That's not what I asked.
I guess I had forgotten that you don't take your own posts seriously.Actually, I have no problem admitting I toss in the occassional strawman and other logical fallacies. Never denied it was a fallacy, just that it was funny you pointing it out :p
We've had that discussion before, and we've well established I don't give a crap about the outcome of a discussion as long as it's fun for me :p
duly noted for future reference.
My entire debate strategy is not based on argument framing and logical fallacies. You absolutely made that up.And I made up nothing about your debate strategy. I have never seen you offer one shred of information to a discussion. You're all about picking a target and trying to tear it down. I do that myself sometimes (tweaking people is fun).
But it won't surprise me in the future when/if it happen again, now that I know you don't take your posts seriously.
Yes, but your question had nothing to do with our previous discussion, and I refused to allow the redirection.
Like I said, I've never seen you add anything to a discussion, only try to tear down viewpoints through technicalities and symantics.
Maybe I just haven't seen your posts where you actually supported an opinion
"Yes", as in "yes, the U.S. should blame itself for 9/11"?
I'm not/wasn't trying to "tear down" your viewpoint.Like I said, I've never seen you add anything to a discussion, only try to tear down viewpoints through technicalities and symantics.
Maybe I just haven't seen your posts where you actually supported an opinion
I don't have a hardline stance on any of my opinions and am flexible to change it if a differing opinion makes sense.
If you/someone has a differing opinion, I usually just want clarification on how you came to that opinion, especially if you throw out numerical info without immediately backing it up.
If you get butthurt about me calling you out and call that entertainment, I'd agree with your opinion.
Again, I've never spoken towards blame. But if you are curious, you first have to understand I define a difference between blame and responsibility. Blame can only be achieved through conscious decisions towards and action, but responsibility includes anything that contributes to the event in question.
So to answer your question:
No, the US should not blame itself for 9/11. The blames lies only on those who planned and executed the attack.
However, the US should recognize that it bears some responsibility (including training, funding, and assisting in the founding of what would later become al Qaeda, pursing a foriegn policy that upset those who would become members of al Qaeda, and ignoring identified threats directly related to the events of 9/11 over the course of several years by 2 different Presidents).
What a crock. You say you want clarification on people's opinions, but you belittle interpretation of facts through personal biases, which is the basis of everyone's opinions.
You set the burden of proof as something so exacting as to be unreachable (such as earlier wanting a specific example of the US teaching the mujahadeen/al Qaeda specifically to fly planes into buildings).
You latch on to symantical issues to undermine opinions (such as declaring that I presented obvious speculation as fact. Speculation cannot be fact, so that's a rather asinine argument).
It's amusing, IMO.
lol. Butthurt. Hard to be butthurt when you find something entertaining."If you get butthurt about me calling you out and call that entertainment, I'd agree with your opinion.
so then we have a right to be upset at what happened then, correct?
I'm not belittling anyone's interpretation of facts.What a crock. You say you want clarification on people's opinions, but you belittle interpretation of facts through personal biases, which is the basis of everyone's opinions.
I was asking if your statements were fact or opinion.
No I didn't.You set the burden of proof as something so exacting as to be unreachable (such as earlier wanting a specific example of the US teaching the mujahadeen/al Qaeda specifically to fly planes into buildings).
You latch on to symantical issues to undermine opinions (such as declaring that I presented obvious speculation as fact. Speculation cannot be fact, so that's a rather asinine argument).
It's amusing, IMO.
Again, I wanted clarification on what you stated in regards to this statement:
I got the idea that you are saying that we have little to no reason to be upset.
I also wanted to know why the situation was twisted on our side.
But you have since backpedaled saying "no, the U.S. should not blame itself" so it looks like my opinion won't be changing.
What you are posting looks butthurt to me, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.lol. Butthurt. Hard to be butthurt when you find something entertaining.
If you find getting caught in a contradiction and being forced to backpedal entertaining, I'd agree again. lol. lol.
Never said we didn't.
You responded like this to my opinion:
Aka, dismissing it. If you were truly interested in another's opinion, you would have asked why I believed that. Instead, you dismiss it as speculation, when you asked for it.
There was no question of fact or opinion at that point. It was a later post that you decided to complain I had passed speculation off as fact.
I gave you clarification on the comparison to us breeding them to be fighters, providing widely accepted historical references to our assistance of the mujahadeen.
You responded:
PS, you're way of asking for "clarification" was:
That's not exactly showing a desire for clarification. It does show a desire to undermine the statement without bothering to refute it.
Then you understood wrong. It was a commentary of the cyclical nature of hatred common with terrorists and their targets.
And you never once asked why I declared the situation twisted on either side.
And that is why I initially declined to answer your question about blame. I never once mentioned blame before this, and you're acting like I changed my statement.
Meanwhile, I'm still waiting to see where you genuinely asked for clarification on anything.
You can't even keep up with your own posts.
No surprise you can't keep up with mine.
Entertaining though.
Good job pointing out a nosequitor question that had nothing to do with anything I said before it.You can't even keep up with your own posts.
No surprise you can't keep up with mine.
Entertaining though.
You really are funny.
It was a good job of me pointing out to you where I genuinely asked for clarification on something (anything).Good job pointing out a nosequitor question that had nothing to do with anything I said before it.
You really are funny.
You really are an idiot.
Guess you missed my point in that last post.It was a good job of me pointing out to you where I genuinely asked for clarification on something (anything).
You really are an idiot.
You weren't asking for clarification. You were asking for new information.
Plus, it wasn't an honest attempt. You were trying to use it as a trap question.
But I don't really care about it.
I've already shown you either have no idea how to ask for clarification, or you're exactly what I said earlier.
You said:Guess you missed my point in that last post.
You weren't asking for clarification. You were asking for new information.
Plus, it wasn't an honest attempt. You were trying to use it as a trap question.
But I don't really care about it.
I've already shown you either have no idea how to ask for clarification, or you're exactly what I said earlier.
which implies the U.S. should take some blame for training them.
This apparently confused you when I called you out on it so I then asked for clarification here:
I've clearly shown that you either don't know what asking for clarification means or you are simply trying to spin your way out by trying to take a shot at me.
Either way, you're an idiot.
Hopefully Mendenhall gets stuck to the bench and my boy Baron Batch gets his touches.
Obviously it also doesn't change you opening your mouth when, just like before, you have no idea of the situation. He didn't even want to release "Courtesy of the Red White and Blue." He wrote it because he felt that would be what his father would think of the subject, and he was only going to sing it at the USO shows. The Marine Corps commandant told him he needed to release it...that it would be his way of serving his country.
http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=5041
And American Soldier had nothing to do with 9/11 per se...it had to do with the soldier's life in itself.
So a song about a soldier fighting in a war that was directly caused by 9/11 during a time where support for the troops is at an all time high because of the patriotism 9/11 created isn't exploited said event? Got it.
American Soldier was written in 2003...right about the time when Americans were getting pissed off that we were over there...to the point where people started shunning the soldiers. That was the whole point of the song...to remind people that they're just trying to do their job. Once again..not knowing what you're talking about and still opening your mouth. You really make a habit out of that, don't you? While I'm not a huge fan of his new music, his patriotism can't be challenged.
calling someone who 's tragedy and war in America to make money a "Patriot"
lol patriotism
Patriotism!!!!!!!!!!
If he was such a patriot wouldn't he have signed up to go fight? Wait, he just exploited a tragic event for his own benefit. I guess that's what a real patriot would do.
when Toby says "we'll put a boot in your ass, it's the American way" he means "we" like gnsf that says "we can still beat Memphis in 7"
^
Man..when you think you're on a roll you really don't ing pay attention, do you? I said he was AGAINST the war...if he didn't want the war in the first place, why would he fight in it?
Because he's a Patriot. Pat Tillman was against the war, and he gave up an NFL career to fight in it. You know why? Cause he's a in patriot.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
