|
America is right about ::insert:: (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| djSlain |
america is right about...
Anyways, i think every country in this world has a history of mistakes just like America. We just have more because we are involved a lot more international affairs and programs that other countries cannot afford, like sending their own troops or their own aid to issues of their interest and opinions. I'm sure a search on google about your home country would be filled with blunders and mistakes, things that may have taken people's lives by accident or in line of civil/international affairs.
I live in america and i am blessed and thankful by its economic system and (shaky) freedoms. In a world of survival, i feel we must involve ourselves in international affairs because it affects us, wether it be warfare, outbreak of disease, and overall help and aid. We did something right to be on top, all i feel america is doing is helping others to join us.
spend all your free time researching on new ways to bash america, but just take 5 minutes to review the history of your home country and realize that we've all made mistakes, yes, including the US. |
|
|
| Cal |
My god the guy is trying to sell his book and so he doesnt give his work for free on most of his articles.
Whats hard about that? You've still got some of his full articles where he gives you your context and TONNES of sources. Is it a representative sample of his work? Is it well backed-up? A whole bunch of people seem to think so. Even amazon.com. And even Noam Chomsky, who is an authority on this subject agrees.
I see this all the time. Some kid takes a logic course and tries to argue everybody wrong. Well guess what fallacies and reasoning arent about proving everybody wrong they are about critically evaluating things.
And yes premise is what you give to support a conclusion.
Like your Canada is evil is a conclusion, not a premise, supported by premises whose strenghs you evaluate.
Jeez |
|
|
| Cal |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
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:eyes:
:thepirate
Then again I could sort of put evolution deniers in the same context...:conf:
:toothless |
You're jewish yes? |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cal
My god the guy is trying to sell his book and so he doesnt give his work for free on most of his articles.
Whats hard about that? You've still got some of his full articles where he gives you your context and TONNES of sources. Is it a representative sample of his work? Is it well backed-up? A whole bunch of people seem to think so. Even amazon.com. And even Noam Chomsky, who is an authority on this subject agrees.
|
Oh well jeez, I was going to say that we should rely on objective arguments backed up with facts that cover both sides of the playing field, but now that you said that amazon.com gave the book a thumbs up, I suppose I shall regard the entire book as an a priori truth. Noam Chomsky's "objectiveness" has been greatly criticized here so I would place little faith in believing everything he says without seeing his arguments. Neophono did quite a nice job in criticising Chomsky's credibility as a whole on the basis of some of the arguments he makes:
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...ht=noam+chomsky
| quote: |
I see this all the time. Some kid takes a logic course and tries to argue everybody wrong. Well guess what fallacies and reasoning arent about proving everybody wrong they are about critically evaluating things.
|
Actually I've never taken a logic course kiddo. And if you look back, I wasn't criticising your conclusions so much as "critically evaluating" the methodology you used to arrive at the conclusion and the manner you presented it here. Did I ever state that the US was innocent of all wrongdoing? No, I stated, "I was critical of your long list because you provided no sources, no context, and no analysis of the events that occured." Therefore, according to your own definition of what we are to use fallacies and reasoning for, I wasn't out to "prove everybody (who's everybody? I was directing my arguments at you) wrong" I was critical of the argument you were making on the basis of the information you provided. In other words, I can't debate a list of dates and events. An argument based upon a list of dates and events is, in my opinion, a poor one.
| quote: |
And yes premise is what you give to support a conclusion.
Like your Canada is evil is a conclusion, not a premise, supported by premises whose strenghs you evaluate.
|
Ok well I stand corrected.
Jeez [/QUOTE] |
|
|
| Cal |
Look hes got 55 points of US acting in its best interest regardless of the concequences for others.
He has developed his premises, and backed them up with sources.
What else do you need? Sure he might have some of it wrong. Its certainly possible. But based on the number of sources hes quoting in his sample what are the odds of that?
And even he has only got 10 out of 55 right, isnt that already too much?
Isnt 1 too much?
I think it is. You might disagree. The topic starter might disagree, but thats another story altogether. |
|
|
| djSlain |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cal
The topic starter might disagree, but thats another story altogether. |
i tried to stay as nuetral as i could in the first post. I'm proud to be american, but it's only recently that i've started investigating and probing at the civil and international affairs of the United States, and well, it may not be something i really want me or any american citizen to see.
I'm not mad or anything, but i'd just like to know if (in the first post), did i lean toward a certain side? |
|
|
| Cal |
In your first post it seemed like you thought that whatever the US has done in the past was for the common good or something.
So then I posted some excerps from a book that claims that is not so. Thats pretty much it.
I do want to congratulate you for having the guts to question things though. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cal
Look hes got 55 points of US acting in its best interest regardless of the concequences for others.
He has developed his premises, and backed them up with sources.
What else do you need? Sure he might have some of it wrong. Its certainly possible. But based on the number of sources hes quoting in his sample what are the odds of that?
And even he has only got 10 out of 55 right, isnt that already too much?
Isnt 1 too much?
I think it is. You might disagree. The topic starter might disagree, but thats another story altogether. |
Ok, finally we can come to an agreeance on something. First of all, the author does point out many US policies that ended up being glaring abuses of human rights. Some of them ended up being decisions conceived for the betterment of all yet evolved into mistakes, some of them were for self-interest, and some of them were for the perceived effort of the "greater" good at the sacrifice of immediate good. Some may argue that the actions taken were justified as a means to contain communist expansion or whatever, but I personally do not agree with that assessment. That being said, I would disagree with the author's characterization of all of these events as an "American Holocaust" since each of those examples can be looked at from multiple perspectives whereby in some regards some of the actions taken were justifiable given the historical context of what was going on at the time, and where some of the other events are completely unjustifiable given what we know today. To be honest though, to arrive at a feasible rebuttal to the author I would have to read his book and educate myself more thoroughly on Cold War history/politics from a broad spectrum of sources.
However, I shall shy away from lumping all of these events together and comparing it to what good the US has accomplished over the years to come up with an overall evil/good rating. It seems to me that it is a task that couldn't be any more subjective. I can only imagine what the benefit/cost analysis equation of that would be :nervous: |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
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. |
Better yet, since profanity parsing uses occurs before vB code tags are resolved, you could use the following exploit:
cu[b][/b]nt
which yeilds...
cunt |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cal
You're jewish yes? |
You're an idiot, no?
:rolleyes: |
|
|
| djSlain |
from what i understand, assassinations are a violation of the "Presidential decree since 1976"
somewhere later you say that the US is masquerading its actions supposedly for self interest. getting rid of castro, melosovic, hussein and binLaden will gives the US what benefits besides a sense of security to american citizens and prevention of atrocities against western civilization?
btw, is Yoepus on my side or yours? |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
Better yet, since profanity parsing uses occurs before vB code tags are resolved, you could use the following exploit:
cu[b][/b]nt
which yeilds...
cunt |
Where have you been arbiter? Haven't seen you in these here parts for quite a while. |
|
|
|
|
