Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: Dodgy arguments on this forum
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
Innocent Accused |
In The Know wrote:
JK2006 wrote:
Likewise "we should not have got involved in supporting one side in Libya against the other" is not about which side is better or who should win. It is quite simply "should we have become involved?".
But JK, isn't "not chosing" actually "chosing" ?
If you dont oppose the big bully (with his army) then are you not "supporting" him by allowing him to continue his bullying ?
As for "should we have got involved" - the answer is "Yes" because all tyrants should be removed and we were responding to a request, which was approved by the Arab League and the UN.
There she blows  |
|
david |
david wrote:
Here here to that!
My post was of course a reply to JK not the post above it  |
|
david |
Here here to that! |
|
In The Know |
JK2006 wrote:
Likewise "we should not have got involved in supporting one side in Libya against the other" is not about which side is better or who should win. It is quite simply "should we have become involved?".
But JK, isn't "not chosing" actually "chosing" ?
If you dont oppose the big bully (with his army) then are you not "supporting" him by allowing him to continue his bullying ?
As for "should we have got involved" - the answer is "Yes" because all tyrants should be removed and we were responding to a request, which was approved by the Arab League and the UN. |
|
JK2006 |
The reason I find some discussion points annoying is not that - by twisting the question so you can provide your chosen answer, you change the point, but that you think the other party is an idiot who can be easily fooled. And when those arguments get personal, they are also rude and worthy of removal.
Example - if I say "that girl is gorgeous" the answer "you're a poof - how would you know?" is both rude and answers a different question.
The comment was not "what do YOU think of her?". It was "she is gorgeous" - and deserves numerous answers - I agree, or I disagree, or she'd look better in blue or whatever.
Likewise "we should not have got involved in supporting one side in Libya against the other" is not about which side is better or who should win. It is quite simply "should we have become involved?". Pretending not to understand that question, pretending it's another, and then defending the second opposition is time wasting and foolish.
And also implies the twister thinks we are too stupid to notice. |
|
|
|
