quote:

Originally posted by Cal EDIT: To the topic starter - How the fuck am I supposed to respect America for this

Cause we'll invade and own you

quote:

Originally posted by rizen Cause we'll invade and own you

ROOOOFL

Funny because its true



And since when is profanity censored here?
What happened to this place? You used to be cool TA.com

quote:

Originally posted by Cal http://members.aol.com/bblum6/American_holocaust.htm

Ok well unfortunately the link fails to provide sources to about 70% of the sources there. Then the assassinations page fails to provide any sources at all. Then some of the items on the list are just plain silly (the UN embargo on Serbia? Taking "sides" in Somalia? C'mon). Of the items that do have sources, some of them document well known american supported regimes in the cold war that were guilty of human rights violations, no argument there. However, a good portion of the rest, such as "Iraq: Desert Holocaust", are fraught with misinformation, misrepresentations, and logical fallacies. What is is supposed to be referring to anyway? The Basra highway? Those are all issues that can be intelligentely discussed in a manner of thorough debate as was accomplished quite nicely in this oldie but goodie thread regarding the basra highway:

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...es&pagenumber=2

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by Cal And since when is profanity censored here? What happened to this place? You used to be cool TA.com

It's not really censored ... you just have to be creative. Instead of **** ... c u n t. But I thought it was always like that.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Ok well unfortunately the link fails to provide sources to about 70% of the sources there. Then the assassinations page fails to provide any sources at all. Then some of the items on the list are just plain silly (the UN embargo on Serbia? Taking "sides" in Somalia? C'mon). Of the items that do have sources, some of them document well known american supported regimes in the cold war that were guilty of human rights violations, no argument there. However, a good portion of the rest, such as "Iraq: Desert Holocaust", are fraught with misinformation, misrepresentations, and logical fallacies. What is is supposed to be referring to anyway? The Basra highway? Those are all issues that can be intelligentely discussed in a manner of thorough debate as was accomplished quite nicely in this oldie but goodie thread regarding the basra highway: http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...es&pagenumber=2

lol im sure the other 70% of his book is just blank pages then if theres no link for them. Even Noam Chomsky got suckered into rating it so highly didnt he, what does he know about this subject.

Just calm down and go back to watching CNN.

quote:

Originally posted by Cal lol im sure the other 70% of his book is just blank pages then if theres no link for them. Even Noam Chomsky got suckered into rating it so highly didnt he, what does he know about this subject.

Fallacy: Appeal to Authority

1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
3. Therefore, C is true.

Ex:

1. The pope is the authority on religion.
2. The pope says Jesus existed.
3. Therefore Jesus existed.

I wasn't going to go through every point and discuss them on an individual basis, as was done with respects to the "Iraq Holocaust" link but I suppose one feasibly could. Therefore I'm not entirely sure what kind of educated conclusion one is supposed to arrive at by merely listing events in world history.

For example:

Premise - Canada is evil
Justification - Canadian lend-lease program to the Soviet Union in WW2

Rationale -
A. Canada participated in the lend-lease program to extend aid to the Soviet Union in WW2.
B. The soviet union committed some of the worst atrocities in the 20th century.
C. Canada is evil.

So what I'm saying is ... source , context, analysis.

quote:

Just calm down and go back to watching CNN.

Fallacy: Ad Hominem Abusive

___________________
Retro ...

You didnt do too good in your logic class did you.

This isn't about Jordan endorsing Hanes undies
Its about verifyable sources being quoted anyway, hell theres lots of american media quoted too. And Noam Chomsky knows his shit.

Premise - Canada is evil ???

You mean conclusion?

And by justification you mean premise?

Seriousely if you want to argue logic learn how to first.

Heh quite right on the CNN thing though, I apologize...you redneck you

quote:

Originally posted by Cal You didnt do too good in your logic class did you. This isn't about Jordan endorsing Hanes undies Its about verifyable sources being quoted anyway, hell theres lots of american media quoted too. And Noam Chomsky knows his shit. Premise - Canada is evil ??? You mean conclusion? And by justification you mean premise? Seriousely if you want to argue logic learn how to first. Heh quite right on the CNN thing though, I apologize...you redneck you

'seriousely' if you want to comment on logic, arguments, etc it may behoov you to learn how to spell|

___________________
'That's like telling a Kodiak bear to stop fcking older men.'

quote:

Originally posted by biznology 'seriousely' if you want to comment on logic, arguments, etc it may behoov you to learn how to spell|

I'm sorry that my grasp of English, my THIRD language, is not to your satisfaction.

piper

This sort of emphasises my point where I said people can decide to believe whatever regardless of the true context of the facts - as they do. I gave holocaust denial as an example, but we got Cal right here to make the point for us in person.

Thanks Cal



Then again I could sort of put evolution deniers in the same context...

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

quote:

Originally posted by Cal This isn't about Jordan endorsing Hanes undies Its about verifyable sources being quoted anyway, hell theres lots of american media quoted too. And Noam Chomsky knows his shit.

Huh? Let's go back for a second. I was critical of your long list because you provided no sources, no context, and no analysis of the events that occured. I might as well write:

1870 - Prussia sent the Ems Dispatch provoking the French into war
1914 - Germany initiated the Schlieffen plan which initiated hostilities in WW1
1939 - Germany invaded Poland to start off WW2.

And expect the reader to reach the "logical" conclusion that Germany likes war. No sources, no context, no analysis, therefore it is a poor argument. You then posted your source which in itself does not reference a good 70% of the items on the list. Looking at one of the sources I commented on the conclusions reached and provided a previous thread which analyzed the issue. Yet we are to cede credibility to the entire list on the basis that "Naom Chomsky knows his shit" and gave an endorsement to the book?

quote:

Premise - Canada is evil ??? You mean conclusion?

Well i was referring to the dictionary defintion ...


\Pre*mise"\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. {Premised}; p. pr. &
vb. n. {Premising}.] [From L. praemissus, p. p., or E.
premise, n. See {Premise}, n.]
1. To send before the time, or beforehand; hence, to cause to
be before something else; to employ previously. [Obs.]

The premised flames of the last day. --Shak.

If venesection and a cathartic be premised. --E.
Darwin.

2.To set forth beforehand, or as introductory to the main
subject; to offer previously, as something to explain or
aid in understanding what follows; especially, to lay down
premises or first propositions, on which rest the
subsequent reasonings.

Meaning set forth a pre-existing truth ... then define the rationale for that truth. Sorry if it's not in the proper format.

___________________
Retro ...