Anyone who's read me for awhile knows I enjoy the give and take. I like discussing and debating ideas with folks with whom I disagree. Sometimes I'm right, & sometimes I'm wrong, and often I'm a bit of both.
I've had folks curse me out, call me names, and just plain stop answering me. I'm good with all that. Shit happens, and people have to react as they will. The only thing that really puts a bug up my butt is when a person messes with my words. I'm not saying they're golden or anything, but I type slow, and give everything I say a bit of thought, and so whatever comes out probably took awhile, both in time & brainpower (such as it is). So when someone takes my offering and deletes some or all of it... well let's just say I'm very disappointed.
I have my theories as to why it happens--mostly it's about flushing the evidence, I think--but in a way that's besides the point. Knowing that someone took the time to think about what you said, and then argue their own ideas in reply, AND THEN TOSSING THEM AWAY is just plumb rude. If someone is getting off topic, or offensive, or you just don't want to play, anymore, fine. Tell them. Warn them. Ask them not to bother you with their "stupid" ideas, anymore. But don't delete them.
It's just friggin' impolite, particularly when it's been an ongoing back & forth, as in my example below.
We join the debate already in progress... (We had gone back & forth about 7 times, previous to this post. -- & I made copies, just in case.):
--------------------------------------------
FN: "The Iraqis are no puppets."
"Puppet" was a poor choice of words, I guess. I did not intend to say they do our bidding, but that without our hand propping them up, they fall over. They need to do what is necessary to cut the strings. According the recent op-ed in the New York Times, some of that is happening militarily. It has to happen politically, too.
"If there is a puppet it is misguided liberals like you who are easily manipulated by Al Qaeda propaganda."
AQ propaganda? Explain... I'm talking about news from US media, FN. Political good news from Iraq isn't coming from any source, including the Murdoch/Moonie empire that Cons so trust, and that decry the lack of good reportage from the country. If it was there to report, one would think it would show up on Fox, at least.
"Iraqis are working every day to improve their country. The simple fact that if are associated with Americans can get them assassinated makes this a heroic act. All of those Iraqis who work for their government and security forces are so brave and yet they are derided by pompous Americans who don’t care if they live or die."
I'm sure you'll think this callous, but... IT'S THEIR COUNTRY. They SHOULD be the ones risking their lives to improve it. It's their "patriotic" duty, if they love their country. I'm not saying they don't deserve a little pat on the back for it now & again, but come on... Pointing out that the government is going on vacation while Americans are risking life & limb to protect them so that they can make that political progress that everyone says they need if this is going to be a successful venture, or wondering why it's taken so long to stand up an Iraqi security force is not derision heaped on by a pompous America... As long as Americans are dying for them, we have a right to expect a certain level of commitment from them.
As Mike is so fond of saying of liberals in practically every situation, by excusing & explaining away their bad behavior, you're enabling it to continue.
"Lets hope they don’t get assassinated or have their family kidnapped, tortured and killed because they were seen associating with Americans."
"The Iraqi government needs lots of time..."
The point is they should be risking their lives in the parliament working for those political improvements that are so vital to Iraq's success (& indirectly, our own), not "by the pool" on vacation.
They are wasting the time they so desperately need, and hurting their cause with their American benefactors back home.
"By withdrawing we wont end the war, we will exacerbate it."
That is the million-dollar question, I think... I'm not so sure we can end the war, either by staying or going. If the surge is working, great... I'm willing to admit I was wrong about it, should it turn out I was. But if the happy talk turns out to be premature, and the surge is not quelling the insurgent & AQ violence as promised, we may have to kick the Iraqis out of the nest & let them fly or fall on their own. We cannot & should not continue to protect them--including from themselves--indefinitely.
The Democrats will be attacked from the Right and from the extreme Left which will demand another withdrawal from Afghanistan."
There are very, very few calling for an end to our presence in Afghanistan. That was a just war, and fixing what we broke in our own defense is a worthwhile endeavor.
"Ironically, the Democrats have no plan for Iraq other than to withdraw."
And the Republican offer nothing more than "Just six months more... please!?!" over, & over, & over again... We've turned so many corners in Iraq, I'm dizzy. Friedman Unit - dKosopedia
"A withdrawal from Iraq will lead to a withdrawal from Afghanistan and endless war in the Middle East. You will no doubt say that such a thing cant be predicted so back up your claims with evidence that I am wrong..."
There you go, again... When YOU make an assertion, YOU have to prove your assertion is correct, not expect others to prove you're incorrect. If one will not or cannot to offer proof of what they claim, there is no reason for anyone to give the claim serious attention.
"...and describe how there is a plan for Iraq after a withdrawal."
I don't know that there is a plan for after the withdrawal... ...or that America can impose one. Iraq is a sovereign country that has to find its own way. THEY need to have a plan. If we support their plan, we can help them achieve it.
I might also note that there wasn't much of a plan for after the initial invasion, either, but that didn't stop the Republicans from barreling in.
"This war was started when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait."
I know you believe that. I do not.
"Yes, the age-old argument that Iraq was no threat to us just as the Nazis were no threat to England when they declared war on Nazi Germany."
If you cannot see all of the differences between Iraq's "threat" to America & Germany's threat to England, I cannot help you.
"We should have finished the job in 1991 and then dealt with the Sunni Baathists with the blessing of the United Nations."
I believe the insurgency would've been the same (as did the people in charge at the time)... ...but at least they wouldn't've had the additional problem of keeping AQ out of the mix (which to me makes the administration's decision to invade even more bone-headed that it would've been if 41 had done it.) But your mileage obviously do vary...
"Many people are just too eager to abandon the responsibility that our country accepted when we helped Kuwait."
I just don't see that commitment so open-ended & eternal as you seem to...
"Our enemies are so unjust. We are fighting the Baathists, Al Qaeda and the Taliban, but somehow the United States is always the problem?"
Not at all... In fact, I place a whole lotta blame on the Iraqis themselves... which you promptly dismiss.
That said, we are Americans. We have a responsibility to keep our country on the right path, & that includes speaking out when we think it has strayed. Americans cannot (& should not) control the workings of any government but our own.
"Here we go again… “Without examples (of Democrats who slander our country), I cannot comment either way...
What is this, a court of law? If you disagree with me then just ask me why I feel that way."
How can I judge whether I agree or don't, without examples?
"Congressman Murtha – First lets look at how he lies to propagandize against our war effort."
What Murtha said was bullshit rhetoric, FN... If you need me to, I will find a Republican prediction based on facts s/he oughta know that also didn't come true, and ask you if that is also lying propaganda...
"Why is not surprising that he would resort to character assassination as well?
I don’t know if the marines accused of murder at Haditha are guilty or not and I think its possible we may never know the truth, but there is no excusing Murtha’s attacks on those marines before the investigation was complete."
Murtha was basing his statements on the evidence he did have. True, he should've been more circumspect, and given the Marines a presumption of innocence, but folks do that all the time. Go back over to Mike's, and look at what he & those commenting are saying about Michael Vick, the investigation of whom is also not complete. We all tend to judge based on the facts we have at the time. Yes, I do think that our representatives ought to be held to a higher standard of conduct, particularly when compared to a small-time hack like Mike, but I fail to believe Murtha's so bad as you claim because he jumped the gun.
"So I see that you have to throw in the stereotypical moral equivalency argument. “AQ has cells all over the globe. One of their leaders--who has actually claimed responsibility for attacking the US--is widely thought to be in the country of one of our allies, and yet we do not/cannot capture or kill him.”"
That isn't a moral equivalency argument. That's saying AQ is all over, and whatever happens in Iraq isn't going to change that. We are not going to defeat AQ, no matter how decisively we win in Iraq.
"How many U.N. Resolutions is Pakistan guilty of violating? Did Pakistan invade Kuwait?"
You misunderstand. I'm not saying anything about Pakistan, at all... I'm saying that getting bin Laden--a big deal guy in AQ, who claims credit for 9/11--would be a really good idea, if we want to strike a blow against AQ. I'm not saying it's ALL we need to do on that front, but it is something we need to do.
Liberal plans for Iraq:
Early 2006 Iraq - Finally, The Democratic Position
2007 The least bad plan for leaving Iraq. - By Fred Kaplan - Slate Magazine
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The final reply:
Freedom Now said...
REPSAC,
This conversation is over. I stayed up until 4:30am to answer your inquiries on Sunday night and had to wake up at 6am.
You left another comment of even greater length requesting all sorts of information so I deleted it.
Whenever I respond to any comment I verify most of my talking points (except those I am 100% sure that I will be able to verify). Therefore, I spend quite a great deal of time finding the right verification before committing my words to be published.
This is also how I write my blog entries and this is why I do not write them very often.
I appreciate your thoughts, but I am tired of spending hours responding to them. Thank you for your input.
July 31, 2007 10:53 AM
---------------------------------
I replied to this, letting FN know I was dissappointed in his choice, letting him know It'd be posted here, should he ever change his mind, and thanking him for the exchange up to now.
He deleted it.
UPDATE - 7/31/07 8:15pm EDT:
I have a guess as to why FN deleted this.
I think it was this exchange:
----------------------------
FN: "A withdrawal from Iraq will lead to a withdrawal from Afghanistan and endless war in the Middle East. You will no doubt say that such a thing cant be predicted so back up your claims with evidence that I am wrong..."
R3: There you go, again... When YOU make an assertion, YOU have to prove your assertion is correct, not expect others to prove you're incorrect. If one will not or cannot to offer proof of what they claim, there is no reason for anyone to give the claim serious attention.
-----------------------
I don't think he could verify it, and he prides himself as being thoroughly researched & knowlegeable, as evidenced by what he said in his last reply:
-------------
FN: "Whenever I respond to any comment I verify most of my talking points (except those I am 100% sure that I will be able to verify)."
------------
That's my theory, anyway...
2 hours ago
.gif)
7 comments:
howdy my friend,
got a big smile out of me with this post i have to admit though it was not in disrespect.
my analysis of the exchange would be far too lengthy to try so will limit it to the exchange you had with mike that you assumed was his reason for deletion that you placed at the bottom of this post.
if you reread it you'll see that he made a prediction not an assertion as you said. there is a big difference. and yes you would be right that he would have to back up an assertion as you claim if what he said was an assertion.
but you can never prove a prediction. the proof of a prediction can only come from the actual occurance.
number two: if you reread it he challenged you to prove that a prediction cannot be made, not that the prediction would be false.
how you could have responded is by asking on what grounds he made this prediction. this will not be asking for proof it will only be seeking validity for the prediction he made.
or you could have responded by making an opposing prediction yourself as long as you have something to base that prediction on.
hope you consider my advice as good advice given out of respect.
and btw, i type slow also. i'm a one finger typist. lol
oops i made a mistake. i meant fn not mike. lol
"if you reread it you'll see that he made a prediction not an assertion as you said. there is a big difference."
I disagree. (I bet you might've predicted that. 8>)
Yes, he is making a prediction about the future. He's also making an assertion.
assertion - Definitions from Dictionary.com: "as·ser·tion – noun
1. a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason"
Assertions are not dependent on tense. It does not matter whether I say:
"Abraham Lincoln was a man."
"I am a man."
"My unborn child will be a man."
All three statements are assertions.
FN's not saying it's "very likely;" he's saying it WILL happen.
FN: "A withdrawal from Iraq will lead to a withdrawal from Afghanistan and endless war in the Middle East."
There is no room for possibility or error in that sentence. Like "adding 1+1 will lead to 2," "withdrawal from Iraq will lead to a withdrawal from Afghanistan." That is an assertion, in my book.
"and yes you would be right that he would have to back up an assertion as you claim if what he said was an assertion."
Exactly.
"but you can never prove a prediction. the proof of a prediction can only come from the actual occurance."
I would say that that would be a good reason not to make assertions about the future, not that I cannot demand proof (or even just supporting evidence that makes the likelihood of truth high) from someone who does.
"if you reread it he challenged you to prove that a prediction cannot be made, not that the prediction would be false."
I did reread it, and I did see something I hadn't seen before. What he did is create a kind of a straw man argument to preemptively block my call for proof. (He knows me.)
FN: "You will no doubt say that such a thing cant be predicted so back up your claims with evidence that I am wrong..."
He chose (one might even say "predicted," and also in an assertive fashion) my response to his assertion, and then challenged me to provide evidence to refute the response he chose for me. I never made the argument he's attributing to me; he did.
And, do you not see anything unfair & imbalanced in his asking me for proof of "my" reply, when he did not offer any for his original assertion?
FN & I have a history with this argument tactic. fn/repsac3 - 04.28.07 - 3:33 pm | # He likes to shift the burden of proof to me.
All that aside however, you are correct. He did challenge me to prove the prediction could not be made. I refused to do so (and would continue to do the same) because I believe that is a tactic to change the subject & deflect my demand that he prove his statement. If I were going to respond to it, your suggestions on how to go about doing so are quite good.
"or you could have responded by making an opposing prediction yourself as long as you have something to base that prediction on."
Do you believe I would need to state my basis, or just know what it is in my head? I only ask because FN failed to state the basis of his prediction. If he had, we might not be here...
he smiles, i will disagree with you but rebutt it on the basis of an assertion.
first, you made an assertion of me being a con in our other debate. by your way of thinking you would have had to prove it. which you could not, regardless of what you said because the reasons you stated led you to the wrong conclusion as you acknowleged after i told you i do not identify myself as such. but that did not make your assertion invalid or seen as illogical.
second, you examples as called assertions are provable because they have already occured or something is known that could be called proof prior to the actual occurance.
a prediction can never be declared proven until the actual occurance. we can declare a probability of it occuring but probability is not proof.
i can predict the the sun will rise tomorrow morning and give you all kinds of reasons as why it will but those reasons will not be proof that it will rise tomorrow. that can only be proven by its actual occurance.
as to fn's trying to change the subject i saw that. that was the reason of my first suggestion. it takes the burden of defending yourself off you and places it back on him where it belongs, using his own argument against him.
example:
"you are not wrong, predictions can be made but on what basis do you make this prediction?"
see how i used his own argument against him? he demanded proof but you would answer him truthfully without giving proof then brought it back to what you wanted. and did so in a way he could not avoid it.
and it doesn't matter if you actually made the assertion or not, you used it to turn the burden back to him.
in football terms he tried to take the offensive position in the debate and place you in a defensive position. but in trying to do so he dropped the football and gave you the opportunity to recover the ball and remain on the offensive position.
one of the beauties of seeing someone do that is that it is an open opportunity to take advantage of and move in for the kill.
"you made an assertion of me being a con in our other debate. by your way of thinking you would have had to prove it."
If challenged, yes. Prove it, or admit I could not.
As far as assertions about the future (AKA: predictions): Your example about the sun rising is no different than my example of an unborn child becoming a man. When it comes down to it, it's hard to prove an assertion about a future event. That said, one can make a really educated guess beforehand, that has a high probability of ending up true, by considering the available data.
Still, the smartest course is not making assertions about the future.
As far as FN changing the subject: I understand that your plan of attack is smart & would work, but I prefer to not reward such a blatent attempt to avoid being accountable for one's own statements by not entertaining it, in the first place. I name it, and bring the subject back to getting the proof of the original assertion.
"one of the beauties of seeing someone do that is that it is an open opportunity to take advantage of and move in for the kill."
I'd like to think I seldom make that last stab, prefering to leave an out... I generally know (or at least, think I know) when I've won an argument. I don't need the final bow or whatever...
That happens very often with someone like Mike. (Yes, I do mean Mike.) I have never seen him admit fault or error in any situation. Even when he's clearly lost, he claims victory.
I generally let him. I know who won, regardless of his claims. And I believe that he & many of his readers know, as well, even if they will not admit it. S'alright... No problem... I know my worth...
ok, i see that it would take too long to convince you about assertions so while i will continue to disagree i will abide by your ideas for any debate between us for now.
'"one of the beauties of seeing someone do that is that it is an open opportunity to take advantage of and move in for the kill."
I'd like to think I seldom make that last stab, prefering to leave an out... I generally know (or at least, think I know) when I've won an argument. I don't need the final bow or whatever...'
pardon me, my statement was not meant to be taken so literally. it was only meant to be taken metaphorically in the sense that you could be close to a win. and close enough to be certain that you did win. nothing more. and there are ways to be certain of it rather than just think you did, the most obvious being that there is agreement in your favor.
remember the purpose of any debate is to convince. and between two persons is to convince the other person to agree with you not necessarily to prove yourself right and the other person wrong.
remember one more thing what may convince you as being right does not mean it will be enough to convince another that he is wrong. so don't assume what may be obvious to you is obvious to another. agreements results from the fact that what was obvious to one now is obvious to another.
since the whole purpose of comments was an analysis of the argument between you and fn and present you a way to have prolonged the debate to its rightful conclusion i think i have done so now. thus this will be last comment.
and yes i did read your follow up comment to my last in the other thread.
btw, think i will need to readjust my thoughts of you also as a result of your latest post in regards to your political affiliation. lolol
"remember the purpose of any debate is to convince. and between two persons is to convince the other person to agree with you not necessarily to prove yourself right and the other person wrong."
"... and there are ways to be certain of it rather than just think you did, the most obvious being that there is agreement in your favor."
(Yes, I know I jiggered the order...)
There is being convinced, and then there is admitting you were convnced.
I cannot say for certain whether FN would or would not admit to being convinced, had I followed your suggestions. Based on our history & reading his discussions with others, I'm inclined to doubt it.
Actually, I see an informal debate like these as being an echange of ideas, as well. I don't really expect to convince too many die-hard Republicans or Conservatives that some aspect of my political views is more worthwhile, nor do I expect any of them to convince me... But I do like hearing the explanations & interpretations that lead people I disagree with to believe the things they do...
Also, I see political thought as more of a spectrum than a coin toss. Perhaps one or the other of us will move a little closer, even if it's imperceptable, at first... (It could be me that's movin' for all I know...)
"thus this will be last comment."
That is up to you, sir... I'll keep pokin' my head in though, in case you change your mind...
(I've never made such an announcement, myself... For me, the conversation's over when I run out of replies; no sooner & no later...)
"btw, think i will need to readjust my thoughts of you also as a result of your latest post in regards to your political affiliation. lolol"
That might not be the best one to judge me by... Go here, instead: What'd I Say?: Political Tests & Quizzes: Have you been tested? I think those are more accurate test/quiz results on me...
Also... Now that I finally figured out why blogger/blogspot/??? wasn't letting me edit my layout, and am able to do that again, I wanted to return the favor & blogroll you in a prominent place... Seeing as how you've already told me you're not a Conservative, but failed to identify what you ARE, what header would you like? If/when you let me know, I will set you up in your very own spot. (That "blogs/blogger appearances" thing only lists the last five blogs I talk to or about here... As long as you keep visiting & commenting, you're in, but should you slow down or other bloggers make the cut... ... )
Post a Comment