9 1 1

[Christophe Lee]

Originally posted by Michael Ernest:
Prejudicial language -- attaching some value to believing what the speaker has said
Ex: "If you don't agree with me, there's soemthing wrong with you."
Among other logical fallacies we get in no small supply in MD:
ad hominem: attacking a person rather than their argument.
Ex: "I think we all know what we can expect when Jason posts to a topic"
joint effect: two effects produce one cause, but it is argued that one effect was caused by the other.
Ex: Pick any long-standing feud
post hoc: It is argued one event caused another because it came first.
Ex: See example above
Hasty generalization:
Ex: "People hate Microsoft because they are so successful"
False dilemma: An 'either-or' argument that excludes the possibility of other options
Ex: We must attack Iraq now or suffer the consequences
Ex: Only the death of the Infidel will restore Islam to its rightful place.
Straw man: an argument that attacks a weak or implausible opposing argument
Ex: Promoters of open source software think they can solve all the needs of corporate users by making source code free.

Let's add another one on this list:
academic jargon: hiding a weak argument in superflous language

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Michael Ernest:
Prejudicial language -- attaching some value to believing what the speaker has said ...

Good post. If there were to ever be a MD FAQ, something along these lines should be included.

[Younes Essouabni]

Originally posted by Michael Ernest:
And you would know this is taking place...how?

Hi Michael,
I suppose you are talking to me.
I know it's taking place because I saw some interviews of US journalists(interview done by french journalist). They were complaining about press freedom, but they said that in war times they should show some "unity". It is well known that everyday a meeting is done for journalist at the white house, so it is normal that we ask what is said inside. A lot of those journalist said the same thing, "There is quite no discussion, a delegate comes and tell us what is good to say and what is not good" Of course, there is no obligation, the obligation is more subtle.

[Younes Essouabni]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

These "meetings" are called daily press conferences btw.

Ooooooooh sorry, I should have remembered that term. Not my fault, if your journalist are complaining about that. But again what degree of credibilty can we give to an information coming from only one source?
[ September 16, 2002: Message edited by: Younes Essouabni ]

[Paul Stevens]

Yawn. The earth is flat didn't you look at the site I linked. Someone said it. It must be true.

[omar khan]

Slightly Off Topic.

Fact: Mr. Saddam Hussain is a dangerous man. He attacked Iran without any provocation. He invaded Q8. He would attack&invade US, UK and their allies and kill the inhabitants (me too) if given the chance. He gassed kurds. He kills and tortures his internal enemies.
Fact: Embargo does not work. It just kills innocents while Mr. Hussain is becoming fatter and fatter.
Fact: Mr. Saddam Hussain was armed and financed by US and as Frankenstein creature he rebelled to his master.
Conclusion: US (which created Saddam in the first place) must save Iraq and the world from this dictator.
How: I do know how. In any case US must abide by international law and do not act unilaterally as they did when they created him.
Future work: Get rid of any other troublemaker in the region. We should not forget that there are other states in the region that sistematically invades neighbours, violates UN resolutions, kills, deports or tortures internal enemies, possesses nucleas weapons. This state is presently run by a suspect war criminal. You will have understood that I am referring to Mr. Sharon's Israel.
Note:
I am not anti-muslim nor anti-semite. I simply do not like murderers like Mr. Saddam Hussain or Mr. Ariel Sharon.
Conclusion.
Israel does not constitute a direct menace to western world as Iraq does BUT Iraq and Israel problems are strictly connected and somewhat similar. So US and western allies should solve Iraq's and Israel problem together in order not to generate the false impression that the western world is applying double standards.

[Abadula Joshi]

For those people who don't feel there is "enough" evidence for who the mastermind of 9.11, I can tell you this -- Even DNA proves who is the murder, somebody still doesn't think it is enough, for EVERY crime, there has never been so-called "enough" evidence, even you have a video tape taping the whole process, somebody can still deny it.
The issue is: With these collected evidence, can USA take action on Bin Laden and Taliban ? I think the answer is yes. Just based on what they have done before, it is absolutely right to extinguish them.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by OMAR KHAN:
Future work: Get rid of any other troublemaker in the region.

That would pretty much mean the entire region, wouldn't it?

[Cindy Glass]

Originally posted by Younes Essouabni:
Because there was every day a meeting for journalist at the White House, at that meeting journalists were shown what to say and what they can't write. They were also asked to show US as a united and good country, and asked not to embarrass Mr Bush with question that he can't answer (quite hard to find question he can answer). So what kind of credibilty can we give to information coming from such media?

Younes - are you familiar with "freedom of speech" in America? It is the media's FAVORITE thing to do to get Bush (or any other well known person) to say something news worthy. They LOVE to embarrass President Bush. And I assure you that the press in America is going to write whatever it darn well pleases in spite of anything that the White House might request of them.
If they choose to write good things about Bush, then it must mean that they are having warm and fuzzy feelings about him. . You can be SURE that they would be yelling and screaming if they felt that they were being coerced into printing less than the whole story as they see it.

[Michael Ernest]

Originally posted by Younes Essouabni:

I know it's taking place because I saw some interviews of US journalists(interview done by french journalist). They were complaining about press freedom, but they said that in war times they should show some "unity". It is well known that everyday a meeting is done for journalist at the white house, so it is normal that we ask what is said inside. A lot of those journalist said the same thing, "There is quite no discussion, a delegate comes and tell us what is good to say and what is not good" Of course, there is no obligation, the obligation is more subtle.

This is a far cry from coercion, which is what I thought you were suggesting before.
Attempts to influence or 'spin' what journalists report is not news. The laziest and most weak-minded of reporters will complain the current White House doesn't 'tell them everything.' What the press corps doesn't say is they're quite happy to skewer the executive branch, current military options, or whatever else in the name of reporting. That's what they get paid to do.
Imagine yourself in a marketplace of goods instead of information. Try asking the average seller how high a price is too much or a buyer how low a price is too low. Forms of exchange rarely work on the basis of complete candor. Each side pushes on the other, something comes out in the middle.
No one in the White House of any political persuasion is going to invite a sensational or hostile reporter to their inner chambers -- unless, that is, it suits a certain purpose. Powerful people might well try to persuade the press corps to write something rosy and supportive: how strange is that? There's nothing wrong (or admirable) about that, but neither is it coercion or subversion of the press.
This is, after all, politics, and politicking in the most powerful country in the world is not simple, delicate, or pretty.
[ September 16, 2002: Message edited by: Michael Ernest ]

[Thomas Paul]

Omar, before we start calling for Israel to be attacked by the US, why not let peace have a chance there. The events in the last week look very promising for a peaceful conclusion. I was very happy to see many Palestinian leaders come out and publicly state that Arafat was wrong to turn down the last peace agreement. With the recent end to suicide-homicide bombers perhaps the area can now stabilize and with a new Palestinian leadership we can finally see peace emerge.

[Thomas Paul]

Omar, do you have evidence that Israel is a threat to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorists?
Think of it in these terms, Israel has had the atomic bomb for at least 20 years. And yet no Arab cities are smoking ruins from an Israeli nuclear bomb. If Sadaam had nuclear weapons, how long do you think it would it take him to use them?

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by OMAR KHAN:
Slightly Off Topic.
Fact: Mr. Saddam Hussain is a dangerous man.

Hi Omar,
I don't deny that Saddam is really dangerous, and that we should handle the problem. The problem is the way that US is handling it (crusador). And I'm aware that, nobody else is able to handle it, nore is wanting to handle it.
Again if you put off Saddam shirt you will see "Made in USA", just like Ben Laden or Sharon. Good school, no?

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by <Younes>:
Again if you put off Saddam shirt you will see "Made in USA", just like Ben Laden or Sharon. Good school, no?

As my mom used to say, whoever makes the mess has to clean it up. Sadaam is at least partly our "mess" so it is only right that we are the ones who have to "clean" him up.

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
As my mom used to say, whoever makes the mess has to clean it up. Sadaam is at least partly our "mess" so it is only right that we are the ones who have to "clean" him up.

LOL Your Mom was right.
The way US is doing it, is just not acceptable. At least you may be sure that if you take off Saddam, US will put another Vampire.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by <younes>:
The way US is doing it, is just not acceptable.

In what way? The US hasn't actually done anything, yet. We are defeinitely putting the pressure on. So what don't you like about what the US has dones so far with Sadaam?

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by <younes>:

LOL Your Mom was right.
The way US is doing it, is just not acceptable. At least you may be sure that if you take off Saddam, US will put another Vampire.

Oh yes, as always you are so correct. This is exactly what happened in West Germany and Japan. Yes, this is also what is happening in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan. These are all countries in which we have conducted combat operations, and all countries which we directed the reconstruction afterwards My conscience is clear.
[ September 16, 2002: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Younes Essouabni]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
In what way? The US hasn't actually done anything, yet. We are defeinitely putting the pressure on. So what don't you like about what the US has dones so far with Sadaam?

US used Saddam as long as he was quiet, now you would like to get rid of him. You can't resolve a problem by putting another problem. Once, you (not really you ,but US) get rid of him, US will put another vampire there. So I truly believe that US serves his own interest, which is normal, but not on the back of others country. Always talking about terrorism and democracy, but you're not serving your own ideal, as you're supporting some big criminals. So you show us that, again, only money counts. I do not believe in the "devil axis" but well in the " Pipeline Axis".
This big text to say Big Brother is kying to us

[Younes Essouabni]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

Oh yes, as always you are so correct.

Thanks a lot. I knew that we will get an agreement. I see that the light hit you

[Michael Ernest]

Originally posted by Christophe Lee:

academic jargon: hiding a weak argument in superflous language

This is elsewhere formally called "failure to elucidate."

[R K Singh]

congrates !!!
100th post in this thread

[Mapraputa Is]

Congratulations, Ravish!!!
Certainly, yours is one of the most meaningful posts in this thread !

[Mapraputa Is]

Originally posted by Michael Ernest:
This is elsewhere formally called "failure to elucidate."

"meaninglessness" notwithstanding, this is an amazing piece of text that tells so much in only a few words. How is it possible to express 1) irony 2) certain academic arrogance 3) humility 4) acceptance of ones failure to achieve what he wanted to achieve 5) sadness because of this failure 6) frustration because of this failure 7) attempts to blame a recipient 8) realization that the recipient cannot be fully blamed for his failure 9) realization how little can be done to remedy the failure 10) deep pessimism upon realization of p.9...

[Michael Ernest]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:

How is it possible to express 1) irony 2) certain academic arrogance 3) humility 4) acceptance of ones failure to achieve what he wanted to achieve 5) sadness because of this failure 6) frustration because of this failure 7) attempts to blame a recipient 8) realization that the recipient cannot be fully blamed for his failure 9) realization how little can be done to remedy the failure 10) deep pessimism upon realization of p.9...

1) You're making my point for me, aren't you?
2) Or is this just a layperson's way of trying to derail a more formal discourse?
3) I don't count myself as any particular authority on rhetoric
4) And I realize I can't possibly help steer this debate into more civil forms just by listing problems with the existing dialogue
5) Which only makes it harder to participate and care about these dialogues
6) I'm ready to leave it alone altogether, frankly
7) If it weren't for these rabble-rousing types who have yet to say a thing about Java but have plenty of opinions on the crap in the world, this would be a better place
8) Then again, it's hard to keep a sense of humor about things when the world seems on the verge of war
9) And it doesn't look like that's calming down any time soon
10) Hell, I might as well head to Vegas and blow all my cash now, before it takes $100,000 to buy a loaf of bread...

[Shura Balaganov]

Michael Ernest: This is, after all, politics, and politicking in the most powerful country in the world is not simple, delicate, or pretty.
Amen
Michael Ernest: 7) If it weren't for these rabble-rousing types who have yet to say a thing about Java but have plenty of opinions on the crap in the world, this would be a better place
Should all rabble-rousing types decide to leave, JR would be a sorry sad place. Me personally, I won't be visiting JR if it wouldn't for these rabble-rousing types, since I don't run into Java issues every day...
Let me just elaborate a little on rabble-rousing types...
Paul Stevens: Shura would you like to buy a clue. It is obvious you don't have one.
Jason Menard: My advice: lay off the alcohol.
Thomas Paul: Shura, I think you need to get your head out of all the Soviet-KGB inspired anti-American crap you apparently still believe.
What we've got here, is failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach... :roll:
Shura
[ September 16, 2002: Message edited by: Shura Balaganov ]

[Mapraputa Is]

Frankly, perhaps some of Shura's ideas can be considered offensive to (at least certain groups) of American citizens, but I do not remember him posting personal attacks...

[Jason Menard]

Now wait a minute. I made no personal attacks. Shura implied he was drinking when he posted some of that stuff and I was merely suggesting that things might appear a little bit more lucid without the alcohol. Or something like that anyway.
[ September 16, 2002: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Mapraputa Is]

To tell a Russian person to lay off the alcohol is as offensive as to tell an American person to remove American Flag from his house!

[Michael Ernest]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Frankly, perhaps some of Shura's ideas can be considered offensive to (at least certain groups) of American citizens, but I do not remember him posting personal attacks...

The ideas Shura express may be annoying, far-fetched and seemingly used to bait and frustrate other topic readers, but he's not attacking anyone?
Is that it? Will there be an ordered list of rhetorical offenses? Higher offenses erasing lower ones?
One premise that informs the fallacies I introduced ealier is to promote reasonable, civil debate. The idea is to test the adversarial process, to see if a competitve approach can be used to discover a greater truth. 'Winning' is not, the goal of such debates, but simply the by-product of putting an end to debate itself.
Here, applying known fallacies of rhetoric won't prove anyone right or wrong. A person is no more right by shooting holes in another's reasonings than he is wrong by asserting false reason that supports something true.
It might be used, though, to help someone else strengthen their own arguments, however, or see through the holes in what they have said. That requires more generosity of spirit than we've been giving in these debates, but since none of us is manning a rifle on the warfront or fighting to survive through tomorrow, we might do well to acknowledge that fact and take approach discussion accordingly.
This exchange could be so much more interesting if the goal was to find common ground rather than making others look foolish or crude.
[ September 16, 2002: Message edited by: Michael Ernest ]

[Mapraputa Is]

The ideas Shura express may be annoying, far-fetched and seemingly used to bait and frustrate other topic readers, but he's not attacking anyone?
"Seemingly". For me, it doesn’t look that he is deliberately trying to offend or frustrate anyone. "...but he's not attacking anyone?" - no. He is honestly saying what he think, and myself sharing the same background, can easily see where those ideas come from, and those ideas do not look so much annoying and far-fetched to me.
What do you suggest anyway? Never discuss anything that can offend somebody? To express potentially offensive idea more... how?
"This exchange could be so much more interesting if the goal was to find common ground rather than making others look foolish or crude."
- who is doing that?

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
To tell a Russian person to lay off the alcohol is as offensive as to tell an American person to remove American Flag from his house!

Thou shall not take a bottle of vodka from a russian
Map, somehow when you step in and tell these folks I am not baiting 'em into a fight, discussion becomes a lot more civilized. What would men do without women!...I meant without map...I mean without you, Map
"This exchange could be so much more interesting if the goal was to find common ground rather than making others look foolish or crude."
Exactly what I was trying to do - find an opponent to do a true situation analysis, based on hard facts and not on "myths" . Myths, that, repeated enough times, become facts. Yeah, maybe I push an envelope a little, but for the benefit of discussion. What is offensive, is the following conversation:
Me: I don't believe Bin Laden did it. Here's some links...
Someone: No way, everyone knows it's Bin Laden. Read some CNN/BBC links...
Me: Ok. This senior Al Quaeda official, that your links are talking about, I don't think is capable of coming up with such elaborate plan...
Someone: You are a moron
--------
My respect to Jason, one of the hard-arguing non-offensive opponents on this board. J, things seem to be a lot less lucid
--------
On a brighter note, Iraq just allowed UN inspectors in. Link
--------
Michael, I will answer your question, since I unseemingly stepped on your judgement few posts before.
"The ideas Shura express may be annoying, far-fetched and seemingly used to bait and frustrate other topic readers, but he's not attacking anyone?
Is that it? Will there be an ordered list of rhetorical offenses? Higher offenses erasing lower ones?"
First. In no way my remarks were targeted to bait and frustrate other readers. Well, maybe bait a little, but to provoke an analytical discussion and to maybe open more light on things I myself is unclear about. Heck, I find a number of links posted here very useful! After all, JR is a community of highly intelligent people.
Second. Being from different background, it is often uneasy to find the fine line when a bold statement meant to prowoke a discussion becomes a rhetorical offense. Certainly, my understanding of language and cultural trades is nowhere close to yours, Mr.Ernest, and therefore can be often found crossing the line. Be assured, that this was done with only one purpose, to open a debate, and not to offend any participating parties.
Regards,
Shura

[Rufus BugleWeed]

Be assured, that this was done with only one purpose, to open a debate, and not to offend any participating parties.

I'll drink to that!
I for one, think all the flags and RW&B are starting to be tiring.

[Thomas Paul]

Shura never insults anyone.
Shura Quotes:
"what the flunk is wrong with you people, stop watching f@#%ing CNN, save your brains for meaningful things!"
"Ok, thank you Jason, but this all is BS, and I tell you why."
"Maybe I am a little on the left, and you are a lot on the right, with your "believe everything CNN says" I take being in my boat any day against yours."
"Jason, that guy is just ignorant"

[Thomas Paul]

Shura, in order to debate with someone there has to be a reasoned argument. Your arguments seem to be, "every news source lies (unless they say something I agree with)" and "I am right and you are wrong because you watch CNN."
That isn't exactly grounds for reasoned debate. up until now you have yet to actually say something that is worth debating. How can we debate with you if facts mean nothing to you? The only thing that means anything to you is your own experience. It's like trying to discuss that the world is round with someone who refuses to accept anything except his own experience that the world is flat.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by <Shura Balaganov>:
On a brighter note, Iraq just allowed UN inspectors in.

And who here believes that his goal is actually full cooperation and not merely another tactic to buy himself some more time?
In the past few days the world appears to be reaching a concensus on taking action against him. This includes Saudi Arabia, France, Russia, and others (except Germany of course who has stated she will not stand with the UN). Does anyone not think he would like to buy a little bit more time to put a halt to the mementum building against him? At the same time does anyone seriously think he is going to allow UN weapons inspectors a degree of access he has never allowed them?
He's played these games before, and unfortunately it's only wishful thinking to to believe he has changed his tune. But we will see soon enough I'm sure.

[Thomas Paul]

Shura said:

Thomas Paul: Shura, I think you need to get your head out of all the Soviet-KGB inspired anti-American crap you apparently still believe.

Shura, this was in direct response to your claim, "what the flunk is wrong with you people, stop watching f@#%ing CNN, save your brains for meaningful things!"
Apparently you can insult us all you want but if we dare to insult you then you get all upset like a 4 year old.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Rufus BugleWeed:
I for one, think all the flags and RW&B are starting to be tiring.

I for one think it's about time people are having an appreciation for things they took for granted for so long, and aren't afraid to show it.
Since this thread is "9 1 1", and you brought up how patriotism is beginning to wear thin on you, may I ask what if anything you did this past September, 11, and why?

[Michael Ernest]

Originally posted by <Shura Balaganov>:

Certainly, my understanding of language and cultural trades is nowhere close to yours, Mr.Ernest, and therefore can be often found crossing the line. Be assured, that this was done with only one purpose, to open a debate, and not to offend any participating parties.

First: I may be more studied than most in the English language, rhetoric, and the uses and abuses of both, but I am no general authority in "language and cultural trades." Nor am I implying that the parameters of formal debate should be applied here. I only hope that we might consider how easy it is to stoop to flawed argument and reasoning in the absence of 'real' information, if there is any, in these topics.
As has been said, everyone has a right to their opinions (God Bless America, so long as that God not be necessarily construed as some oppressor Judaeo-Christian archetype ), and so everyone claims a right to an opinion about the opinions of others. I think we've really exhausted that gambit, and we could instead stop spending quite as much time trying to out-clever each other or establish whose command of news sources and authoritative interpretations is most worth listening to. If it's so boring watching O'Reilly and others blowhards do it, why do we want to perpetuate that here?
Second: you're right, what you're suggesting is a bold statement for your average Russian is probably not for your average homegrown US citizen. After three years of (academic) study of Russian language and culture, I can't say I have a handle on the differences. It works better in person, in my experience.
I offer the following in hopes some will infer my best meaning: this is Meaningless Drivel. By definition, the very serious discussions being held here fail to meet the intentions of this forum. Irony may well suit the intellects of the people here, but it seems almost universally lost on this kind of subject matter.
When people go mucking about with half-assed critcisms of a country fighting an unpopular war, it's safe to guess their ironies may be lost on a few readers. If that's bothersome, then switch to reasoned debate. Better yet, switch to a forum that is predicated on reason -- this one isn't. Neither is anyone prevented from using irony that way, shy of getting unfriendly, but the insistence on its use seems consistently to lead to one kind of verbal sparring.
I'm a little tired of watching these topics on current events degenerate into force-of-personality competitions, and debates over who started it and who wasn't allowed to finish it. I'm also tired of watching people hold up irony as some form of rhetorical entitlement and take offense when others "fail" to discern it.
Irony is a risky tool; not only that, it is intended to bring together those who share in its understanding and separate those who do not. Plan on being misunderstood when you use it, especially to discuss polarizing topics. That's how irony works. If you find that hard to swallow, consider how students are consistently tested in this country on their understanding of irony in extrance exams.
If you want singularity of purpose, there's always candor and sincerity. They're not as much fun as irony or sarcasm, of course, but since when were single-minded people all full of giggles? Sobriety needn't be despised simply because it fails to help one demonstrate one's own intellectual power.
So ok then.
[ September 16, 2002: Message edited by: Michael Ernest ]

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by <Shura Balaganov>:
Me: I don't believe Bin Laden did it. Here's some links...
Someone: No way, everyone knows it's Bin Laden. Read some CNN/BBC links...
Me: Ok. This senior Al Quaeda official, that your links are talking about, I don't think is capable of coming up with such elaborate plan...
Someone: You are a moron

No one called you a moron. That is your delusion speaking. In fact, no one responded to your comment at all. But I will say this, Alexander the Great was 30 when he conquered the world.

[Mapraputa Is]

Shura never insults anyone.
I said: "I do not remember him posting personal attacks..."
The main word here is "personal"
Shura did not say:
"Tom, stop watching f@#%ing CNN, save your brains for meaningful things!"
he didn't say:
"Jason, you are just ignorant"
Apparently you can insult us all you want but if we dare to insult you then you get all upset like a 4 year old
This is partly true, Shura could use nicer language too, but this can be a cultural thing, Russian people aren't as nice as American, and this style of debates is pretty common. After all, didn't he explicitely say "Please, don't take any offence in my outcry..." :roll:
you get all upset like a 4 year old
Shura: "What we've got here, is failure to communicate." Seems like pretty accurate diagnosis to me