defend himself from whatever you found objectionable about my post.

And for myself, I can express my thoughts which is what I have done here without personally attacking anyone.

Yes, you can, and so can I. And again, I haven't attacked ontheway the person; I don't know anything about him, all he talks about is Libertarianism and Socialism. Sure, I don't think much of his ideas, but I'm not attacking him or insulting him as a person, and you're misconstruing me as doing so.

bacasper wrote:

You keep repeating that no one else agrees with him, when the truth is there are many on here in addition to myself who do. (Note I have not accused you of "lying.")

The vast majority of people in the world do not agree with him, nor do the vast majority in academia. Ontheway asserts every government in history has been Socialist. That's not something most people would agree with. He asserts all things Socialist and governmental are evil. MOst people would not agree with that. The list goes on: most people would never accept most of this.

I'm obviously not talking about this forum, I'm talking about the world. This forum is a den of extremists, it's not representative of the population in general. I think we all know that. We're an eccentric bunch.

bacasper wrote:

He may not want to accuse anyone of ad hominem ...

Why not? He's certainly been far more insulting than that in the past? Of course, you've never stepped up when he's been insulting, because this isn't about insults, it's about partisanship. Ontheway is "on your side" on this matter, and as such you're sticking up for him any way you can. Because you don't have anything of actual substance to add, you post non-contributively. So let's drop the hypocrisy please?

bacasper wrote:

It is important to get an idea of where the board consensus stands on an issue.

Why? I for one don't care about the "board consensus" on the issue. I care about individual arguments and claims and their truth value.

bacasper wrote:

I don't disagree with things because ontheway says them. I disagree with things because I don't think they're true. I'm certain aggressive in my speech, and although I haven't been insulting in this thread I do get insulting from time to time (as do quite a few people here, including ontheway), but I don't bear anyone here a grudge. It's just part of participating in a discussion forum.

bacasper

Joined: 26 Mar 2007

Posted: Fri Jan 01, 2010 7:33 am Post subject: Re: British tanker siezed by Somali Pirates

Fox wrote:

bacasper wrote:

No, I clearly stated that you did both - address his assertions as well as him personally.

bacasper wrote:

Quote:

bacasper wrote:

You can only speculate about the reasons for his behavior, while he is perfectly capable of giving them himself.

You know what else ontheway can do for himself? Defend himself from whatever you found objectionable about my post.

And for myself, I can express my thoughts which is what I have done here without personally attacking anyone.

bacasper wrote:

You keep repeating that no one else agrees with him, when the truth is there are many on here in addition to myself who do. (Note I have not accused you of "lying.")

bacasper wrote:

He may not want to accuse anyone of ad hominem ...

bacasper wrote:

It is important to get an idea of where the board consensus stands on an issue.

Why? I for one don't care about the "board consensus" on the issue. I care about individual arguments and claims and their truth value.

bacasper wrote:

You are entitled to your opinion, and I am entitled to agree with some and disagree with others, as I do.

ontheway

Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...

Posted: Fri Jan 01, 2010 12:50 pm Post subject: Re: British tanker siezed by Somali Pirates

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

ontheway wrote:

Thank you for confirming and proving what I've been explaining to Fox.

The "many bloody battles" among tribes for control and access to prime hunting and fishing grounds proves that land and the resources contained thereon were scarce economic resources. This is the reason that the socialistic tribal governments started wars to fight over them.

More importantly, this proves that these were considered social resources and that private ownership was not allowed, and beyond contemplation for anyone to attempt. Their own tribe or another tribe would have taken their privately held land and resources by force whenever the tribal leader(s) had the whim to do so.

The lack of wealth accumulation is also well established. Indian tribes didn't create wealth beyond simple hunting weapons, household tools and pots, clothes, basic shelter and other such necessities. The fact that the chief or tribal leaders could accumulate more "wealth" than others, especially in the form of ceremonial beadwork and other such artifacts just goes to prove that there was no real wealth creation.

More importantly, the fact that it was the chief that accumulated the most wealth shows that these tribes were just micro versions of the strongman socialist rule of places like North Korea where the top leaders are able to use their power to live better lives and accumulate more wealth than the rest of the societies they control.

Native Americans did not have any strong national or central government and this seems to confuse some. It is not a national government that makes a group of people socialist. It is the whether or not the people are free. The control may come from a national government, or a smaller government such as a State or Local government. Customs and traditions enforced by a tribal chief or group of elders can have the same socialistic effect, even if not written or promulgated as a law or edict per se. The fact that it was local control of a small group does not render that control somehow less socialistic. Micro socialism is often the most restrictive on individual liberty, frustratingly capricious, the hardest to resist and the most devastating for the economic advancement of the afflicted group.

One of the major points of contention for Libertarians with those who would shift power to the State level is that State level socialism is no better, and in some States would undoubtably be worse, than National level socialism. Even socialism at the local level must be abolished.

Libertarians want to abolish power at all levels of government.

There are great differences among Native American tribes, but none were free people, and all suffered from a lack of property rights, which prevented economic advancement.

ontheway

Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...

Posted: Fri Jan 01, 2010 1:19 pm Post subject:

Fox wrote:

Junior wrote:

Fox wrote:

In order to life peacefully and prosperously, they need to establish an effective government and start patrolling their own waters.

Why shift the blame for the looting of Somali fish stocks onto the Somalis when it is foreign companies (and complicit foreign governments) who are committing this crime in the first place?

I'm not shifting the blame, I'm talking about a potential solution (forming a reasonable government) as opposed to responding to crime with more crime in a totally non-productive way (piracy).

Junior wrote:

Quote:

They don't improve Somalia in any sustainable way.

Its looking pretty sustainable to me. They're shunting tankers at the rate of about 1 a week and its not going to stop. Vessels will always need to sail through the gulf of Aden.

It's going to stop. You're right, vessels will always sail through that area. What will change is policies about merchant vessels being armed. It will take time, but if the Somalis keep at it long enough, it will change.

Of course, then you'll blame westerners for defending themselves from kidnapping and robbery with force. You've made up your mind that this is a "West = bad, Somalia = good" situation, and you'll stick to it.

The crux of the issue is that the merchant vessels need to be armed. Self defense is the key to ending piracy on the high seas.

In this particular case, the merchant ship owners might form a private protection society and build their own modern PT boats, similar to WWII style PT boats: light, fast, heavily armed - and use them to escort convoys of vessels through the danger zone. Approching vessels determined to be dangerous could be quickly destroyed. The piracy will then end. Killing the pirates will help the Somalis rebuild their country as well.

****

The governments of the world are not going to solve this problem because they are focused on the application of navies built for other purposes. It's like killing mosquitoes with a sledge hammer.

It was the governments of the world through massive inverventionism in the internal affairs of Somalia, added to an already corrupt, socialist regime - international socialism in action - that destroyed the Somali govenment in the first place (just as they have done in Lebanon and other places). Socialism on an international scale always leads to violence, terrorism, war, famine and destruction of the peacful social order of the affected area or nation.

Given time, and if left alone, the Somalis can work out their own problems. After they shake off the ravages of socialism and emerge from the chaos it has caused, they will gradually be able to set up a peaceful society. How successful and how free they will become depends on having enough wisdom to avoid the socialism that caused their problems in the first place.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Page 5 of 5

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe