Quote:
|
Originally Posted by punky
Understanding what an author is trying to say, whatever that may be is a fallacy is it?
|
No, but assuming something and then claiming that because someone else agrees with your *opinion* it becomes a *fact* is most certainly a fallacy.
Quote:
"Reading the Guardian"? (is this meant to be an insult?!). I don't read the Guardian.
Quote:
|
No it isn't. I did however thought it was a pretty safe bet, bearing in mind it aligns itself with many beliefs you do voice about.
|
|
See what happens when you make assumptions that aren't based on facts?!
Quote:
You are engaging in a classic case of wishful thinking!
Quote:
|
America stopping a terrorist attack is wishful thinking?
|
|
No, but claiming that the hypothetical scenario you presented is a *justification* for murder because it will *prevent* another September 11th, is.
Quote:
|
Of course, I do wish they would stop the next attack planned on their soil, or any of their overseas interests, including soldiers. It's natural to assume sooner or later one will get through, but doesn't mean we can't hope for anyway.
|
And I agree entirely. However shooting someone on the *assumption* that they're a terrorist and about to commit an atrocity without *extremely* good reasons for that assumption, is *not* going to convince their country-folk of the rightness of your cause.
Quote:
How do you *KNOW* that they were terrorists? What *proof* do you have? What happens if and when they turned out (like many of the Guantanamo Bay captives have) to be poor buggers who were just in the wrong place at the wrong time?
Quote:
|
I don't know, but it's not my job to either.
|
|
ROFLALALAL!! Pardon me, but am I still talking to the person who wants *ME* to say what *I* would do if *I* were the US President?? Surely that's not *MY* job...!!!
Quote:
|
It is for the security services to decide that. I can probably guess what you'll say in response,
|
Do tell me if you were right...
Quote:
|
but they don't go round shooting everyone that looks semi-arabic in case they commit an act of terrorism.
|
No, they just give them severe hassle when they want to get on aeroplanes...!
Quote:
|
It would be naive to think that mistakes in intelligence don't happen, but does that mean they shouldn't try at all?
|
No, but I have never said they shouldn't.
Quote:
|
I don't suppose they would be too happy about it, and I don't think the majority would understand the position the US are in either, because save for few incidents, they haven't been in the same position. Iraqis are starting to find out what it is like to be on the recieving end of terrorism, and have the chance to feel like Americans feel.
|
Iraqi's are *STARTING* to find out...??? Sorry, did the details of Saddam Hussein's reign pass you buy? The Secret Police? The Tortures? The Internments? The Executions? The Bombings and Gassings of Kurds and Marsh Arabs? The fear that people lived in that was one of the *justifications* for invasion??
September 11th was when the *Americans* got the chance to feel what a large proportion of the rest of the world (including the UK) has felt!
Quote:
|
In a perfect world, everyone would have all the rights they are due. Unfortunately it isn't. Rights also have priorities, as they are attached to human needs.
|
Egg, granny. Granny, egg...
Quote:
|
First of all is right to security. The right to privacy would be nice, and we should have it, but (I know i'm being a bit presumptuous), but people would accept a reduced right to privacy to help protect what most people consider the most important, security. Yes, human right #5 is being eroded to help protect #1. This has been happening for a while, of course, as security services have been monitoring us for decades, and closer to home, in the last few years CCTV has been helping to reduce crime, and increase prosecutions, but i'd sure most people would see this as "using a sprat to catch a mackerel"
|
Except that when that sprat has *caught* the makerel, will the security services go "ah well, it's all right now, we'll stop the surveillance"? Or will they say "ah, but there's *always* another threat around the corner, so we'll keep the surveillance going, after all, everyone's used to it now"?
*This* is exactly the sort of thing that Ben Franklin (and I) were talking about.
Quote:
|
I can only speak for myself, but I don't mind being videoed at Tescos if it helps them capture shoplifters and reduce costs.
|
Nor do I, if that is *ALL* that they are doing. However...
Quote:
|
If the MI-5 want to read my e-mail I just sent to my friend asking him if he wants to out this saturday, in order to protect England from terrorist attacks, then I personally dont mind.
|
... Well pardon me, but I *DO* mind. And, regrettably, your attitude here is one of the ostrich. You decide you can't see a problem, therefore the problem doesn't exist.
Except it *does* exist. *WHY* should the security services be monitoring your, my or anyone else's e-mails "just in case"? If they have a *reason* to suspect you or me, fine, let them, just as they have to do with phone taps and post interceptions, present their case to the Home Secretary and get *authorisation* (and a verifiable paper trail) for their actions.
But to give them carte blanche to spy on *everyone* and *anyone* just because there *might* be a "threat" is a foolish and short-sighted policy.
Quote:
|
I know I have nothing to hide, so I don't mind. I'm more worried about my personal security, than my e-mails. As you have said, you see this as unacceptable. Fine, that's your prerogative.
|
It is not just *my* perogative. If you are one of my customers, do you want anyone else knowing that you've just bought a "Macho Big Boy Bondage Harness"? Do you think that the security services or anyone else have a *right* or a *need* to read that information??
Quote:
|
Until we find a better way, which maintsins all human rights to their fullest, we have to make do. (If you do know a way of achieving this, that the powers that be have missed, be sure to drop them a line. *giggles* Sorry, couldn't resist.
|
I won't have to. Given that I have spoken and written at length about such subjects, I have little doubt that I'm already listed in their books as a "dangerous subversive" and if I find a way of acheiving this, they will read it from my messages on forums such as these.
Quote:
|
You didn't say it, but you inferred it. By saying I don't know what i'm talking about, you are calling me an idiot, effectively.
|
And yet again you make assumptions which aren't based on facts.
Quote:
|
Incidently, mis-spelling prerogative is rather foolish too.
|
Pedanting spelling errors is not foolish, it's just childish and petty and not the sort of thing that someone who is interested in reasoned debate would engage it.
Quote:
|
Not that you can be easily misrepresented of course? Everyting you have said in this thread that i've read nicely fits into the left-wing mindset. You sound more left-wing, than most people I know that call themselves left-wing.
|
I can't help what assumptions you make. I can only attempt to supply you with facts to correct them.
Quote:
|
I doubt supporting judges will make much difference. It is public opinion you really need to change. That has the effect we were talking about long before judges get involved.
|
Public opinion affects what politicians do. It does not affect what Judges do, otherwise they would make their decisions on what the Tabloids write, rather than the Rule of Law.
It is my fervant hope, however, that those who administer the law in this country do not allow the politicians to change the law simply to garner votes according to their perceptions of public opinion.
Quote:
|
I was talking about the rights of Americans.
|
So was I!!
Quote:
|
70 years ago is recent is it? America has progressed a lot in the 20th century, as events in 1934, 1973 and 1990 show.
|
Yes, 70 years *IS* recent! It's in living memory of a lot of people! And I'm glad that American has progressed (at least in *some* areas, whilst seemingly going backwards in others!), however to expect that *other* countries should change their ways according to that time-table is naiive.
Quote:
|
Since when is segregated education = no education?
|
It is not "no education", it is "diminished education".
Quote:
|
And where does it say the government is suppressing education for anyone?
|
I suggest you look at this article:
http://www.libchrist.com/sexed/abstinance.html
Quote:
|
While the PATRIOT act has reduced the right to privacy, it hasn't affected any of the other human rights that the US want to protect.
|
Oh! It's only violated *one* basic right. Well *that's* ok then...
Quote:
|
Like I said before, right to privacy was always going to have to be compromised to protect the others
|
There is no "have to" about it.
Quote:
|
I thought we were talking about middle-eastern communities dealing with the problem of middle-eastern terrorism.
|
Why? Because broadening the scope will undermine your arguments?
Quote:
|
Who the US support, for whatever reason (and normally there is a good reason, like Afghan Freedom Fighters, like bin Laden, were supported to help defeat the communist threat. But that is a discussion for another thread).
|
So it's OK to support a Freedom Fighter when he's convenient to your cause, but when he doesn't do what you want, then he becomes a Terrorist?
Paging Humpty Dumpty...!!!
Quote:
No cites, then. No proof. No evidence, just supposition and opinion.
Quote:
|
Forgive me, I thought it was a forum. I was also under the impression, it is a place where people can voice their opinions.
|
|
Now you're really reaching. Yes, this *is* a forum. Yes this *IS* a place where people can voice their opinions.
However *WHEN* someone says "Some countries do believe that giving in to terrorists will mean they won't have to face their wrath." that is *NOT* stating an opinion, that is, seemingly, claiming a *FACT*.
Yet again you make assumptions...
Quote:
|
Bush has even said exlicitly,
|
Did someone pedant my spelling a few lines back up? (Oops, slapped wrist, *bad* Graham...!!!
)
Quote:
|
you don't have to invade a country with them to prove you aren't supporting terror, but do something non-violent instead. It doesn't matter what, so long as it is something.
|
And, once again, I point out, if you "don't do something" you will be "held to account". And who will be doing that holding? Why the Good Ol' US of A, of course!
Quote:
|
Says you. But caring doesn't make the world a better place. Doing some sort of action, might.
|
Like, say, starting a war...? Yep, that's *guaranteed* to make the world a better place...
Quote:
|
No-one said you had to provide and answer, I merely asked for one. It isn't an unreasonable request, but i'm not going to waste anymore time asking.
|
What was that lovely phrase I heard recently? Oh yes...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by punky
I don't know, but it's not my job to either.
|
Quote:
And once again my solicitors, Messers Pott and Kettle-Black pay us a visit.
Quote:
|
Regardless of what you may think, I don't intend to go round insulting everyone that posts on forums. I may sail a bit close to the wind sometimes, but I try not to actually insult anyone personally, directly. And I have to you, then i'm sorry. It is not my interest into flinging insults. This is supposed to be a debate of ideas, not each other.
|
|
And I'm please to accept your apology, unfortunately as I've indicated several times in this message and thread, regrettably your debating of ideas has a few flaws in it.
Now, of course, I'm not saying that *my* debating is perfect by any means, far from it, but you do need to be careful about what you say, how you say it and what assumptions you make when you debate.