Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
TLF

Nelson says kill him

Recommended Posts

I think that you're being a douche, just to be a douche. Really though, if that's the case, just admit it and move on.

 

Are you claiming to be some kind of "saint" in the philosophical world? Are you published in whatever you talk about in the New Perspectives thread? I simply made a relatively understood claim about Sadr and his impact on the War on Terror and all you have to say is "you're not a professional, what you're saying isn't credible". I don't discuss things in the New Perspectives thread because I know that my input would be useless. If you don't have anything useful to say here, I suggest that you should have stayed out of the thread in the first place.

 

Question: If I claimed that 2 + 2 = 4, would I need to be a published mathematician for you to believe me?

 

if al-Sadr were assassinated, it would have very little impact on the situation in Iraq. This is a fact. Just because we aren't published or we aren't specialists or whatever else elitist prick criteria you've established as to what is a "credible" source on cross-x.com, is a really shitty reason to impede discussion. And afterall, we are on a DEBATE WEB-SITE.

 

This all started because of your 2nd grade reading comprehension that didn't understand what my Rainbow Six example was about. I would explain again, but I think my time would be better spent carrying this conversation with a rock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you claiming to be some kind of "saint" in the philosophical world? Are you published in whatever you talk about in the New Perspectives thread?

 

I prefer the term, philosophical superhero, as opposed to saint.

 

Seriously though, as I indicated in an earlier post, the arguments I made apply equally to what is going on in the New Perspective thread. I would appreciate it if someone called me on some of the comments I make more often - it would keep me from being lazy and making the sweeping claims I often do. Perhaps I didn't make that clear enough, sorry.

 

 

 

I simply made a relatively understood claim about Sadr and his impact on the War on Terror and all you have to say is "you're not a professional, what you're saying isn't credible".

 

This is a bit of a caricature of what I saying, but to a small extent it is so. I am not sure that the Sadr claim is in fact relatively understood. Lack of professional status doesn't automatically invalidate one's claims, and professional status doesn't automatically validate one's claims either. I don't think its necessary to make an appeal to authority - I think the arguments speak for themselves.

 

I don't discuss things in the New Perspectives thread because I know that my input would be useless. If you don't have anything useful to say here, I suggest that you should have stayed out of the thread in the first place.

 

I think your contributions could be great in The New Perspective thread, just as I feel I am contributing to this discussion. Perhaps you should weigh in as an outsider on the next discussion - it would probably contribute a lot by my standard that finding specific agreed upon answers doesn't necessarily constitute a successful discussion (though it certainly may) but rather asking the right questions and pursuing the effects of that is where the true value of this dicussion lies. Having the right questions is more important than having the right answers to the wrong questions.

 

Question: If I claimed that 2 + 2 = 4, would I need to be a published mathematician for you to believe me?

 

This is a beautiful example and while swimming this morning I actually wanted to use the same example (though I picked 2+3=5) so great.

 

Within the agreed upon framework of mathematics of course 2+2 = 4. While in a math class I accept that, once I step inside of the mathematical framework, its all true. This goes for many disciplines. I make many outlandish statements within the models and framework of Neoclassical economics. When you step inside, its all true.

 

The big problem is that many of the assumptions of Neoclassical economics are probably not correct, and thats where the true battle needs to be held. The same goes for mathematics. Any math major has to take a foundations of mathematics or mathematical proofs course where you step outside of the framework you use and attempt to justify it. You would be quite surprised at how much controversy 2+2=4 can generate. But this of course would require recognition that your own mathematical knowledge is far less than you realize.

 

if al-Sadr were assassinated, it would have very little impact on the situation in Iraq. This is a fact.

 

As long as statements like these are being made, I'll be hanging around this thread.

 

Just because we aren't published or we aren't specialists or whatever else elitist prick criteria you've established as to what is a "credible" source on cross-x.com, is a really shitty reason to impede discussion. And afterall, we are on a DEBATE WEB-SITE.

 

I really hope the discussion continues. I'm not trying to stop it, nor do I think I would be successful. I would encourage people to continue to speak up, I think its great and necessary for everyone in high school and college to have these kind of discussions. But everyone needs to keep in mind whats really going on.

 

This all started because of your 2nd grade reading comprehension that didn't understand what my Rainbow Six example was about. I would explain again, but I think my time would be better spent carrying this conversation with a rock.

 

I am sorry you feel that way. I happen to believe I've taken the analysis you applied to someone else and have applied it to you. If you think I've done this in an improper fashion I would appreciate it if you could show me why. If you are right then it will give me a chance to grow, and you will benefit as well as you will have to truly understand your argument and frame it in a way that a second grader (or at least an individual of second grade intelligence like myself) could understand. I think you'd gain a lot from that as well. If I am right, then it means the conversation as a whole has become richer.

 

I am sorry you don't care for my approach. I think you could find your conversations to be more enjoyable if you adopted 1 or 2% of the approach I take.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is a beautiful example and while swimming this morning I actually wanted to use the same example (though I picked 2+3=5) so great.

 

Within the agreed upon framework of mathematics of course 2+2 = 4. While in a math class I accept that, once I step inside of the mathematical framework, its all true. This goes for many disciplines. I make many outlandish statements within the models and framework of Neoclassical economics. When you step inside, its all true.

 

The big problem is that many of the assumptions of Neoclassical economics are probably not correct, and thats where the true battle needs to be held. The same goes for mathematics. Any math major has to take a foundations of mathematics or mathematical proofs course where you step outside of the framework you use and attempt to justify it. You would be quite surprised at how much controversy 2+2=4 can generate. But this of course would require recognition that your own mathematical knowledge is far less than you realize.

 

nope, sorry. calling you on that. you don't have to agree upon a math framework to know 2+2=4. you just have to be able to cognate things. certainly you could make a post-strucuralist argument about the word "two" not being logically connected to the concept of two things. however, even disconnected from the words the basic tenet still holds true. look at your hand. regardless of what you call your fingers, the mathematical basics still hold true "this many, and this many, makes this many. you could claim something about not knowing what constitutes reality, but within any reality things will add up. there's a fundamental difference betwee assumptions that can't be absolutely verified in reality (like the assumptions of neoclassicalism you refer to) and assumptions about arithmatic. in order to negate the 2+2=4 statement, you sort of have to revert to this hyper-skepticism of logic which leaves you defending...well, things that are illogical. at very least it can be said that level of skepticism can be foregone so we can have much more specific discussions - like the one in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nope, sorry. calling you on that. you don't have to agree upon a math framework to know 2+2=4. you just have to be able to cognate things....

 

I asked my super intelligent math bud about this a couple years back and he explained some of the varying positions surrounding this. I certainly didn't understand it then, and I don't now. Sitting through some discussions with philosophers and mathematicians didn't help either. In the meantime I've gone from harboring a secret "Well obviously I don't need to be aware of the discussion of some immensely intelligent individuals who have put their whole lives into the topic to know that I'm right" attitude towards thinking maybe I ought to accept that (at least at this point) that discussion is beyond me.

 

certainly you could make a post-strucuralist

 

I don't even know what this means. My knowledge of modernism, post-modernism, structuralism, post-structuralism, crazy French and German shit, etc... is as close to zero as you can come. I make no argument.

 

argument about the word "two" not being logically connected to the concept of two things. however, even disconnected from the words the basic tenet still holds true. look at your hand. regardless of what you call your fingers, the mathematical basics still hold true "this many, and this many, makes this many. you could claim something about not knowing what constitutes reality, but within any reality things will add up.

 

This is to take a hardcore stance in a mathematical / philosophical debate that has been going on for over 70 years. You could be right. Its tough not to agree with that analysis as indicated by my above earlier views. But I'm not qualified to make such a judgement.

 

in order to negate the 2+2=4 statement, you sort of have to revert to this hyper-skepticism of logic which leaves you defending...well, things that are illogical. at very least it can be said that level of skepticism can be foregone so we can have much more specific discussions - like the one in this thread.

 

Not as I understand it.

 

And I do agree the hyper-skepticism route is a bad choice. In addition to paralyzing a person, it just doesn't seem very authentic. I don't think I'm being a skeptic here and contending "well you never can really know 2+2 actually equals 4." What I am trying to get at is there are people with FAR more knowledge on the subject than I have who make claims that aren't based on an uber-skeptic framework, but they get their claims elsewhere. As to what that elsewhere is, I don't know enough math to tell you... I just have that little brainpower necessary to know that I shouldn't be weighing in on the subject with my limited capabilities as an undergrad. Maybe someday (though thats doubtful) but certainly not now.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I happen to believe I've taken the analysis you applied to someone else and have applied it to you. If you think I've done this in an improper fashion I would appreciate it if you could show me why.

 

Here's what "yeahitsme" had to say.

while an assaination by the United States probably wouldn't be the best option possibly a assination cover-up by the cia would probably be the best option when dealing with assaination.

 

This is my response:

Being able to play Rainbow Six: Vegas on your XBOX 360 does not make you some kind of assassination expert. Please quit acting like you have any sort of idea on how you would go about assassinating one of the most protected terrorist leaders in the world. You're in high school. Go read Harry Potter and the Goblet of the Phoenix or something.

 

As you request, breaking this down to a second grader's level is quite simple. Yeahitsme makes specific claims as to how the United States should go about assassinating al-Sadr. I made a broad generalization about al-Sadr and his effect on the overall conflict in Iraq. Yeahitsme is wrong because he really has no specific knowledge of assassination. I'm not claiming to have thorough knowledge on al-Sadr's impact on Iraq, that's why I made a broad and generalizing claim.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well to start off with this is probably the most debate experience or the best you've ever done in debate right here, too bad its not enough.

 

 

onto your next comment. Eat shit. I'm impressed your telling a high schooler to eat shit when you the assistant debate coach is getting rocked on the cross-x forum. Real mature tardface real mature, why don't you suck up to frey somemore i think sending him another email would work everything out.

Winning state, qualifying to nationals, and going undefeated on the aff, yea those are some horrible statistics attached to Brent.

And what the fuck is a tardface? And how is that more mature than him telling you to eat shit?

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well to start off with this is probably the most debate experience or the best you've ever done in debate right here, too bad its not enough.

 

I'll debate you anytime, son. I'll even let you pick the topic and the side you want. Let me know.

 

Lets start off with your claim that because the Kurds are underrepresented in the current government that equal genocide.

 

I think that you and Baldwin should get together and take a reading skills class. All that I was claiming was that the genocide continues based on the fact that the rest of the country continues to suppress the voices of the Kurds.

 

your dumb.

 

This is ironic. You're (dumb).

 

But lets also address how well the kurds were doing during the saddam regime. First off they were singled out and killed of by mustard gas. I'm sorry that because it had been 15 years it no longer mattered but that was not the case. And no one ever claimed that removing saddam brought those people back to life, i actually claimed that it stopped it from ever happening again under saddam.

 

cross-apply alex's analysis here. He's a genocide studies major so I'll trust what he has to say. When your argument actually addresses his statement or makes any kind of new argument based off of what we have already said, I might consider answering it.

 

But lets go onto your next point on how Iraq's health care is so bad. First off Iraq won't be a developed nation for a long time because of Saddam Hussein. Saddam did more damage to Iraq then even the insurgency or the United States is even doing now. You try to reference an article from The Independent that you base your entire idea off of. But too bad your article doesn't say anything you want it to say that pre-invasion Iraq was better off than post.

 

My bad. Lucky for you, I found that better article that I mentioned.

 

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/02/09/news/rebuild.php

 

Not to mention the article says that the United States alone has set aside $243 million to build 142 private health clinics. Make sure you read the article next time.

 

Again, your reading comprehension blows goat. Ever heard of the word context? I will quote that statement contextually down there VVVVVVVVVVV

 

$243,000,000 The amount of money set aside by US administration to build 142 private health clinics in post-invastion Iraq.

 

20 The number of such clinics built by April 2006.

 

$0 The amount of money left over.

 

With all of that money they only built 1/7 of the clinics that they wanted to.

 

Ok but lets talk about how i prove your point. 1) your dumb because insurgency wasn't there pre-invasion so how could it continue after we take about saddam? 2) If you actually read my point you would see that it doesn't prove your point at all 3) there was no connection between saddam and the terrorists of 9/11, so whats your point? 4) how does one point of logic that doesn't even apply make them wrong? 5) please stop posting unwarrented facts and claiming that they are facts

 

I think you're confused. Maybe if I type slower you'll be able to understand. this is what you said.

 

There are many reasons for the insurgency in Iraq but getting rid of saddam isn't one.

 

I agree with your statement. Removing one person isn't going to stop conflict from happening.

 

onto your next comment. Eat shit. I'm impressed your telling a high schooler to eat shit when you the assistant debate coach is getting rocked on the cross-x forum. Real mature tardface real mature, why don't you suck up to frey somemore i think sending him another email would work everything out.

 

1. I have no idea who "frey" is nor did I send him an e-mail. You must be getting me confused with somebody else.

 

2. I'm extremely sorry for hurting your feelings. The "eat shit" comment was inappropriate. I'm sorry.

 

3. Just kidding. I actually think it's pretty funny that I told you to eat shit. But "thanks for your input".

 

 

Not to mention since i'm on a role we can address my "warrentless" claims. First off my claims are warrented because one your empircal claims don't make any sense

 

My claims "not making any sense" is not a warrant for your claims. Do you know what a warrant is?

 

and two you ignore the fact that you can't compare the two capturing someone and killing.

 

Either way, they would be removed from power. Which is the important part. Not to mention that Saddam is now a dead man walking.

 

 

Plus on your rainbow 6 point. I've never liked rainbow 6 since the N64 games. Not to mention i don't own an xbox 360. Lets address how all high schoolers read harry potter, if all you can do to insult someone is to tell someone to go read harry potter and your out of middle school, you suck and one more thing even if i did read harry potter its still more advanced then your picture books and your Big and Brassy magaizines.

 

It was meant to be sarcastic. There's that reading comprehension thing again...

 

And finally on how i don't provide any warrents to the differences between the two you won't listen.

I'm still waiting to actually hear these warrants.

 

first off you won't listen to any reason

You already said this.

 

second all i have to say to warrent it is how the thread approves of KILLING al-sadr and your comparing that to ARRESTING saddam.

This still isn't a warrant. Go back to debate I.

 

Your a tard and always will be why don't you move out of your moms basement and actually do something with your life that doesn't involve attempting to make fun of high schoolers.

I wasn't making fun of you. I was just calling you out on a bullshit statement. Is there anything wrong with that? Secondly, you don't know me girlfriend. :rainbow snap:

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok so my post was deleted because i was stupid. i decided not to edit it and make it not stupid but just delete it and get rid of the stupidity all together. my bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not to engage this hurricane of a discussion..... but on a minor technical note, I think the defining the arbitrary and differential nature of language as 'post-structuralist' makes structuralism and saussure* feel unimportant.

 

also, the trajectory of this discussion seems ridiculous. alex made a simple point that no one here has proper qualifications to properly evaluate foreign policy (or anything for that matter), but advocates the pursuit. the other person became angry because s/he saw a distinction between the broad discussion about policy ramifications and the technical knowledge one would need about how to conduct covert assissinations. subsequently, the discussion has not progressed past this point, although several posts have been made.

 

solution: alex is largely correct that high schoolers and college undergrads do not possess the expertise to discuss almost anything we discuss (although the attempt yeilds positive benefits). the other person is correct in believing that some topic areas are more likely to yeild intelligible discussions than others at the high school and undergrad level. For example, I would probably enjoy discussing the strategic possibilities for the democrats over the next two years on these boards, and I would probably not enjoy discussing the supervenience argument against moral realism** on these boards.

 

you're welcome.

 

*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Course_in_General_Linguistics#Arbitrariness

**(http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Philosophy/faculty/dreier/papers/Against_Moral_Realism.pdf)

 

ps. I think those two kids have to debate each other now or something since someone threw down the gauntlet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wait. you mean post-structuralism de-emphasizes structuralism? holy shit man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wait. you mean post-structuralism de-emphasizes structuralism? holy shit man.

 

No, that wasn't my point at all, dawg. Earlier in the thread, you said

 

"certainly you could make a post-strucuralist argument about the word "two" not being logically connected to the concept of two things."

 

And I said that makes saussure feel unimportant because he made that argument when he founded structuralism. You can dig on post-structuralism all you want, but the arbitrary and differential nature of language was first outlined in the general course on linguistics, the founding of structuralism, DAWG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

to make the distinction more clear:

 

what post-structuralism would de-emphasize in structuralism is the belief that there exists a coherent structure that is analyzable. Saussure (and structuralism) did believe this, but he did not believe there was some logical connection between the signified and the signifier. The fact that language is arbitrary and differential would probably be his biggest contribution to semiology.

 

So yes, the person could make a post-structuralist argument that two has a multiplicity of meanings that one cannot choose between (de man, derrida, et al), but if the person just made the argument that there is no logical connection between the concept of two and the sound-image "two", they would be making a structuralist argument (which you attributed to post-structuralism).

 

Sorry to make a fuss about this, but your tone seemed condescending.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my tone was condescending, and it will continue to be as such. i'll admit to oversimplifying what i meant to be post structuralism, but i did so basically because i was certin that that wasn't the argument being made and not out of a lack of understanding of the theories. upon further reflection, i can see how'd read structuralism from that line in my post. just poorly constructed sentence on my part. by "not logically connected" i meant to imply that it's not logical because it's not any more logical than to connect it to any of it's other synonyms, or the collections of words found within it's definitions, and so on ad infinitum. i suppose it could be illogical because it doesn't necessarily refer to the number two, but that's not what i meant. basically, i was being shallow for brevity which you've thoroughly destroyed.

 

so you seem really into defendin saussure. any particular reason?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

point taken - as for the defense, no particular reason... although I have to respect the fact that the magnetic fields wrote a song about him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question is: "Is it okay to kill a spiritual leader if he the leader of a very powerful 'enemy' militia? Or are 'men of God' off limits?

 

 

Personally, from an Army soldier point of view, I say shoot the bastard.

 

But if I was an Iraqi, I would be hesitant to agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

are you kidding me? i have great respect for all of the people fighting for america at home and abroad but if people that are in the armed forces want to be greeted like they were when they came home from WW2 instead of Vietnam, comments like "coming from an army soliders standpoint i say shoot the bastard." will only perpetuate sterotypes against the people serving in the armed forces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...