TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- British commanders condemn US tactics
Pages (9): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 »

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley My point is, that editor will not allow something to be printed that does not represent a large section of the establishment, the Telegraph has a reputation for upholding the views of the establishment, therefore, you have to take into account that as it was this particular newspaper, and not one like the Guardian, that these views are actually felt in a large section of the establishment...

Well- obviously I do not know your local digests there.
But is it that out of the realm of your mind that maybe
the editor might have his own agenda or maybe being pressed
by someone above to print it.

You can always turn it around that they/he knows that they have a reputation for printing the general consensous and he just wanted to get this shot across the bow. Who would question him? Obviously you're not questioning him. So he succeeded.

I would have to heartily agree with occ about ONE opinion whether it be from one person or one periodical. Tell the editor to name some sources- then we can talk.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider You missed the point of my post didn't you? My whole post was about unsubstantiated generalizations.

No did get it, what I ment was firstly the officer doesn't really make a genralisation. He is talking about the way the American troops are told to do things and the mentality behind that. It's not a genralisation as it's a fact not an observation. Secondly I don't see what value your posted added to the discussion by quoting, at your own admission, genralisations.

But anyway George is right the torygragh really arn't the sort to talk about these types of things. Any negative comments from them about active troops are VERY unlikely to be unsubstantuated. And do you really think ANY british officer could add his name to that type of comment? And from all the people I've spoken to in the forces I've heard similar things and they have experianced it first hand.

Fallacy: Appeal to Authority:

quote:

A variation of the fallacious appeal to authority is hearsay. An argument from hearsay is an argument which depends on second or third hand sources.

Fallacy: Anonymous Authority:

quote:

The authority in question is not named. This is a type of appeal to authority because when an authority is not named it is impossible to confirm that the authority is an expert. However the fallacy is so common it deserves special mention.

Enough already George and Dervish, everything you're posting here is a fallacy. Not only are you trying to prove your point with hearsay evidence (quoting the editor who quoted someone else), but your hearsay source has established his argument on an appeal to anonymous authority (based on an unnamed individual who we can't possibly identify and certainly cannot verify his integrity/public sway).

The logic in this is so weak that it might as well collapse on its own without any help from us. As long as we're making sweeping generalizations, I might as well go out on a limb and say that a friend of a friend lives in the UK and knows for certain that all Brits are twats who don't know what the hell they're talking about.

I as an anynomous Israeli commander (I do have a tnak you know) condemns British tactics in Iraq

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Fallacy: Appeal to Authority: Fallacy: Anonymous Authority: Enough already George and Dervish, everything you're posting here is a fallacy. Not only are you trying to prove your point with hearsay evidence (quoting the editor who quoted someone else), but your hearsay source has established his argument on an appeal to anonymous authority (based on an unnamed individual who we can't possibly identify and certainly cannot verify his integrity/public sway). The logic in this is so weak that it might as well collapse on its own without any help from us. As long as we're making sweeping generalizations, I might as well go out on a limb and say that a friend of a friend lives in the UK and knows for certain that all Brits are twats who don't know what the hell they're talking about.

Thanks Digi- I actually LOL'd

Hahaha when was the last time you were in Iraq exactly? My sources as I've stated are CURRENT BRITISH TROOPS friends of mine for over 20 years! I think they know better than you...... dick

PS Why do you always use a dictonary in disscussions instead of any kind of arguement? I'll tell you why cos you don't have one.

quote:

Originally posted by Dervish Hahaha when was the last time you were in Iraq exactly? My sources as I've stated are CURRENT BRITISH TROOPS friends of mine for over 20 years! I think they know better than you...... dick PS Why do you always use a dictonary in disscussions instead of any kind of arguement? I'll tell you why cos you don't have one.

Or maybe your friends are just bitter because they dont want to be there and US troops are drawing out their stay.

Look just trust me (don't if you don't want to I'm beginning not to care) these are professional soliders. But not only that these are resonable responcible people. They didn't say "Thouse fucking yanks are pyscos" they said things like "I'm really concerned about the way the American forces do things. Some of their reactions to threats or even PERCIVED threats are completely disproptionate.". And they want to go back as soon as possible one was home cos he was injured and when I asked him he said he'd prefer to be back with his unit.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Fallacy: Appeal to Authority: Fallacy: Anonymous Authority: Enough already George and Dervish, everything you're posting here is a fallacy. Not only are you trying to prove your point with hearsay evidence (quoting the editor who quoted someone else), but your hearsay source has established his argument on an appeal to anonymous authority (based on an unnamed individual who we can't possibly identify and certainly cannot verify his integrity/public sway). The logic in this is so weak that it might as well collapse on its own without any help from us. As long as we're making sweeping generalizations, I might as well go out on a limb and say that a friend of a friend lives in the UK and knows for certain that all Brits are twats who don't know what the hell they're talking about.

Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!

You sad bastard!

quote:

Originally posted by xKaoSx Well- obviously I do not know your local digests there. But is it that out of the realm of your mind that maybe the editor might have his own agenda or maybe being pressed by someone above to print it. You can always turn it around that they/he knows that they have a reputation for printing the general consensous and he just wanted to get this shot across the bow. Who would question him? Obviously you're not questioning him. So he succeeded. I would have to heartily agree with occ about ONE opinion whether it be from one person or one periodical. Tell the editor to name some sources- then we can talk.

Oh I totally agree with what you are saying, and after all, there is only one source quoted.

But you are looking at what is said in the actual article, but ignoring where it has come from. The paper this article appears in is extremely significant for what we are debating. Now of course, ths could be one man and one view, but you have to at least acknowledge the fact that there is a good possibility, due to the nature of where the article appeared, that this view could be from a far wider section of the establishment than just one man

There is an equally good chance that this is a general view across the establishment as there is that this view is just that of one man...

quote:

Originally posted by Dervish Look just trust me (don't if you don't want to I'm beginning not to care) these are professional soliders. But not only that these are resonable responcible people. They didn't say "Thouse fucking yanks are pyscos" they said things like "I'm really concerned about the way the American forces do things. Some of their reactions to threats or even PERCIVED threats are completely disproptionate.". And they want to go back as soon as possible one was home cos he was injured and when I asked him he said he'd prefer to be back with his unit.

Who do you think they're targetting over there for attacks? US Troops or British troops? Im pretty sure they know who is who by the uniforms. They know they'll get more of a reaction by attacking US forces. Who do you think is going to be a little more jumpy?

How would you live over there if things were like that?
Laying around sunbathing all day? Sipping tea? relaxing?
I dont see how you can think they are over reacting.

quote:

Originally posted by xKaoSx Or maybe your friends are just bitter because they dont want to be there and US troops are drawing out their stay.

Or maybe they are bitter that they are as much as a target of American bullets as Iraqis are?!

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan C'mon I'm sure a couple of the Brits can be sent to Fallujah, compared to Basra that is hell. I know what you mean though, all of these things get political in the end. Either way I just hope the violence dies down so both can get the hell out of there sooner than later.

What good are a few troops going to do?

They'd still be under US control, and it is this control that the whole issue is over

quote:

Originally posted by Dervish PS Why do you always use a dictonary in disscussions instead of any kind of arguement? I'll tell you why cos you don't have one.

It's not a dictionary, it's a page on logical fallacies. And I post the links in the hope of educating people like you on what a fallacy is and why it's inadmissible as an argument in any debate, in the blind hope that you may actually take it to heart and learn to construct a real argument with real logic.

George's response was great though. Didn't even bother with the standard rhetoric, just instantly blurted out insults.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Oh I totally agree with what you are saying, and after all, there is only one source quoted. But you are looking at what is said in the actual article, but ignoring where it has come from. The paper this article appears in is extremely significant for what we are debating. Now of course, ths could be one man and one view, but you have to at least acknowledge the fact that there is a good possibility, due to the nature of where the article appeared, that this view could be from a far wider section of the establishment than just one man There is an equally good chance that this is a general view across the establishment as there is that this view is just that of one man...

The significance is all relative to who you are and where you live.
I can see how you would take this one paper seriously but it's one paper and there is a lot of assumptions being made.

One person forms a thought, a group of people make a statement.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Or maybe they are bitter that they are as much as a target of American bullets as Iraqis are?!

You cant SERIOUSLY believe British troops are at equal risk over there as US troops? Sure they are at risk but they dont have as big a target as the US troops over there.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut It's not a dictionary, it's a page on logical fallacies. And I post the links in the hope of educating people like you on what a fallacy is and why it's inadmissible as an argument in any debate, in the blind hope that you may actually take it to heart and learn to construct a real argument with real logic. George's response was great though. Didn't even bother with the standard rhetoric, just instantly blurted out insults.

But I've repeatedly told you it's not from one source. It's from multiple first hand sources. As for taking things to heart and listening why don't you try it? And I still don't get what your arguement is?

Edit: I mean has anyone here been to Iraq and seen this (i.e. first hand)? No so according to you we can't talk about it.... But I've staed things from people who have and you've paid no attention to them....... you know why becuase you are ignorant..... go look that up

quote:

Originally posted by Dervish But I've repeatedly told you it's not from one source. It's from multiple first hand sources. As for taking things to heart and listening why don't you try it? And I still don't get what your arguement is?

Identify these first hand sources please, along with their credentials. Otherwise you're just handing us the same Anonymous Authority fallacy.

Just saying "I have friends" isn't an argument. The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion, which in this case is you. So let's hear it, where's your proof?

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Identify these first hand sources please, along with their credentials. Otherwise you're just handing us the same Anonymous Authority fallacy. Just saying "I have friends" isn't an argument. The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion, which in this case is you. So let's hear it, where's your proof?

I bet you were one of those numbnutz that believed messr Bush and co when they said "THEY HAVE WMD's BUT WE CANT SHOW YOU THE EVIDENCE COS WE HAVE TO PROTECT OUR SOURCES!!!"

quote:

Originally posted by Spankster I bet you were one of those numbnutz that believed messr Bush and co when they said "THEY HAVE WMD's BUT WE CANT SHOW YOU THE EVIDENCE COS WE HAVE TO PROTECT OUR SOURCES!!!"

And you're basing this claim on what exactly?

I "believed" that there was the possibility of them having WMDs, since there had been prior evidence of WMDs and less-than-complete evidence (at that time) to indicate their extinction. Obviously, as more and more evidence mounted up that the WMDs were nonexistent, I took that evidence into account and became equally skeptical.

Obviously no one is immune to personal bias, but I tend to do my best to look at the evidence and make an informed decision, even if it doesn't agree with what I "believe".

Andrew T (I don't want to say his full name cos I haven't asked him about saying anything to anyone) who is in the Britsh Marines (reserve actually) whos been in Basara on two seperate stints, he lives across the road from me(my home town I mean I'm at uni) and has done since I was born. Is the one I know best.

Others include another Marine but I don't trust him so much cos he's a bit of an arse (he could exagerate a bit maybe), who is more a mate of a mate but I've spoken to him about it too. I don't know which part of Iraq he was in.

And another who hasn't been in Iraq but does know people who are there and knows the way the American military works.

Now ok if you want to be picky about it you can chalk off 2 of them esspecially the second (although he's a very resonable person). But lets put it this way I'd give much more credance to anything any of them say than anything anyone who isn't involved would say. And to say that they have no idea or would lie for no reson is wrong. And so to simple go "fallacy!" to ANY source basicly isn't going to be very constructive in a disscussion is it?

quote:

Originally posted by Dervish But I've repeatedly told you it's not from one source. It's from multiple first hand sources. As for taking things to heart and listening why don't you try it? And I still don't get what your arguement is? Edit: I mean has anyone here been to Iraq and seen this (i.e. first hand)? No so according to you we can't talk about it.... But I've staed things from people who have and you've paid no attention to them....... you know why becuase you are ignorant..... go look that up

Actually I live right by Camp Pendleton in San Diego and I have a lot of Marine friends who are over there and have come back. All of them said the British troops are more in the way then helping out.
A lot of em said they lack leadership skills in their squads.
Pete C
Jason A
There I have sufficiently debunked you arguement. we done?

quote:

Originally posted by Spankster I bet you were one of those numbnutz that believed messr Bush and co when they said "THEY HAVE WMD's BUT WE CANT SHOW YOU THE EVIDENCE COS WE HAVE TO PROTECT OUR SOURCES!!!"

Wow- that was informative and useful.
Shut your cack holster please. tks.

(yea yea- this isnt too useful either but I've seen nothing but stupid comments from you)

quote:

Originally posted by Dervish Andrew T (I don't want to say his full name cos I haven't asked him about saying anything to anyone) who is in the Britsh Marines (reserve actually) whos been in Basara on two seperate stints, he lives across the road from me(my home town I mean I'm at uni) and has done since I was born. Is the one I know best. Others include another Marine but I don't trust him so much cos he's a bit of an arse (he could exagerate a bit maybe), who is more a mate of a mate but I've spoken to him about it too. I don't know which part of Iraq he was in. And another who hasn't been in Iraq but does know people who are there and knows the way the American military works. Now ok if you want to be picky about it you can chalk off 2 of them esspecially the second (although he's a very resonable person). But lets put it this way I'd give much more credance to anything any of them say than anything anyone who isn't involved would say. And to say that they have no idea or would lie for no reson is wrong. And so to simple go "fallacy!" to ANY source basicly isn't going to be very constructive in a disscussion is it?

Okay, we're getting somewhere now. So we have one source that was physically in Iraq that you trust... now then, what specifically did he say?

Obviously I don't go "fallacy!" to ANY source, because you're right, it's not very constructive. Quoting a source is by no means fallacious - it is only a fallacy when that source is either unidentified or not qualified to have an authoritative opinion on the subject.

quote:

Originally posted by xKaoSx Actually I live right by Camp Pendleton in San Diego and I have a lot of Marine friends who are over there and have come back. All of them said the British troops are more in the way then helping out. A lot of em said they lack leadership skills in their squads.

Ok well I'm moving into spectulative mode. But as for saying that the Britsh troops "are more in the way than helping out".... does that sound true? I really don't want to attepmt to rubish your sources becuase you could say they are just as valid as mine, which they are I suppose. But I would very much doubt the British troops are "just in the way". Esspecially since they have more experiance in these type of operations. And given they were trainning the Americans early on due to the fact that the American troops were not trainned to deal with these situations. Perhaps the "getting in the way" manifests itself in restraint.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.