|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
 Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 1:24 am Post subject: Re: Canadians dying over U.S. drug policy in Afghanistan: re |
 |
|
| Octavius Hite wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Canadian soldiers are dying for U.S. ambitions of stomping out the illegal opium trade in Afghanistan, a report from a French drug policy think-tank charges. |
|
Stomping out is indeed the elite's "official" oft repeated MANTRA.
Of course not everyone is that gullible to believe it.
Ironically, as with VIETNAM, CA$HING IN is more like it 
Last edited by igotthisguitar on Thu Jun 29, 2006 2:09 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 2:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Fighting a "war" on drugs is reminiscent of Johnson's stupid claim of an "end to poverty" . War on drugs or poverty are failures. Always. The target should be something more positive like jobs, community, health, education......leave the bad fight alone.
Or to quote a very obscure but incredible surrealist -- Do not deny us our sedatives!
DD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 3:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Octavius Hite wrote: |
| Are you saying the war on drugs has worked? Please do site one example of a country without an illegal narcotics trade. I will wait. |
Afghanistan pre 2003? When the Taliban took power THEIR war on drugs was quite successful.
America's war on drugs doesn't work, because their methods are less effective than the Taliban government's were. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 3:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Octavius Hite wrote:
Are you saying the war on drugs has worked? Please do site one example of a country without an illegal narcotics trade. I will wait.
Afghanistan pre 2003? When the Taliban took power THEIR war on drugs was quite successful.
America's war on drugs doesn't work, because their methods are less effective than the Taliban government's were. |
Less effective yes but hell uv a lot more humane and rightly so. The Taliban would shoot "on the spot" anyone cultivating.
I must say America is atleast doing a much better job than the Taliban!!! But they have to find a way to be successful and NOT violent. I say, throw some money at it, I say throw some incentive to farm other crops.......
The solution isn't to kill the junkies . The solution isn't kill those who grow/supply. Something else, more humane.
DD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Octavius Hite
Joined: 28 Jan 2004
Location: Househunting, looking for a new bunker from which to convert the world to homosexuality.
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 3:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Yes the Taleban did crackdown and did drastically reduce the poppy crops. However herion didnt disappear at all, it didnt change very much in terms of global supply and demand. Again, I suggest why doesn't Nato just buy the drugs and then destroy them? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 5:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Again, I suggest why doesn't Nato just buy the drugs and then destroy them?
_________________
|
Are you as stupid in real life as you present yourself here?
I wouldn't object so much if you were to actually suggest using Canadian money for it. You should have enough, since you don't pay for your own defense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 5:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
You can't be serious. We are talking about ideology and you are placing a numerical value to the discussion?
Let me explain. The expression "The answer lies somewhere in the middle" is not meant as a literal or parallel denotation. Ideology holds no ordinal or even cardinal measure, but rather belief. Take Democratic and Republican platforms for instance, if you adhere entirely to one paradigm or the other, you are an utter and complete FOOL. You simply acknowledge that you fall somewhere in-between. Meaning that some aspects you believe in, and others you do not. Logic is not a set of rules that dictate human thought, action, or even dispute, nor does it govern the universe. I think that you have been watching to much Star Trek my friend. |
It goes far beyond numeric values. That's a strawman.
From the same:
| Quote: |
It should be kept in mind that while uncritically assuming that the middle position must be correct because it is the middle position is poor reasoning it does not follow that accepting a middle position is always fallacious. As was just mentioned, many times a moderate position is correct. However, the claim that the moderate or middle position is correct must be supported by legitimate reasoning.
Examples of Middle Ground
1. Some people claim that God is all powerful, all knowing, and all good. Other people claim that God does not exist at all. Now, it seems reasonable to accept a position somewhere in the middle. So, it is likely that God exists, but that he is only very powerful, very knowing, and very good. That seems right to me. |
If you want more examples, I'll be happy to provide.
Furthermore, Democrats and Republicans are both pretty middle of the road and not that far apart on many issues, so that's a rather poor example. And it's perfectly possible to believe in some things and not believe in others BUT be further right or left of the two poitical parties. You're suggesting this only exists in the middle, which it doesn't.
As the article points out, the middle can be correct, but it's not some hallowed ground of correctness. Everything depends on how well you support a point.
Which brings us back to your statement:
The truth is in the middle.
Sometimes it is. Sometimes it isn't.
That's a logical fallacy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Octavius Hite
Joined: 28 Jan 2004
Location: Househunting, looking for a new bunker from which to convert the world to homosexuality.
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 5:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| You're right Ya-ta Boy, its much better that illegal money come from the west and then go right into the coffers of Bin Laden and the Taleban. With innovators like you running this war I am shocked, SHOCKED that we haven't caught Bin Laden or even stoped the Taleban. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 6:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| With innovators like you running this war I am shocked, SHOCKED that we haven't caught... |
I am not surprised that you are shocked. You aren't the only one who thinks ESL teachers run the world, especially ESL teachers from the US.
And again I revel in your use of 'we'. You remind me of the spear carriers in a third-rate production of...anything. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 11:05 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
Hmm...
What movies have featured spear carriers? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SOOHWA101
Joined: 04 Mar 2006
Location: Makin moves...trying to find 24pyung
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 2:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
It goes far beyond numeric values. That's a strawman.
Look up Strawman again and read it over and over. Maybe one day the meaning will sink in.
Furthermore, Democrats and Republicans are both pretty middle of the road and not that far apart on many issues, so that's a rather poor example.
Both are pretty middle of the road? Do you know anything about Reublican and Democrat platforms? Don't tell me I am going to have to explain this to you. Let's recap just a few differences in ideology between Dems and Reps. where there is no middle ground. 1)Abortion, 2) Foreign policy (Iraq war), 3) Seperation of Church and State
And it's perfectly possible to believe in some things and not believe in others BUT be further right or left of the two poitical parties. You're suggesting this only exists in the middle, which it doesn't.
Of course it can exist in the middle, but where did I state ONLY? At least try and keep this honest. When you are caught BETWEEN two ideological platforms, you more or less fall somewhere in the middle, hence LIBERTARIAN.
As the article points out, the middle can be correct, but it's not some hallowed ground of correctness. Everything depends on how well you support a point.
What? Double talk makes no sense. You claim fallacy, but in the same point rebut your own point and say..."actually it depends on how well you support your point."
Which brings us back to your statement:
The truth is in the middle.
That's a logical fallacy.
You still have yet to even make a valid point. What does me saying "some where in the middle" have to do with this thread? I said "Nothing written is completely unbiased, and have you read the opposing view? The truth lies in the middle my friend." Obviously this means that there is more than one side to a story, meaning half truths are usually divulged. Your school did require you to take a "Dynamics and Methodologies to Literature" course, or something equivalent right? |
Watching you construct an argument reminds me of when I babysit my 3 year old cousin. He sits there and fumbles with a rubik's cube not really knowing what it is that he is suppose to do, much like your attemt at logic.
Now that you have demonstrated your ability to google "FALLACY," try completely understanding the differences between them prior to pawning them off as part of your existing knowlegde on "fallacious argument."
I have not seen more double talking and tripping over ones own reasoning since Bill O'Reilly handed Michael Moore his ass during the 2004 Republican Convention.
I can think of many examples, but this may be more your speed. Have you seen Fahrenheit 9/11? Now go and watch Fahrenhype 9/11 and you will discover that Moores construction of truth is only half correct at best, while at the same time you will realize that Fahrenhype 9/11 contains the other half of what really happened. Hence, "THE TRUTH IS IN THE MIDDLE!!" Interpretations are always biased, the sooner you realize that, the more credible you will be nowhereman. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 9:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Again, I suggest why doesn't Nato just buy the drugs and then destroy them? |
Are you as stupid in real life as you present yourself here?
I wouldn't object so much if you were to actually suggest using Canadian money for it. You should have enough, since you don't pay for your own defense. |
Then of course there's the elements within the US & elsewhere who use the profit from illcit DRUG sales to fund their black ops ( i.e. ones Congress won't touch ) programs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 11:27 pm Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
It goes far beyond numeric values. That's a strawman.Wink
Look up Strawman again and read it over and over. Maybe one day the meaning will sink in. |
You tried to write off my argument by suggesting that I was placing a numerical value [ON] the discussion:
| Quote: |
You can't be serious. We are talking about ideology and you are placing a numerical value to the discussion?
|
In fact, the first example of this fallacy happened to be numerical. Of course you might have recognized this if you had checked out the link I provided, but instead you're off to the races with the strawman.
| Quote: |
Furthermore, Democrats and Republicans are both pretty middle of the road and not that far apart on many issues, so that's a rather poor example.
Both are pretty middle of the road? Do you know anything about Reublican and Democrat platforms? Don't tell me I am going to have to explain this to you. Let's recap just a few differences in ideology between Dems and Reps. where there is no middle ground. 1)Abortion, 2) Foreign policy (Iraq war), 3) Seperation of Church and State |
Not really sure what you're trying to prove here. Both parties are to some degree divided by each of the issues you mention, so there is middle ground. The two parties have as much in common as they differ. If they, as you seem to suggest, are polar opposites, then the political spectrum is decidedly small.
And for the record, one wouldn't be a FOOL to wholly support one of the party platforms. It might be unlikely, but your political beliefs could match the party line. You on the other hand, are suggesting that it's wiser/better not to. This is, however, an arbitrary statement.
| Quote: |
And it's perfectly possible to believe in some things and not believe in others BUT be further right or left of the two poitical parties. You're suggesting this only exists in the middle, which it doesn't.
Of course it can exist in the middle, but where did I state ONLY? At least try and keep this honest. When you are caught BETWEEN two ideological platforms, you more or less fall somewhere in the middle, hence LIBERTARIAN. |
Oops! I guess I'm misreading you, then:
The truth is in the middle.
Sorry, but I take that to mean that the truth is only in the middle. Now what? The truth is in the middle and elsewhere?
If that's the case, then what were you on about with OH:
| Quote: |
| Who is the author? Nothing written is completely unbiased, and have you read the opposing view? The truth lies in the middle my friend. |
I guess you forgot to mention that the truth doesn't ONLY lie in the middle, huh? And if the truth doesn't ONLY lie in the middle, then this is a non-argument.
Hence LIBERTARIAN?
http://www.kl.oakland.edu/services/instruction/tutorials/PoliticalSpectrum/
| Quote: |
As the article points out, the middle can be correct, but it's not some hallowed ground of correctness. Everything depends on how well you support a point.
What? Double talk makes no sense. You claim fallacy, but in the same point rebut your own point and say..."actually it depends on how well you support your point." |
Meaning that the middle is not by default wrong, but "Have you read the opposing view? The truth lies in the middle my friend." is extremely poorly supported poppycock.
| Quote: |
Which brings us back to your statement:
The truth is in the middle.
That's a logical fallacy.
You still have yet to even make a valid point. What does me saying "some where in the middle" have to do with this thread? I said "Nothing written is completely unbiased, and have you read the opposing view? The truth lies in the middle my friend." Obviously this means that there is more than one side to a story, meaning half truths are usually divulged. Your school did require you to take a "Dynamics and Methodologies to Literature" course, or something equivalent right? |
Usually. Sometimes. The truth is in the middle, BUT not ONLY in the middle.
Yes. Your statement:
The truth is in the middle.
Is a logical fallacy.
Have you shown that it's not? No.
Welcome to the CE forum. You're the latest in a long line of people who ride in and assume they're absolutely brilliant. Somewhere up in the stratosphere beyond us earthlings. You've been watching too much Doogie Howser.
It's a wonderful feeling to always be right, but there has yet to be an "always right" person on this forum.
You offered up a logical fallacy.
I pointed it out.
In response, you offered up all matter of insults and insinuations, but you didn't show how your statement was not a logical fallacy.
Now, carry on with the ad hominems. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SOOHWA101
Joined: 04 Mar 2006
Location: Makin moves...trying to find 24pyung
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 4:48 am Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
Welcome to the CE forum. You're the latest in a long line of people who ride in and assume they're absolutely brilliant. Somewhere up in the stratosphere beyond us earthlings. You've been watching too much Doogie Howser.
Now, carry on with the ad hominems. |
I have dumbed down this argument as much as possible, and it continues to be over your head. I am finished dancing with the jejune ramblings of an obtuse and self-percieved dilettante. Have fun chasing your own tail and have a good day. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 5:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
i before e except after c (and d) . Glad you are not taking the middle road. Still don't know if it is the high road or the low road or if you'll get to Scotland before me.......
Doesn't matter, me and my true love have already met.
DD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
