Somali Pirates

Originally posted by FMF
And yet there was you with your sullen defensive silence about Carter's pro-fascist foreign policy a few weeks ago. Were you "getting paid" for that or do you feel as if you are in some way "a court appointment" when such a topic, relating to your own country, comes up on an international web site like this?

First of all, the whole Carter issue was months ago, not a few weeks ago (I say that only to marvel at your seeming inability to let it go).

Second, as I admitted then and will admit again now, I am not an expert on Carter's pro-facist foreign policy, as you put it. I freely admit that you know much more about it than I do. I was a baby when Carter was President. I concede that my side remark about Carter may have mis-characterized his policies. See that. I hereby concede!

My entire reference to Carter was a side comment about Nobel prizes, which was more aimed at Gore than at Carter. I never meant it to be a defense of Carter or a characterization about his foreign policies in the first place.

I sincerely hope we can put the Cater foreign policy issue to bed now, if it's okay with you.

Originally posted by sh76
This one (from the article):

During the revolutionary war in America, George Washington and America’s founding fathers paid pirates to protect America’s territorial waters, because they had no navy or coast guard of their own. Most Americans supported them. Is this so different?

Did we expect starving Somalians to stand passively on their beaches, padd ...[text shortened]... great imperial fleets sail in today – but who is the robber?

(emphasis added)[/b]

In that case what was the relevance of your examples to the text you just cited?

First they are repressed, then they are looted and polluted. Then they decide to strike back and all of the sudden we just condemn their actions and don't try to understand were they are coming from.

Your double standards really are glaring you know that? Don't you have any interest in intellectual coherence? And your facetious comparisons only serve to cast you in bad light you know that?

"Don't put my client in jail. His mommy didn't give him a lolly when he was 4."
How is this comparable to making poor, starving people to starve even more (with the added bonus of some toxic waste being dumped on them)?

Originally posted by sh76
First of all, the whole Carter issue was months ago, not a few weeks ago (I say that only to marvel at your seeming inability to let it go).

Second, as I admitted then and will admit again now, I am not an expert on Carter's pro-facist foreign policy, as you put it. I freely admit that you know much more about it than I do. I was a baby when Carter was Presi ...[text shortened]...
I sincerely hope we can put the Cater foreign policy issue to bed now, if it's okay with you.

My self-deprecating joke was more about defence atourneys - whether they be paid or pro bono - rather than Carter. Either way, you didn't get it. Oh well.

Originally posted by sh76
Second, as I admitted then and will admit again now, I am not an expert on Carter's pro-facist foreign policy, as you put it. I freely admit that you know much more about it than I do. I was a baby when Carter was President. I concede that my side remark about Carter may have mis-characterized his policies. See that. I hereby concede!

I wasn't even born when Carter was president and I know a lot about his pro fascist policies. And I think you should get to know to.

Originally posted by generalissimo
do whatever you want to do, hypocrite.

Better yet take this: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/taxonomy.html

Now just try to realize how many of them you fell victim to and try to avoid that in the future.

Originally posted by adam warlock
Better yet take this: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/taxonomy.html

Now just try to realize how many of them you fell victim and try to avoid that in the future.

you're a joke, a phoney.

Its easy for you to say how piracy is alright, from the safety of your home.

I wonder if you'd think the same if you weren't protected by laws, and if you didn't have the government to make sure the rule of law is enforced.

but its even worse than that, you'd still be saying "power to the people" even if those pirates had stolen your property, which makes me wonder, are you stupid or are you just pretending to be in order to get attention?

Originally posted by generalissimo
you're a joke, a phoney.

Its easy for you to say how piracy is alright, from the safety of your home.

I wonder if you'd think the same if you weren't protected by laws, and if you didn't have the government to make sure the rule of law is enforced.

but its even worse than that, you'd still be saying "power to the people" even if those pirates ...[text shortened]... kes me wonder, are you stupid or are you just pretending to be in order to get attention?

Its easy for you to say how piracy is alright, from the safety of your home.
Wrong!

I wonder if you'd think the same if you weren't protected by laws, and if you didn't have the government to make sure the rule of law is enforced.
Stop being so naive.

but its even worse than that, you'd still be saying "power to the people" even if those pirates had stolen your property, which makes me wonder, are you stupid or are you just pretending to be in order to get attention?
I already told you that I answer stupid questions with even stupider answers.

Originally posted by adam warlock
Its easy for you to say how piracy is alright, from the safety of your home.
Wrong!

I wonder if you'd think the same if you weren't protected by laws, and if you didn't have the government to make sure the rule of law is enforced.
Stop being so naive.

but its even worse than that, you'd still be saying "power to the people" even ...[text shortened]... ention?
I already told you that I answer stupid questions with even stupider answers.

Wrong!

what kind of answer is that? what are you 5?

Stop being so naive

how am I being naive?
explain yourself.

I already told you that I answer stupid questions with even stupider answers.

in order words, you're just trying to get attention.

Originally posted by generalissimo
[b]Wrong!

what kind of answer is that? what are you 5?

Stop being so naive

how am I being naive?
explain yourself.

I already told you that I answer stupid questions with even stupider answers.

in order words, you're just trying to get attention.[/b]

what kind of answer is that? what are you 5?
Just try to figure out to fallacies you just used.


how am I being naive? explain yourself.
This is you being naive: "the government to make sure the rule of law is enforced. "

in order words, you're just trying to get attention.
No, I'm just showing you what I think about your question: since it is a ridiculous question it deserves a ridiculous answer.

Originally posted by adam warlock
[b]what kind of answer is that? what are you 5?
Just try to figure out to fallacies you just used.


how am I being naive? explain yourself.
This is you being naive: "the government to make sure the rule of law is enforced. "

in order words, you're just trying to get attention.
No, I'm just showing you what I think about your question: since it is a ridiculous question it deserves a ridiculous answer.[/b]

Just try to figure out to fallacies you just used.

you're just avoiding the point raised.

This is you being naive: "the government to make sure the rule of law is enforced. "

I was talking about the police.

explain how that is "naive".

No, I'm just showing you what I think about your question: since it is a ridiculous question it deserves a ridiculous answer.

you're just avoiding the question, again.

Originally posted by adam warlock
With my fist raised in the air, with my fist raised in the air!

Would that be before or after Rigor Mortus sets in ?

GRANNY.

Originally posted by smw6869
Would that be before or after Rigor Mortus sets in ?

GRANNY.

During.

(rigor mortis)

Originally posted by generalissimo
[b]Just try to figure out to fallacies you just used.

you're just avoiding the point raised.

This is you being naive: "the government to make sure the rule of law is enforced. "

I was talking about the police.

explain how that is "naive".

No, I'm just showing you what I think about your question: since it is a ridiculous q ...[text shortened]... stion it deserves a ridiculous answer.

you're just avoiding the question, again.[/b]

The truth of the matter is that I don't take you seriously enough to answer your idiotic questions in a serious way.

Just try to figure out to fallacies you just used.

you're just avoiding the point raised.

Here you raised no point. You just committed two fallacies.

I was talking about the police. explain how that is "naive".
I knw what you were talking about, and that's why I said you were being naive.

you're just avoiding the question, again.
If by question you mean logical fallacy, then yes I'm avoiding the question.

Originally posted by adam warlock
The truth of the matter is that I don't take you seriously enough to answer your idiotic questions in a serious way.

[b]Just try to figure out to fallacies you just used.

you're just avoiding the point raised.

Here you raised no point. You just committed two fallacies.

I was talking about the police. explain how that is "naive". ...[text shortened]... [/b]
If by question you mean logical fallacy, then yes I'm avoiding the question.[/b]

no. the truth is that you're a hypocrite who has a romantic idea of pirates and anarchy, but in reality knows nothing about it.

Here you raised no point. You just committed two fallacies.

go back a few posts and you'll see my point.
what fallacies are you talking about, explain yourself.

I knw what you were talking about, and that's why I said you were being naive.

saying the same thing ad nauseum doesn't explain anything.
if you can't explain how I was being "naive" don't bother making such accusation.

If by question you mean logical fallacy, then yes I'm avoiding the question.

what logical fallacy are you talking about?

Originally posted by generalissimo
no. the truth is that you're a hypocrite who has a romantic idea of pirates and anarchy, but in reality knows nothing about it.

[b]Here you raised no point. You just committed two fallacies.

go back a few posts and you'll see my point.
what fallacies are you talking about, explain yourself.

I knw what you were talking about, and that's ...[text shortened]... es I'm avoiding the question.

what logical fallacy are you talking about?[/b]

I'll (partially) indulge you this last time:

go back a few posts and you'll see my point.what fallacies are you talking about, explain yourself.
You had no point. You just two had two faulty assertions.


saying the same thing ad nauseum doesn't explain anything.
if you can't explain how I was being "naive" don't bother making such accusation.
I know that repeating isn't explaining bur I won't do much than that.


what logical fallacy are you talking about?
Check the link I gave you. It will serve you better if you can find it for yourself. That way you will gradually learn how not to support your arguments with faulty logic.

no. the truth is that you're a hypocrite who has a romantic idea of pirates and anarchy, but in reality knows nothing about it.
This here deserves no response whatsoever.