Debate and Discussion

Who wants an American victory in Iraq?
Vindibudd at 3:51PM, Aug. 14, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
mapaghimagsik
Isn't it fun when Vindi puts words in your mouth? Oh well, I'm sure the color of the sky is nicer there.

Isn't it great when people are quoted and they say that being quoted means having words put in their mouth? It's awesome. In fact, it's better than nirvana.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
mapaghimagsik at 3:55PM, Aug. 14, 2007
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
Yes, you quote, then restate to state the meaning. Bravo for you!
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
Vindibudd at 3:59PM, Aug. 14, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
mapaghimagsik
Yes, you quote, then restate to state the meaning. Bravo for you!

Because people hate to face what they actually typed. I would ask you where I put words in your mouth but then you would ignore it and leave it at your original escape valve of “HE PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH,” not to mention the fact that I did not put words in your mouth, I simply responded to what you said. Everyone can read what you wrote. Who is stopping them?
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
Aurora Moon at 5:51PM, Aug. 14, 2007
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
mapaghimagsik
Isn't it fun when Vindi puts words in your mouth? Oh well, I'm sure the color of the sky is nicer there.

yeah, that's for sure. lol
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:10AM
Aurora Moon at 5:56PM, Aug. 14, 2007
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
Vindibudd
Because people hate to face what they actually typed.

Having to face what you THINK they typed, you mean?
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:10AM
Vindibudd at 6:09PM, Aug. 14, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
Aurora Moon
Vindibudd
Because people hate to face what they actually typed.

Having to face what you THINK they typed, you mean?

I'm sorry, aren't you the one who said “most Americans who support the war want to kill all the Muslims”?

I am sorry if you did not actually say that. I am also sorry that you don't care what the real motivation was behind the war when you can take every lunatic's view of Islam and attribute it to those who advocated getting rid of Saddam for security reasons.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
mlai at 6:14PM, Aug. 14, 2007
(online)
posts: 3,035
joined: 12-28-2006
See, this kind of thread degeneration is exactly why I chose to stop responding.

Please lock this thread. It has not been educational or fun, for quite a while now.

FIGHT current chapter: Filling In The Gaps
FIGHT_2 current chapter: Light Years of Gold
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:05PM
Aurora Moon at 6:38PM, Aug. 14, 2007
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
Vindibudd
I'm sorry, aren't you the one who said “most Americans who support the war want to kill all the Muslims”?

No, what I said or was trying to say this basically: SOME Americans who support the war want to kill all the muslims because of highly personal feelings. 9/11, Fear of terrorism all leading to racism/bigorty. So I worry about the fact that some people are supporting the war for all the wrong reasons. This war is getting too personal for some people and that's not healthy.
It's leading to a lot of bitterness on all sides.

if you will read all of my posts in that thread will you see that I never said “Most Americans are for the genocide of Muslims”, or “The united states wants to kill Muslims.”

but of course if that's too much for you to ACTUALLY read correctly, then just don't reply to me anymore.
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:10AM
Vindibudd at 6:53PM, Aug. 14, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
Aurora Moon
Vindibudd
I'm sorry, aren't you the one who said “most Americans who support the war want to kill all the Muslims”?

No, what I said or was trying to say this basically: SOME Americans who support the war want to kill all the muslims because of highly personal feelings. 9/11, Fear of terrorism all leading to racism/bigorty. So I worry about the fact that some people are supporting the war for all the wrong reasons. This war is getting too personal for some people and that's not healthy.
It's leading to a lot of bitterness on all sides.

if you will read all of my posts in that thread will you see that I never said “Most Americans are for the genocide of Muslims”, or “The united states wants to kill Muslims.”

but of course if that's too much for you to ACTUALLY read correctly, then just don't reply to me anymore.

Well then I can appreciate what you were trying to say. That some people are lunatics does not change the whole real reason for the war, whether one agrees with it or not.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
Ronson at 7:07PM, Aug. 14, 2007
(online)
posts: 837
joined: 1-1-2006
Please folks, stick to issues and facts. I understand people hate it when someone else contradicts them, but it is part of a debate forum. Let's leave personal evaluations of others elsewhere.

The answer is, of course, that everyone would like a victory in Iraq. Of course, there are many of us that said then and say now that invasion of Iraq was a Mistake.

Like this guy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I

In 1994, this guy explains in very logical tones why the war would be a mistake and what the repercussions of an invasion on Iraq would be.

I digress….

The preponderance of evidence is, of course, that the United States has destroyed all hope of bringing that victory about. A stable government, a democracy, a free nation - even if that had been the goal - won't come about when the people supposedly trying to make it happen are shooting innocent people EVERY SINGLE DAY, and have made very little headway in stabilizing the infrastructure.

Maybe another country could step in and guide Iraq away from the brink. Maybe. But only if the US is willing to say “we messed up and need help” which isn't going to happen.

What will happen* is that prior to the election in 2008, Bush will declare victory and get out. Whatever he decides at that point will be a victory will be touted by all loyal republicans as a real win for America. It may actually end up putting another dictator in place - so long as that dictator is amenable to his corporate masters. It will almost certainly require the United States to maintain some bases in Iraq, but the media will call it a withdrawal, and those left behind will be ignored.

And it would probably be best for the lives of our soldiers to pretend that they won, so that the people who think they can rewrite reality won't feel that it is in fact a withdrawal (which it will be) but is instead a glorious victory for their leader.*

I would prefer to move that inevitable event to as soon as possible, as that way less people would end up being killed and seriously injured in this debacle.

But it isn't that I'm anti-victory, it's that there is no victory available.

Oh, and anyone who thinks FOX news is accurate has never fact checked them.
____

* Short of impeachment (impossible), death or injury of major parties involved (unlikely) or economic collapse (probably not until post election 2008). That would change everything.

** I'm willing to tell that lie if it ends this stupid war. Don't tell the morons I'm lying or my plan won't work. :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:10PM
mapaghimagsik at 7:45PM, Aug. 14, 2007
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
Thanks for that, Ronson.

Sure, we want victory, but I go back to the definition of victory. I don't want a puppet state of the US.

I have always said the invasion of Iraq was a mistake and we should have focused our efforts on Afganistan. Its that war that most people seem to have forgotten.

So wishing for victory is like wishing for ponies. We're not going to get that.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
TnTComic at 6:07AM, Aug. 15, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
Vindibudd
mapaghimagsik
Yes, you quote, then restate to state the meaning. Bravo for you!

Because people hate to face what they actually typed. I would ask you where I put words in your mouth but then you would ignore it and leave it at your original escape valve of “HE PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH,” not to mention the fact that I did not put words in your mouth, I simply responded to what you said. Everyone can read what you wrote. Who is stopping them?

Actually, you warp what people say all the time. Like when I said that America was riddled with racists and sexists, and you interpreted it as me saying that the majority of America is racist and sexist. I don't know why you do it, but you do indeed do it on a pretty frequent basis.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
Kohdok at 7:30AM, Aug. 15, 2007
(online)
posts: 776
joined: 5-18-2007
mapaghimagsik
Thanks for that, Ronson.

Sure, we want victory, but I go back to the definition of victory. I don't want a puppet state of the US.

I have always said the invasion of Iraq was a mistake and we should have focused our efforts on Afganistan. Its that war that most people seem to have forgotten.

So wishing for victory is like wishing for ponies. We're not going to get that.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Iraq is the new Cuba. (Which is in agreement to the above post)
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:20PM
Vindibudd at 12:04PM, Aug. 15, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
TnTComic
Vindibudd
mapaghimagsik
Yes, you quote, then restate to state the meaning. Bravo for you!

Because people hate to face what they actually typed. I would ask you where I put words in your mouth but then you would ignore it and leave it at your original escape valve of “HE PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH,” not to mention the fact that I did not put words in your mouth, I simply responded to what you said. Everyone can read what you wrote. Who is stopping them?

Actually, you warp what people say all the time. Like when I said that America was riddled with racists and sexists, and you interpreted it as me saying that the majority of America is racist and sexist. I don't know why you do it, but you do indeed do it on a pretty frequent basis.

Dude, you are playing word games. “I didn't say that America was mostly/full of/ had lots of/ racists and sexists, I said that was RIDDLED!”


Yeah, “riddled” can mean anything. I take it to mean that it is full of. What do you take it to mean? 1 in 3? 1 in 2? 1 in 5? 1 in 3000?

So what is the point of even using the term if you are unwilling to define it? In fact, what is the point of posting here if you don't want to take a stand on something? Unlike you, Map says something that is definitive, and then can't stand it when it is repeated back to her. You just like making subjective statements that can mean anything and then hide behind your choice of words so as to not be nailed down. You need to grow a set and take a stand.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
Aurora Moon at 1:57PM, Aug. 15, 2007
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
Riddled, Adjective:
1.(often followed by ‘with’ ) damaged throughout by numerous perforations or holes. IE: “a sweater riddled with moth holes”; “cliffs riddled with caves”; “the bullet-riddled target”.

2.Spread throughout. IE: “cities riddled with corruption”

I don't think there can be any confusion as to what he meant, Vivibudd.

“We have some sexist and racist people living here that are spread throughout America, making it difficult for the current issues at hand to be resolved” is basically what he said… as opposed to “America is nothing but people who are sexists and racists!!”
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:10AM
mapaghimagsik at 2:23PM, Aug. 15, 2007
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
Everyone reading this of course should realize that accusing people of doing *exactly* what you're doing is a time honored technique.

Notice how everyone else is “playing word games”?

So while this conversation has once again turned to Vindi's favorite pasttime, I think its interesting to note that the White House is not going to let General Petraeus write his report, Petraeus' report will be written by the White House.

So the White House plays word games, Vindi plays word games. No matter what the victory, the means and the result don't matter. This is merely the end game until 2009 when the entire tone will change to “The Democrats ruined the War for us!”

I can't wait. Can you?
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
Vindibudd at 2:59PM, Aug. 15, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
mapaghimagsik
Everyone reading this of course should realize that accusing people of doing *exactly* what you're doing is a time honored technique.

You realize this completely defeats anything that you say. in fact, it defeats anything anyone says. Nice going.

mapaghimagsik
Notice how everyone else is “playing word games”?

Oooh, thank you for elevating yourself on high above us commoners, I appreciate that you are explaining everything so well for the slow among us.

mapaghimagsik
So while this conversation has once again turned to Vindi's favorite pasttime,

My favorite pastime is reading books. So no, not quite.

mapaghimagsik
I think its interesting to note that the White House is not going to let General Petraeus write his report, Petraeus' report will be written by the White House.

Where did you see this?

mapaghimagsik
No matter what the victory, the means and the result don't matter.

Are you aware of how incoherent this sentence is?

mapaghimagsik
This is merely the end game until 2009 when the entire tone will change to “The Democrats ruined the War for us!”

I can't wait. Can you?

I'm waiting for the Democrats to do anything to affect the war at all.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
Ronson at 8:48PM, Aug. 15, 2007
(online)
posts: 837
joined: 1-1-2006
Simmer down, folks.

mapaghimagsik
I think its interesting to note that the White House is not going to let General Petraeus write his report, Petraeus' report will be written by the White House.


Vindibudd
Where did you see this?

Geez, Vindibudd, don't you read the news?

Despite Bush's repeated statements that the report will reflect evaluations by Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, administration officials said it would actually be written by the White House, with inputs from officials throughout the government.

last edited on July 14, 2011 3:10PM
Vindibudd at 9:31PM, Aug. 15, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
Ronson
Geez, Vindibudd, don't you read the news?


That was unnecessary. Thanks for the link.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
TnTComic at 6:05AM, Aug. 16, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
Vindibudd
Dude, you are playing word games. “I didn't say that America was mostly/full of/ had lots of/ racists and sexists, I said that was RIDDLED!”


Yeah, “riddled” can mean anything. I take it to mean that it is full of. What do you take it to mean? 1 in 3? 1 in 2? 1 in 5? 1 in 3000?

So what is the point of even using the term if you are unwilling to define it? In fact, what is the point of posting here if you don't want to take a stand on something? Unlike you, Map says something that is definitive, and then can't stand it when it is repeated back to her. You just like making subjective statements that can mean anything and then hide behind your choice of words so as to not be nailed down. You need to grow a set and take a stand.

Why can't you simply own up to the fact that you warp what people say?

I didn't make a vague statement, I said America is riddled with racists and sexists. YOU are the one who said that I said the majority of America is racist and sexist. That's simply not true. That was your interpretation of what I said, and that's YOUR problem, not mine. Why can't you simply own your mistake? You need “to grow a set” and be a man when you make a mistake.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
SpANG at 7:33AM, Aug. 16, 2007
(online)
posts: 3,105
joined: 1-1-2006
All right, TnT. Take it down a notch.

Although you have some great insight on things, and you have amused me on several occasions, nobody else is taking personal jabs. That, and it really is debasing all the interesting stuff you have to say when you go there.

You're going to show a little restraint if you want to continue to be part of the discussion.
“To a rational mind, nothing is inexplicable. Only unexplained.”
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:52PM
TnTComic at 8:03AM, Aug. 16, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
SpANG
All right, TnT. Take it down a notch.

Although you have some great insight on things, and you have amused me on several occasions, nobody else is taking personal jabs. That, and it really is debasing all the interesting stuff you have to say when you go there.

You're going to show a little restraint if you want to continue to be part of the discussion.

Didn't you notice the part where i'm QUOTING vindi? HIS words, not mine.

Honestly, enough with the double standard.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
Ronson at 8:21AM, Aug. 16, 2007
(online)
posts: 837
joined: 1-1-2006
Vindibudd
Ronson
Geez, Vindibudd, don't you read the news?


That was unnecessary. Thanks for the link.

I was just surprised. That article was snagged almost a half dozen times in my daily RSS roundup. I thought even a casual perusal of the news would bring someone to the story. Want to defend the facts of the matter now, that the White House is going to write the report?

As for the snark, you can both cut it out. Vindibudd did twist TnT's words (which is a weak way to argue) and TnT did take some personal swipes that were off target (which is equally as weak). Even the name of this thread is a twisted view of the argument, but that's been dealt with.

The thing about the internet is that none of us arrive here with out credentials intact, and any of us could lie about what credentials we have. Therefore, we are all equal in that we are all ultimately unknown to eachother. As a result, it is way too easy to distract from a debate with a one-upmanship of “I know more than you” type of comments.

If you find yourself attacking a personality or a debate tactic instead of a fact, you've strayed from the argument. Either explain that you won't address your fellow debater's statements or ignore them.

I would also like to see more corroboration for assertions and less wild opinions throwing around in threads like this, since there are hard facts that can be used. We aren't debating our favorite ice cream flavor here, we're talking about events that are being documented every day.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:10PM
TnTComic at 8:41AM, Aug. 16, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
NOTE: I accidentally hit the “edit” button instead of reply, deleteing TnT's post. I've tried to cobble it together as best I could…sorry about that. - Ronson

Short answer, i've done that. I post links to polls and they're brushed aside by opinion. Like you said, this is the internet, and when it comes to political debate on the internet some people will simply ignore any corroboration.

I think this is a good topic of discussion. But really, if you want to wag your finger at people's debate style, stick with Vindi. He warps people's context, misquotes people, and attacks the messenger before he gets around to debating the substance of a person's post.

The Majority Whip says that good news in Iraq would make it harder to get the troops home, which is true. What does Vindi do? He uses this an excuse to accuse Democrats of wanting failure in Iraq. That is the quintessential vindibudd, taking someone out of context and warping their point to make a broad accusation. Never mind that it has nothing to do with the actual soundbite or the intentions behind it.

Do we want an American victory in Iraq? Of course. We had it in 2003, remember? America is tired of the war, as polls indicate, and the Dems want to stop wasting lives and money on a war that is worsening terrorism, and he boils it down to Democrats simply want us to lose.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
Ronson at 10:28AM, Aug. 16, 2007
(online)
posts: 837
joined: 1-1-2006
TnTcomic
Short answer, i've done that. I post links to polls and they're brushed aside by opinion. Like you said, this is the internet, and when it comes to political debate on the internet some people will simply ignore any corroboration.

True enough. Forum systems do not require another poster to rebut facts, and many people are poor debaters anyway. Nature of the beast. There are some very strict debate forums elsewhere that are great for honing your skill, but on DD this is still a lighthearted section of the forums (hopefully). I like to think of it as a bunch of friends getting together and having a friendly conversation

I think this is a good topic of discussion. But really, if you want to wag your finger at people's debate style, stick with Vindi. He warps people's context, misquotes people, and attacks the messenger before he gets around to debating the substance of a person's post.

I don't disagree. And he isn't the only one who uses this tactic. However, he's otherwise a friendly enough guy. Like I said, we aren't all good at debating. You'd be better off addressing his innacuracies and staying away from comments like “you're not a real mean to X.” - because it weakens your own position.

The Majority Whip says that good news in Iraq would make it harder to get the troops home, which is true. What does Vindi do? He uses this an excuse to accuse Democrats of wanting failure in Iraq. That is the quintessential vindibudd, taking someone out of context and warping their point to make a broad accusation. Never mind that it has nothing to do with the actual soundbite or the intentions behind it.

Do we want an American victory in Iraq? Of course. We had it in 2003, remember? America is tired of the war, as polls indicate, and the Dems want to stop wasting lives and money on a war that is worsening terrorism, and he boils it down to Democrats simply want us to lose.

It's more than just Vindibudd, it's the only argument left for those who want to believe this war wasn't a mistake.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:10PM
Ronson at 10:30AM, Aug. 16, 2007
(online)
posts: 837
joined: 1-1-2006
Vindibudd
Ronson
Geez, Vindibudd, don't you read the news?


That was unnecessary. Thanks for the link.

Here's another link about this. Fresh from the presses (isn't RSS cool?)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/15/AR2007081501281_pf.html

Senior congressional aides said yesterday that the White House has proposed limiting the much-anticipated appearance on Capitol Hill next month of Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker to a private congressional briefing, suggesting instead that the Bush administration's progress report on the Iraq war should be delivered to Congress by the secretaries of state and defense.

What exactly is the administration afraid of with public testimony? The truth?
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:10PM
TnTComic at 10:46AM, Aug. 16, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
Ronson
True enough. Forum systems do not require another poster to rebut facts, and many people are poor debaters anyway. Nature of the beast.

Boy howdy, don't I know it. I started with political forum debates in ‘03 on the Huffington Post, and damn if they don’t stick with straw men and ad hominem ad nauseum. Its all too common. Personally, I enjoy it when someone convinces me to change my mind on a topic. You're never to old to learn, after all!
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
mapaghimagsik at 11:40AM, Aug. 16, 2007
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
Ronson
What exactly is the administration afraid of with public testimony? The truth?

Its not exactly afraid of the truth, but the culpability that will come along with the truth.

Just a throught: Wouldn't an Iraqi victory in Iraq be cool? I mean, it is their country. By victory, I mean the Iraqi people are free to pick their government, can decide what to do with their oil, and have a free, productive, peaceful society that actually is better on human rights that it was under Saddam.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
TnTComic at 11:44AM, Aug. 16, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
mapaghimagsik
Ronson
What exactly is the administration afraid of with public testimony? The truth?

Its not exactly afraid of the truth, but the culpability that will come along with the truth.

Ain't that the bitch about tellin' the truth?
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
SpANG at 11:50AM, Aug. 16, 2007
(online)
posts: 3,105
joined: 1-1-2006
TnTComic
SpANG
All right, TnT. Take it down a notch.

Although you have some great insight on things, and you have amused me on several occasions, nobody else is taking personal jabs. That, and it really is debasing all the interesting stuff you have to say when you go there.

You're going to show a little restraint if you want to continue to be part of the discussion.

Didn't you notice the part where i'm QUOTING vindi? HIS words, not mine.

Honestly, enough with the double standard.
Crap! You're right, I missed that. My apologies. Okay, let's everybody try to be a little more civil.
“To a rational mind, nothing is inexplicable. Only unexplained.”
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:52PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved