The anti - Iraqi, terrorist murders are taking lessons from Mike Moore, and the Democrat media (CBS). Moore’s dictum is, "When the facts don’t fit your point of view manufacture them!" The terrorists, unable to capture an American solider to torture and murder, have stuck up a plastic toy (G.I. Cody) threatened it with a toy gun, a draped a toy flag behind it. A toy flag covered with the toy slogans of a toy religion.
When the hoax was revealed, the disappointment of the mainstream media was palpable. If it wasn’t so tragic it would be funny. Someday the "enemies of democracy" will capture and torture to death an American solider. Then the Dan Rather, Ted Kennedy crowd will blame President Bush; not the terrorists for the atrocity.
To further examine the "Mike Moore" model of influencing the world, let’s look at the goals of two groups involved in "toy tinkering":
Group one - The murderers trying to destroy the free nation of Iraq - Their goal is to advance their religious fanaticism (oppression of women, repression of human rights, end of religious freedom, destruction of reason, and liberal education) and to secure selfish power for themselves.
Group two - The Democrats trying in to make President Bush fail - Their goal is to advance their ideological fanaticism (abortion protection, environmental radicalism, socialism, forced egalitarianism, and atheism) and selfish power for themselves.
G. I. Cody is only one of the many puppet pantomimes acted out in the media. The toy side show of Democrat’s Reed and Palosi’s prebuttal to the President’s State of the Union is a Punch and Judy howler put up to frighten America away from Social Security reform. Up coming "let’s pretends" will include toy arguments against Attorney General Gonzalez and trinket shows to attack Supreme Court nominees.
A week ago the "toy" attacks were against the "then upcoming" elections and were put out, Mike Moore style, by the democrats and the terrorists. [I clearly state the murder of 40+ innocent people in Iraq, was no game. But these tragedies do not compare to the "streets running with blood" we were told to expect.] The truth of eight million Iraqis voting said to the toy makers, "you can’t fool us." Bush’s clear majority in the 2004 election said the same thing to the media puppet pundits. Now the "toy" attacks on America’s Iraq policy concentrates on power and water shortages, and the percentage of this or that group in the Constitutional Convention. Call such arguments "straw men" or lies, but they are "toy men" for sure.
One of the most insidious "toy men" of the Democrats is to set up a bar and then require President Bush to reach it or "fail." We are told if the number of soldiers killed doesn’t go down, Bush will be a failure. Another toy is to demand President Bush set a deadline for the withdrawal of troops. What a stupid demand. Where would the French be if Roosevelt would have said the US would pull our troops out of Europe by November 1944 whether Hitler was beaten or not.
Since neither the Terrorists nor the Democrats can get America to pull its troops out of Iraq, they must pull out the toys. Why? Those out of power in Bagdad and Washington can only get power if Bush fails. If there are no real failures; count on the enemies of freedom, truth, and the President; inspired by Mike Moore’s manufactured success; to pull out some toy ones.
Kickstarter Campaign
10 years ago
27 comments:
Lysis, I am actually writing you in regards to a comment given to you for one of your earlier masterpieces. Now I’m not one to tattle tale but for the case of my personnel enjoyment I can make an exception. The comment was actually posted in regards to “Gay marriage Settled,” the specific comment was the one cowardly posted as anonymous (which may seem hypocritical, but I’m not here to bash your salute to the first amendment). The comment being the one posted at exactly 6:19, which you proceeded to give a thorough and rather humoring rebuttal to his comments, which filled me with many-a-laughs given my involvement in the situation. You could say you have the luxury of not knowing what I know that this comment while rude and spineless made me laugh. But I will tell you, I know the culprit. Tangled in his own immature web, he meant no harm.
In your third session of your bi-daily rotation you will find this humorously random, chubby, and I’ll admit pretty darn funny person sitting (most of the time), conveniently, next to the wall of shame, sitting smug in his cushioned chair. This person, he did not mean what he said, but he was being who he is, a chubby, talkative person with a random sense of humor. I believe you can figure out who I’m talking about. Make the most of it.
A note on the comments being offered by the Democrat in responses to President Bush’s request for action to save Social Security:
Early last winter my Dr. told me I had a cholesterol problem. He recommended diet, exercise, and a daily pill to save me from otherwise inevitable clogging of my heart. It will, of course, be many years before my heart become dysfunctional, and I could have responded to his advice by pointing out that the heart attack was still years away and that when the time came I could always have bypass surgery. I could have explained that,at present,I did not want to suffer the inconvenience and expense of preventative action. I would rather wait until I needed radical surgery. Had I done so, I would have been a fool. For the Democrats to admit that disaster is coming for Social Security and then claim that it would be better to deal with it when we have no other choice than drastic action is likewise foolish. Of course what is wise for America is not what Democrats want. They need Bush to fail, even at the risk of a national coronary.
Response:
To all the teachers and preachers
Dulce Et Decorum Est
Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Response:
To all the teachers and preachers
Dulce Et Decorum Est
Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
. . . a glitch, sorry . . . .
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs,
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots,
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame, all blind:
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
of gas-shells dropping softly behind.
Gas! GAS! Quick, boys! -- An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time,
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And flound'ring like a man in fire or lime. --
Dim through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.
In all my dreams before my helpless sight
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.
If in some smothering dreams, you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin,
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs
Bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,--
MY FRIEND, YOU WOULD NOT TELL WITH SUCH HIGH ZEST
TO CHILDREN ARDENT FOR SOME DESPERATE GLORY,
THE OLD LIE: DULCE ET DECORUM EST
PRO PATRIA MORI
Wilfred Owen (1893-1918)
The latin quotation, from the Roman poet Horace, means "It is sweet and becoming to die for one's country." (Wilford owen died fighting for England in World War I, a week before the armistice.
Now continue with feretting out "The enemies list"
Mike Moore . . . terrorist
Democrats . . . terrorists
Liberals . . . . terrorsts
Progressives . . terrorists
relativists . . .terrorists
Bush haters . . . terrorists
Protestors (who have not been sanctioned by Lysis) terrorists
Anyone who might offer a moments quibbling about the Bush foreign policy . . .terrorist
Advocate of an unchanged Social Security System . . .
Terrorist.
This is a very dangerous zero sum game you are playing Mr. Lysis.
I appreciate and respect your loyalty, singlemindedness, and steadfastness -- I truly do!
But there ARE other virtures -- and each virtue does have a dark side . . .
Aristotle ... "Nothing in excess"
Anonymous, frankly you are becoming more patronizing and annoying by the post.
Lysis, Silverlining, and myself have continued to ask you to argue against his points instead of making broad statements about what he is doing.
Can you argue with his thoughts? Can you argue against changing social security? Can you defend Ted Kennedy's statements? (something I have yet to see anyone do).
You have a very polished ability to distort people's comments. Lysis has spoken out against terrorists, relativists, ted kennedy, those who responded to the state of the union, etc.. You then lump them all together saying that Lysis has labeled them all terrorists.
I am sure that when you type your words you smile smugly believing that you are the antagonist to Lysis' arguments. But the fact is until you actually begin to argue points, you are merely a pompous, condescending, blowhard.
I'm sorry if I make this comment out of turn, but I had to mention that reading DannyBoyz comment has to be the single time where I have read or heard blowhard used in an argument. I laughed alloud, it's nothing against the usage itself, I just wanted to thank you for making me laugh in the middle of a mostly silent computer lab...
But, Annonymous, DannyBoyz right. And even more annoying to me is that when Lysis intends to answer all of the questions that you have for him to the best of his ability, you dodge those directed at you. The best debaters in the world don't ask questions fast and furiously, they ask the right ones, and answer those asked to them correctly. It's amazing how you can demand more of Lysis then you could ever imagine giving from yourself.
If you wanted to pin Lysis with some umbrella group that all of your subgroups could be thrust into, it would likely be liars and those that bend the truth. Those who seek to gain by lies and corruption. But then, using umbrella terms to classify umbrella groups is a bit messy. His main points here, at least, seem to be that whether you're Michael Moore, a Democrat, Ted Kennedy or a Terrorist lying is wrong and those of sound mind will see right through it. He's simply using the G.I. Cody incident as the pinicle example.
That's what I'm getting out of his statements. Anyone care to correct me?
Response:
Lysis' arguments were responded to on my last post(Ted Kennedy) as "strawman" arguments (as most, if not all of his opinions/arguments are). However, Lysis' reasoning during the "gay marriage" debate I found to be particularly lucid and compelling and not like his Bush basher bashing arguments of the last two posts.
I find no comments to MY arguments offered as extensions upon his arguments. The "toy" posting is more of the same -- Strawman Strawman Strawman: ie,
Where can I find a quoted statement of Mike Moore saying what he is quoted as saying here? Is Lysis quoting Moore or himself? Also, has the Democratic media really said that they agree with the "Moore dictum? (whatever that is, but it must be surely something bad.) Is Lysis quoting the "Democratic media's charaterization of itself, or his own characterization of it?
I do not understand the "toy religion" opinion/argument -- I hope Lysis was not calling some other religion than his own a "toy religion".
Is the characteization of the "disappointment of the mainstream media being palpable" an admission by that media, or a characterization of that media by Lysis?
"Mike Moore model of influencing the world" . . . et al
The Social Security analogy was particulary specious. Without particulars Lysis forces a conclusion based on no real information other that his opinion.
Dan
First Ridiculous
Then Absurd
Then Idiot
Then Annoying
Then Patronizing
Then Blowhard
Then am I supposed to "Cram 'em" (to quote a pundit during one of his less eloquent moments.)
When you get around to throwing me out -- throw me out the front door. I am not leaving through the back . . .
Response:
Lysis' arguments were responded to on my last post(Ted Kennedy) as "strawman" arguments (as most, if not all of his opinions/arguments are). However, Lysis' reasoning during the "gay marriage" debate I found to be particularly lucid and compelling and not like his Bush basher bashing arguments of the last two posts.
I find no comments to MY arguments offered as extensions upon his arguments. The "toy" posting is more of the same -- Strawman Strawman Strawman: ie,
Where can I find a quoted statement of Mike Moore saying what he is quoted as saying here? Is Lysis quoting Moore or himself? Also, has the Democratic media really said that they agree with the "Moore dictum? (whatever that is, but it must be surely something bad.) Is Lysis quoting the "Democratic media's charaterization of itself, or his own characterization of it?
I do not understand the "toy religion" opinion/argument -- I hope Lysis was not calling some other religion than his own a "toy religion".
Is the characteization of the "disappointment of the mainstream media being palpable" an admission by that media, or a characterization of that media by Lysis?
"Mike Moore model of influencing the world" . . . et al
The Social Security analogy was particulary specious. Without particulars Lysis forces a conclusion based on no real information other that his opinion.
Dan
First Ridiculous
Then Absurd
Then Idiot
Then Annoying
Then Patronizing
Then Blowhard
Then am I supposed to "Cram 'em" (to quote a pundit during one of his less eloquent moments.)
When you get around to throwing me out -- throw me out the front door. I am not leaving through the back . . .
Dulce Et Decorum Est Pro Patria Mori - Anonymous, I admit your Latin is better than mine, but
if this does mean, “”it is sweet and becoming to die for one’s country.” I would add, if your
country is fighting in a Just cause. This would mean that it seeks to protect the rights of the
governed the human rights of all mankind. As for Horace, whom I know only in translation; he
was a teacher and a preacher - and not very happy it either calling.
As for Wilfred Owen’s poem; WWI was a sad, unjust, and unnecessary war. I would even go so
far as to say an immoral war. But when American troops went “over there” to end that
unnecessary slaughter and bring peace; their cause was indeed just and necessary. Had only the
US remained firm in its international responsibility to freedom and justice, much of the evil of
the last century: would have been avoided. When the French took over the “peace” they sowed
the seeds of Nazism, Communism, Zionism, and much of what is worst about Muslim
fundamentalism today. Owen’s description of the death of his friend is moving. But what about
the choking Iraqi children of the Kurdish north of that country. Was it not sweet and becoming
to remove the monster, Saddam, who committed those and plotted more murders? What about
those who choked and died in the Nazi death camps, where not the lives of the British and
American heros spent to end such slaughter given with “becoming” love?
Poetry has long been used to stir the hearts of warriors, some for just and noble causes, some for
folly. Just because evil men sing hymns does not make their cause just - nor does the use of
poetry cheapen the cause of right. Homer sang the sad song of the rage of Achilles for the death
of his best friend. Tennyson Romanticized the charge of the Light Brigade, ennobling the
warriors, but not the war. It is not the poetry, but the cause that inspires the war that gives power
to the words. Consider these lines:
In the Beauty of the lilies, Christ was borne across the sea,
With a glory in his bosom that transfigures you and me.
As he died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
While God is marching on.
Evan Stephens (1854-1930)
Oh, thus be it ever, when free men shall stand
Between their loved homes and the war’s desolation!
Blest with vict’ry and peace, may the heav’n rescued land
Praise the pow’r that hath made and preserved us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our moto; “In God is our trust!”
And the star spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
Francis Scott Key (1779-1843)
Anonymous, you emphasize these lines from Owen; (and Horace)
MY FRIEND, YOU WOULD NOT TELL WITH SUCH HIGH ZEST
TO CHILDREN ARDENT FOR SOME DESPERATE GLORY,
THE OLD LIE; DULCE ET DECORUM EST PRO PATRIA MORI
Am I encouraging those I love; my students, my children, and my friends to die for glory? This
thought has long weighed heavily on my heart. There are some causes for which it IS sweet and
becoming to die. Let me tell you a story of an Iraqi police man. I wish I knew his name, but his
deeds are so fresh that he has, as yet, no poetry to recall him as his acts deserve. Anyway, on
Iraqi election day this boy, someone’s friend and love, wrestled a terrorist to the ground as the
murderer rushed toward an Iraqi poling place. He wrapped his body about the killer and died
absorbing the bomb blast meant to kill and terrorizes the people of Iraq out of their freedom. He
did not die for “some desperate glory.” He gave his precious life for those he loved. Greater
love has no man than this. Surely you saw Janet and William Norwood, the mother and father
of the American Marine killed in the liberation of Fallujah, whom President Bush honored at the
State of the Union speech. Anonymous, do you really believe he died for nothing? When the
Iraqi voter took Sargent Norwood’s mother in her grateful arms it recognized that this American,
this world hero’s death was sweet and becoming!
Now to the list of enemies:
Mike Moore . . . supports and furthers the cause of terrorists with his lies. He made $100
million plus convincing the enemies of freedom that most Americans agreed with them. He lied
about President Bush’s motives - thus giving support to the lies used to enrage ignorant people at
home and abroad to acts of violence against American Soldiers and Iraqis fighting and dying for
causes both noble and just. I do call him a terrorist!
Democrats . . . Some Democrats, Kennedy, Kerry, Deam etc, do aid and abet terrorists by
choosing the side of the terrorists. In the weeks leading up to the elections in Iraq they
repeatedly claimed that terrorists would defeat America and nullify the elections if they killed
enough innocent people. This is not just supporting terrorism, it is giving them a game plan and
supporting it with lies in the halls of Congress. Many Democrats do not support this trash.
Senator Lieberman, and many others, stand with our troops and our President. But when some
Democrats use their party goals as justification for endangering our troops, you can define them.
Liberals . . . I am a liberal! I do not us this word as a pejorative, rather a complement. Some
have misused it - true, but I would not consider true liberals anything but patriots.
Progressives - I never use this word. I think you have been listening to Bill O’Reilly not me.
Relativists - Misguided, but if they do not support killing to establish their goals they are not
terrorists. I ask you to judge them by their actions as I do. I simply state that all terrorists are
relativists, but not all relativists are terrorists.
Protestors . . . See above. Protestors for good causes are good, protestors for bad causes are bad,
and protestors that support terror are terrorists.
Advocates of unchanged Social Security System . . . are foolishly avoiding action that could save
the nation from much “heart ache”. But I never implied they were terrorists, or if I did, I was
wrong and take back such a foolish claim.
Anonymous, I don’t know what you mean by “zero sum game.” Please explain that so I will
know if I am playing it or not and whether I think it is worth the danger.
Anonymous, what are the other virtues I should be aware of? And wouldn’t having a dark side
make something less than virtuous?
I have the name of the Iraqi hero who saved his fellows at the cost of his life. Abdul Amir. As one of his country men said. “Abdul Amir was an act of God!”
I'd like to let this show down continue between Lysis and Anonymous, especially since Anonymous believes that Lysis has to prove something to him. But I just had to point out one thing: omitting your own actions because someone else did it, isn't right. You maintained the fact that Lysis never responds directly to your arguments (which I believe he does a fine job of), and yet in that response to my claim, you are still managing to dodge ever putting forth a claim of your own. I'm a little fuzzy on the termonology, but I'm sure there's a vocabulary set from your debate class that speaks about that. When I assert that you also have not answered any questions directed at you, you can't answer those away by saying that Lysis does it too. You are still dodging the questions. I'm adept enough at that tactic, I use it all of the time. I don't lose my balance and fall when you use misdirection. So keep trying it, I'm sure we've all noticed.
But it does beg the question on whether or not you have beliefs of your own in these instances, or if you just pride yourself in being contrary to most of what Lysis says... Anyways, I'm only speaking out in answer of your cries for a legitimate debate. Not following the rules because your opponent doesn't, isn't a legitimate case. Lead by example.
"Anonymous the blowhard":
Thanks for the moniker Dan, now I'm going to blow harder . . .
Dan says that I blowhard and Shadow says I don't blow hard enough -- or at least in any perceptible direction, except at Lysis.
What Dan and Shadow really want is a lable -- a handle. They both exist in a world of labels -- bad labels and good -- and they are ANNOYED! Everyone HAS to have a lable and Annonymous is no exception. That's it -- he is ashamed of his lables and merely wants to attack THEIR cherised labels -- what a dastardly trick; what an evil cunning blowhard it is. He should be a man and let them do the "smashing pumpkin" on his labels.
Then "perhaps" they would not be ANNOYED so much, and the Annonymous blowhard would slink back to whatever stinking fen he came from.
My advocacy is and has been:
Teachers are better than preachers.
Protest is better than obedience.
It is better to debate a question without resolving it than to resolve a question without debating it.
Generally, when I quote something I am advocating.
"The Dialogue, the Dialectic, the Forum is the best access to truth.
Art, beauty and Good are better than the True
I dislike sloppy self indulgent advocacy that is full of "spin".
I am oriented epistemologically -- I want to know HOW you know that Michael Moore is a liar and that president Bush is not. I would like a person to offer up a logical argument instead of Straw man attacks and begging the question arguments.
I want to know HOW you can be soooooo certain of all your opinions.
Ad Hominem attacks are the major currency on this site, because they are easy -- a charge as serious as treason/treachery or terrorism must be accompanied with an equal degree of certainty!
Michael Moore is a SATIRIST. He makes money satirizing politicians, business leaders and issues in the public eye. He has an obvious agenda just like Rush L. and they s a lot of money. Was Moore telling the "TRUTH"? I don't know -- which statements are we considering? Certainly exaggeration is the essence of satire and satire can be very vicious. If Lysis objects to satire as a form of lying then I would expect him to be even handed and indict Rush L. with equal outrage. To simply use the label liar/terrorist without specific instances to weigh, reduces the argument to a meaningless tautology; he is a liar because he tells lies and is dishonest.
Shadow:
I am not in a debate using "tactics" to win -- I hopeLysisdoesnot think so. What could either of us win?
If "winning' were the goal I lost the "debate" with my first posting, because you and Dan seem to be the only judges.(this is what I mean by a zero sum game)
I am looking at all this from the point of view of Thesis -- Antithesis -- synthesis.
It is a Dialectical process.
Anonymous the Blowhard - I am so glad you post on this sight. Your ideas, however forcible presented, are always appreciated. Let’s see how many “pumpkins you can smash; that would
really be some hard blowing; worthy of a title of honor.
Let me remind you that I hold that one cannot know anything, but here are some reasons to believe. I am sooooo certain because of reason and faith supported by evidence that backs these
opinions. No amount of hot air blowing has smashed them yet.
Mike Moore makes money at the expense of his countrymen and at the cost of lives in Iraq and
elsewhere. I see no difference in selling harmful lies than in selling harmful drugs or dangerous
toys to children. Here are some of Moore’s demonstrated lies. I have seen ahrenheit 9/11 and read careful debunking from reputable sources but here are some obvious examples. Empirical
evidence if you will.
1. Moore claimed that “American” (UN) sanctions starved Iraqi children. Now we know that
Saddam stole their food and medicine to build pleasure palaces, weapons, and buy off the UN its self.
2. Moore says the G.W.H. Bush and G. W. Bush plotted with the Saudi Royal Family to attack the US on 9/11. Not only have Alcalde and Bin Laden been proven to have carried out the
attacks but they have claimed “credit” for them.
3. Moore said that Bush allowed members of the Bin Laden family to leave the US before other Saudis.
a) These “innocent” people left after all restrictions were lifted.
b) What happened to Moore’s “pretended arguments of convenience” concerning
innocent until proven guilty. Claiming that American imprisoning or detaining people for racial,
religions, or family connection, is another one of Moors shameful lies, but he seems to advocate
the very act in the case of Osama’s family members.
4. Moore claimed that American forces targeted civilians in Iraq. Military reports and the
embedded and free press attest that the liberation of Iraq was accomplished with a minimum of
collateral damage. American soldiers repeatedly risked, and gave, their lives in order to prevent civilian deaths. The major explosions in Bagdad during the Liberation were the work of Saddam. The continued murder of innocents is the work of Terrorists not Americans.
5. Moore shamelessly claims American conquered rather than liberated an independent nation that “had never done us any harm.”
a) Training and financing terrorists did us harm.
b) Supporting and allaying with Alcalde did us harm.
c) Supporting Palestinian terrorists did and does us harm.
d) Iraq was not conquered - it was liberated. If you don’t believe the dancing in the
streets on the day Saddam’s statue came down; how about last Sunday?
6. Moore claimed that US congressmen sent fewer of their sons to war than other Americans. The three serving Military personal who were sons of the 635 congressmen at the time of Moors’s movie, was actually higher than the national warrior per family average. Besides, no one sent their children to war for America. Our heros choose to go. They are adults, men and women, who have made their own choices.
I could go on and on with Mike Moore’s lies; but these are enough to prove my argument. Moore lies! Now consider that Moore’s movie pushed these lies to millions of Muslims. This
film was actually used by terrorist groups to recruit. Its lies are blood soaked and wrong. The
purpose of satire should not be murder - it is not a joke then!
As for other demonstrable lies; let me give you a few:
1. Democrats lie when the say Bush is the first President since Hover to have a net loss of jobs
during his term. Last years statistics show a net increase over Bush’s four year term of a quarter
of a million jobs.
2. Dem’s claimed that Bush’s economy was as bad as the Depression. Where were the soup kitchens and the 25% unemployment of the Roosevelt administration?
3. A favorite of mine by Kerry and the Dem’s - Tax cuts are only for the rich. I’m not rich and I got several tax cuts. One of my best friends, fallen on some hard times received Child Tax
credits at a time of great need. My dad passed away last year and thanks to Bush’s challenge to the “death tax” my dad was able to pass his small but precious estate to those he loved.
4. The Dems in congress - you can list their names - lied during the entire Ohio Vote Certification thing. Democrat after Democrat got up and said they knew the vote is Ohio had been counted fairly, but they intended to vote against it anyway. Thus announcing their intention to lie before they did.
5. Teddy Kennedy repeatedly insisted that Iraqis would not fight for democracy. God bless Abdul Amir and 1,300+ other Iraqi patriots who prove this a lie.
6. Kennedy, Kerry, Deam, and company lied when they said:
a) Saddam can not be defeated.
b) Then that an interim government could not be successfully established,
c) Then that fair elections could not be held in Iraq.
7. Moore, Kennedy, Kerry, Deam, the Democrats in Congress, said that France, Germany, and Russia would not help American because of Bush’s failed diplomacy. Now the world KNOWS
that Saddam had bought European support with billions in Oil for Food Money he had looted
from his own people with the help of the UN.
8. Kerry is a liar because he lied about his military service and his post Vietnam activities. The Swift Vets caught him in many lies. Some of my favorites:
a) That he (Kerry) was in Cambodia on Nixon’s orders, on Christmas Eve 26 days before Nixon became President.
b) That he didn’t throw medals over the fence to shame his service and the American military. He claimed to have done this on video tape, and then not to have done it during the
campaign. He lied one way or the other.
c) That American troops carried out atrocities in Vietnam on orders from above.
9. Let’s end our examples with Dan Rather, CBS, and the New York Times who put forward forged documents against the reputation of President Bush’s military service weeks before the
election and then spent months spinning and covering up their LIES!!!
A tautology is not a flawed argument (a logical fallacy). In fact, when backed by irrefutable
evidence a tautological argument becomes conclusive.
"What could either of us win?"
Unless someone steps down is their ever truly a winner or a loser to a debate? Although the judge may say one side wins, isnt he naturaly biased in his judgment? But, dosen't everyone win the true prize, the knowledge which comes out of it.
You, of course, are right, the only winners are those that embrace the truth. And the losers be those that refuse to ever admit it.
I thank you for pulling my comments out of context so that you may prove your point. The point of me wanting a name for you is not so that I can slash down your psuedonym with petty attacks, if you actually read the comment, it was so that I could put "a name to the words" and so that we could avert any further misinterpretations with another "annonymous". I don't mind that you want to be annonymous. Do you really think that my name is "A_Shadow"? The point, basically, was that "Lysis", "A_Shadow" and "BeefJerky" and all of the others are unique names. That being said you couldn't ever convince me that someone under the name of "Lysis" wasn't Lysis, unless they had obtained his password. That's all I wanted, identity. I find it great that you think that simply because I'd like to be able to identify you, that I would automatically judge you and attack your new found name. Do you judge me by my psuedonym?
But you are still bringing up self defeating arguments, which is my only point in my continued posting under this thread. You demand of us proof of how we know that Michael Moore, and all of the others that we mention, lie/etc. Have you ever offered up proof in counter? Have you ever offered up proof that Bush really did help plan 9-11? Or that he has made billions off of the war in Iraq? Or any of your other agendas and arguments? I have seen and read, and learned much, from Lysis comments and articles that he brings forth his opinions from things that he has seen and read. He quotes the Inagural speech. He brings forth the testimony of an artical where it is all but proven that terrorists are manufacturing stories now so that they can further their cause. He counters the quoted allegations of Michael Moore and his host of others that he can offer proof of their lies. You argue with poetry. What argumentitive style is it where you bring forth an archaic and pointless poem that has little to do with the subject at hand? The next time we argue about free will and tough times should I quote to you Invictus for some quality argument on how giving up isn't right? Should I bring forth the Lord of the Rings to prove that people in society lie, and even the most righteous and true can be corrupted? Please give me something other than litterature as your arguments. I have a tough time accepting a poem as your counter that we shouldn't have done A or shouldn't have done B.
I agree with this statement and I must say that "Moore' s dictum" is absolutely true! And you worded it wonderfully. But Lysis, I am somewhat confused about the "toy soldier". I have missed the news a couple of days and I am wondering what this is all about. If you could tell me a little more about this incident, it would be much appreciated. Again, exellent comment!
Anonymous. . blowhard here.
This has to be short, but the spirit moves.
Shadow writes . . .
"Please give me someting other than literature as your argument."
Literature: "Writings in prose or verse: esp writings having excellence of form or expression and expressing ideas of permanance or universal interest."
Shadow, you, of course, must realize that every posting on this site, or any site, is (Gasp! Say it isn't true.) literature -- even your own contributions!
To give you someting other than literature as my argument? OK Here goes . . . . When you misunderstood the "label" comments of my last posting and misconstured them as having something to do with the "pseudonym" anonymous, I stuck out my toungue and groaned in disbelief. Then further on you accused me of not supporting Bush or the war. I gasped, made an ugly face (other than my ususal one) and burped. (pardon me) When you assailed poetry . . . as "archaic" and pointless and not worthy of argumentation, I spit on the floor, ground the worthless sputem into the carpet and raised a cheek (Pardon me again). . . . But, I reconsidered, you know Lysis likes a good poem once in a while and has even been known to break out into lyric; and he, by some accounts. . . is as "archaic" as they come.
What exactly is a poem do you think?
We must know in order to avoid corrupting our argumntation -- no iambic pentameter? No rhyme? No meter? We must know in case a poem breaks out right in the middle of an argument. The site needs a warning that flashes at the top of the screen -- ONLY SYLLOGISM WRITTEN HERE!
To the Anonymous who is “Anonymous”:
About a week ago the daily news cycle was interrupted by ominous reports that an American Solider had been captured by a terrorist group who had put his picture out on the internet, a gun held to his head. The group was threatening to cut his head off if certain terrorists weren’t released. It was real blood in the water to the media sharks – it looked like the war effort and the Administration were in for weeks of suffering as we watched this solider tortured to death on TV. But a few hours later it became obvious that the pictures being broadcast on the internet were of a GI Joe type doll called GI Cody, sold extensively in Kuwait. A place were little boys still like to pretend they are American soldiers fighting for freedom. Anyway, the story died almost immediately, and by evening news time the media was searching else where for “proof” or US failure in Iraq.
To the Shadow:
I agree with you on the value of having names for each of us. I have to admit that I have concocted an image of you to which I am now speaking – and since you are one of the most consistent posters here in the Agora. I spend a lot of time with you. Thank you for sharing so many ideas, and starting me thinking on so many more.
To Anonymous. . The Blowhard:
Thank you for continuing to read and comment here in the Agora. As you have guessed, I do love poetry! To the Ancient Greeks, whom I admire, the Poet was greater than the Prophet, because while a Prophet only passed on the word of God, the Poet took the inspiration of God and created something beautiful that the God himself could not have made alone.
I recommend a fun little book called Old School, by Tobias Wolff. I will quote my favorite passage which recounts a bit of a debate between a private school master and Robert Frost. In my copy it’s on pgs 51 – 53.
“Your work, sir, Mr. Ramsey said, [to Robert Frost] follows a certain tradition. Not the tradition of Whitman, that most American of poets, but a more constrained, shall we say formal tradition, as in the last poem you read, “Stooping in Woods.” I wonder—
“’Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening,’” Frost said. He put both hands on the pulpit and peered at Mr. Ramsey.
Yes, sir. Now that particular poem is not unusual in your work for being written in stanza form, with iambic lines connected by rhyme.
Good for you, Frost said. They must be teaching you boys something here.
There was a great eruption of laughter, more caustic than jolly. Mr. Ramsey waited it out as Frost looked slyly around the chapel, the lord of misrule. He was not displeased by the havoc his mistake had caused, you could see that, and you had to wonder if it was a mistake at all. Finally he said, You had a question?
Yes, sir. The question is whether such a rigidly formal arrangement of language is adequate to express the modern consciousness. That is, should form give way to more spontaneous modes of expression, even at the cost of a certain disorder?
Modern consciousness, Frost said, What’s that?
Ah! Good question, sir. Well—very roughly speaking, I would describe it as the mind’s response to industrialization, the saturation propaganda of governments and advertisers, two world wars, the concentration camps, the dimming of faith by science, and of course the constant threat of nuclear annihilation. Surely there things have had an effect on us. Surely they have changed our thinking.
Surely nothing. Frost stared down at Mr. Ramsey.
If this had been the Last Judgment, Mr. Ramsey and his modern consciousness would’ve been in for a hot time of it. He couldn’t have looked more alone, standing there.
Don’t tell me about science, Frost said. I’m something of a scientist myself. Bet you didn’t know that. Botany. You boys know what tropism is, it’s what makes a plant grow toward the light. Everything aspires to the light. You don’t have to chase down a fly to get rid of it—you just darken the room, leave a crack of light in a window, and out he goes. Works every time. We all have that instinct, that aspiration. Science can’t—what was your word” dim?—science can’t dim that. All science can do is turn out the false lights so the true light can get us home.
Mr. Ramsey began to say something, but Frost kept going.
So don’t tell me about science, and don’t tell me about war. I lost my nearest friend in the one they call the Great War. So did Achilles lose his friend in war, and Homer did no injustice to his grief by writing about it in dactylic hexameters. There’ve always been wars, and they’ve always been as foul as we could make them. It is very fine and pleasant to think ourselves the most put-upon folk in history—but then everyone has thought that from the beginning. It makes a grand excuse for all manner of laziness. But about my friend. I wrote a poem for him. I still write poems for him. Would you honor your own friend by putting words down anyhow, just as they come to you—with no thought of the sound they make, the meaning of their sound, the sound of their meaning? Would that give a true account of the loss?
Frost had been looking right at Mr. Ramsey as he spoke, Now he broke off and let his eyes roam over the room.
I am thinking of Achilles’ grief, he said. That famous, terrible, grief. Let me tell you boys something. Such grief can only be told in form. Maybe it only really exists in form. Form is everything. Without it you’ve got nothing but a stubbed-toe cry—sincere, maybe, for what that’s worth, but with no depth or carry. No echo. You may have a grievance but you do not have grief, and grievances are for petitions, not poetry. Does that answer your question?”
Welcome Yellowhamer:
I think your post should put “Blowhard” at ease. You have shown us why Poetry is still welcome in the Agora!
That's rich, annonymous the blowhard, (a psuedonym that works as well as any). You take my quote that I want something other than litterature to debate against and put a slant on it that makes me look like a fireman from Farenheight 451. A true attack indeed. The point is that you rarely come with any real and graspable terms as to why you are for or against why you are. I am simply throwing the glove that if you should be against a modern war, I'm hoping that you've pulled that argument from something other than the grotesqueries described in poem and verse from World War One. Basically, while Lysis and others of similar opinions bring up current news and points, along with past news and trends, you bring forth poems from the beginning of the 20th century and even older than that. I don't despise poetry and litterature, but if you are going to give me a poem from the 1800s and 1900s as a tool to disarm something that's happening today, I think you should at least make a comment about what's happening today.
The point is that you can use litterature for certain argumetns, but for you it's your bread and butter. When I reported on the Two Towers in my English class two years ago, I was to tie it in somehow with something "modern". I took the slant of how it has a similar situation to WW2 and GW2. In most simplest terms, an old evil becomes a new threat. But I at least mentioned the points I was making. I didn't post an anti-war poem from a dead British author and label it as the banner of why all war is wrong. I know why war is wrong, and when it is wrong. But being a poem about the "War to end all wars", I don't see how it has much pertinence to a just and liberating war... Sorry, the only correlation there is the word "war" and all of the unnfortunate things that come with it.
Anonymous Blowhard here.
There is a VERY lengthy posting of replys that I have to make, especially to Lysis' respose to the "enemies list" -- I do not want to drop the issue, because I think that it is at the heart of things.
"You may have a grievance, but
you do not have grief;
and grievances are for petitions,
Not poetry."
Lysis . . . I found this profoundly moving. Thank you.
A logical tautoloy is a statement that is true regardless of the truth values of its parts.
To make "Irrefutable evidence" a part is to simply create a tautology on top of a tautology. . . . Irrefutable evidence is a tautology.
A tautology is not a fallacy? Well, it depends on how you look at it. Tautologies are often used as propaganda devices and I would consider such usages, when they are deliberate, to be dishonest/false.
. . .and we know mass creates gravity because dense planets have more gravity.
How do we know which planets are more dense?
They have more gravity.
That's circular reasoning.
I prefer to think of it as having no loose ends.
Scott Adams
In Re: Lysis'"Empirical evidence"
NO historical account is accessible to Empiricle evidence -- no, not Kerry's Viet Nam service nor Bush' service in the National Guard during Viet Nam ,not any of the reputed LIES that you have offered "evidence" for. The essence of empiricle evidence is verifiability -- there is no verifiability. That is why "revisionistic" accounts of historical events prosper.
A close friend of mine, who certainly has academic credentials and credibility far above my own, recently emailed me that he is going to "dedicate all of his future efforts to opposing the Bush foreign policy." He referred me to a web site , antiwar. com to read. I did so, and spent a few hours there and became just as frustrated with the "liberal" commentary as with Lysis' "enemies list" here.
For EVERY ONE of Lysis "lying evidences" I could go to any number of opposing web sites and download enough counters to fill the room. And then I am sure Lysis could go to web sites of his choosing to counter the lies to the counter lies. . . . . ad infinitem.
I find all of this to be filled with ideology . . .(labels) People becoming slaves to ideology and bashing each others ideology with what they think is "evidence". It is NOT evidence
The question that needs to be answered is "Why do you choose to believe what you believe?"
Which came first, belief or understanding? Credo un intellegum. I believe in order that I may understand.
Or must I understand before I believe?
(to be continued)
To Anonymous BH – and anyone else kind enough to read:
I look forward to you continued comments. Here are a few thoughts on the ones you have already shared.
You have not changed you style of argument my friend; you still want to talk about form not facts. Lies are not my interest. Truths that reveals my errors would be a welcome relief.
How convenient it would be to be able to though out history if it disagrees with one’s opoinions. But if fiction and truth are both labled ideology, it does not make the one anymore true nor the other false.
Counter one of my “lies” with thruth. It would be a kind gift to me!
Well Silverlining, I found that hardly something to be ashamed of. I look forward to your postings because they are so rare. Me? I tend to just let everything run out through my fingers and mouth, but you seem to hold onto your point until the right time and place. Don't feel that your points are without merrit, if anything, I've discovered that EVERYONE has something to add. Even an affirmation of something already given can be a shaping event.
But I think I understand a little bit more of ABH's argument, now. If I read it correctly, he's trying to establish not necessarily what we believe, but that we know why. Why is the ultimate question in belief. A three letter weapon of mass exasperation. If you hold the answer to "why", you will go far, but if your opponent can not answer such a simple thing, you may crush him with its simplicity. I believe in what I do because it makes the most sense to me. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense for counter arguments, and I can always find one hole or another (or if I can't, that's when I start to ponder more on the truth of the counter argument). I could go down the long list of my ideologies and find both good, and not so good, reasons for belief in such. And I find little of that in my counterparts. I find little beyond those who partake here that seem to have ever questioned what they believe, and that's why I come so often.
Questions are a powerful tool, but only when you care about the answes. I care about those answers, I hardly through about them so that I can trip you in a mass of unanswerable confusion...
But on revisionist history, there is a lot of that. And some of it may even be as credible as the accepted "facts" that you might read from a history book. That's what's so intriguing about the subject for me. Because no one was around writing everything down thousands of years ago, much of that is maleable shaped by each new discovery. But you can't get too much revision from "modern" times. Much of what has happened since the Renaissance is how it is written. At least until you get down to trying to figure out what individuals were doing when. But the major events are the same. You can't "revise" the American Revolution, etc. Even among historians some facts are taken at face value. It's good to question, but not needlessly.
And on ABH's comments about the counters and counter-counters: yes, that exists. Part of the reason I rarely put in my two cents on those actual quotes about (or from) one politician or another. I can rarely find proof, and then beyond that proof that has a level of credibility. When one or two small from the middle of nowhere news groups on the internet post something, I rarely listen to it no matter the message. The internet doesn't have so much credibility in my eyes, and that's mainly because I've seen the way people have been duped with it. So yeah, you can go to each sides websites and see what you may wish to see. But that's when questioning should take over, and when you should seek out the firsthand sources.
Don't worry, those deletions were just repeated posts... This new login thing threw me for a loop...
Then the Dan Rather, Ted Kennedy crowd will blame President Bush; not the terrorists for the atrocity.
Post a Comment