[eDebate] ans Stannard
Sat Jul 8 13:22:09 CDT 2006
>no, i beat #1 by pointing out that almost always i respond rather than
Your "responses" are insulting even when others don't insult you. When
people make objections to the war, you do not answer the objections
factually or on-point. Instead, you commit the black-and-white fallacy of
accusing them of being Saddam apologists. This is a deliberate provocation,
as well as an oversimplification unworthy of a scholar who represents
himself as an expert in critical thinking.
>and the NON-PERSONAL works both ways... without thinking you will write
>that the administration and George Bush are murderous fascists
Simply not true--in fact, a grossly unfair mischaracterization. I have
never called the Bush administration murderous fascists. Perhaps you are
using the "you" collectively, but that's unfair as well. This only proves
my point. I am beginning to think you are simply incapable of reasoned
>yes. if you are willing to substantially risk your beliefs to the force of
>the better argument.
There is no evidence you have ever done this publicly concerning the Bush
administration, Iraq, or terrorism.
>almost always i present arguments and evidence on behalf of particular
>positions rather than just stringing together lurid characterizations.
In fact, you do exactly the opposite. Anyone who doubts that is free to
read your posts from the last four years.
>WHEN THEY ARE SATAN INCARNATE!!! FASCISTS!!! GRMPH BLUGGGG ARGGHHHHHH!
Proves my point. I have never called them satan incarnate or fascists. I
have accused them of manipulating intelligence and resorting to dirty
tricks. YOU characterize those accusations as "SATAN FASCISTS." Your
inconsistency on this is so obvious as to be laughable. No one believes
your self-characterizations except you.
>you have pre-decided that the Bush Administration is evil.
Wrong again. I could just as easily say that you have pre-decided that
leftists are always wrong. You have said and done nothing to suggest
otherwise. I defy anyone who's bothering to read this to prove otherwise,
to vindicate your allegedly reasonable or reasoned discourse.
>"probably never be in power in this country". funny stuff, Stannard...
>only "probably" huh? still >harboring dreams of the revolution? stocking
>up on those snazzy red star hats?
Thanks--once again, you have proven my point about how you conduct yourself
in these discussions. In fact, I REST MY CASE solely based on the above
>prove "abuse of institutional power".
Prove I ever stocked up on snazzy red star hats.
Meanwhile, don't take my word for it on abuse of power. The Congressional
Research Service, a host of retired generals, former administration
officials, the CNN documentary "Dead Wrong," and plenty of other sources,
including many pro-war conservatives, also make the abuse charge. I have
seen how you've refuted those charges on edebate in the past. To sum up
3. "You want Saddam to still be in power"
4. "You're a commie"
My claims may be subject to factual or interpretive dispute, but "GRMPH
BLUGGGG ARGGHHHHHH!" and name-calling don't do the job.
More information about the Mailman