nuking Iran before they nuke us

seekerw · Post by **seekerw** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 8:05 pm

nvalleyvee wrote: Who the heck said they were going to NUKE us?

The Iranian president wants to wipe Israel off the map. The terrorists have shown they have no regard for innocent life, even for their own people. Why should we NOT expect that they would nuke us, is the better question?

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 8:07 pm

Using this justification, then, should we go after North Korea? India? Pakistan? Surely, considering our reputation in the world, we can now expect hostility from ANY nation with nuclear capability.

seekerw · Post by **seekerw** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 8:07 pm

nvalleyvee wrote: I just have to say that we need to pull our trops out and glass all those people who INSIST on killing their own people............Yes I'd like to glass the terorists but I want ALL the indigenous population out of there............. They are TOO important and so we cannot do that.

I just had to express an emotion equivelent to the twin towers. Does that make me more or less caring than a terrorist?

No, it does not make you anywhere near less caring than a terrorist. You simply want to see justice prevail and the terrorists punished for their crimes, and unfortunately, since they hide among and don't care what happens to the civilian population, it is inevitable that some of the civilians would also be killed.

Post by **spot** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 8:11 pm

Lulu2 wrote: Using this justification, then, should we go after North Korea? India? Pakistan? Surely, considering our reputation in the world, we can now expect hostility from ANY nation with nuclear capability.
You're safe from the Brits for at least a couple of years. As for the French "force de frappe"... I'd have thought retribution for Disneyworld was long past due.

nvalleyvee · Post by **nvalleyvee** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 8:16 pm

Lulu2 wrote: No. I was referring to the WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION which Bush used as justification for invading, bombing and devastating Iraq, in addition to destroying many of the tenuous relationships we had with countries around the world.

So--which weapons did we find there?

Oh Lulu..........no weapons of mass destruction.

We have not devastated Iraq............... Geeeez..........if this was a real war.......the US would have ended it by now.

I wish it was a real war.................been there and gone by now. How sad for the hund.reds of parents, spouses and kids who lost their kids, mates, and children

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 8:20 pm

Look, I grew up in the Navy. My father was killed in service to this country. I know all about the terrible price military families pay and, because I'm empathetic, I know all about the terrible price the Iraqis are paying because George Bush had an erection to go to war!

We've caused civil war in Iraq. We've escalated the hostility of Muslims all over the world. We've devastated entire communities there.

And none of it was justified. Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. Even the US Senate knows it. Said so. Too late.

Post by **spot** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 8:23 pm

nvalleyvee wrote: How sad for the hund.reds of parents, spouses and kids who lost their kids, mates, and childrenNothing about how sad for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi parents, spouses and kids who lost their kids, mates, and children? All this concern is a bit one-sided.

nvalleyvee · Post by **nvalleyvee** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 8:28 pm

spot wrote: Nothing about how sad for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi parents, spouses and kids who lost their kids, mates, and children? All this concern is a bit one-sided.

SQUEEZE ME..........that is exactly what I said.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 9:28 pm

Lulu2 wrote: SEEKER

"And we have found some since the invasion of Iraq."

+++++++ Would you say more about that for me, please?

a few dozen very old nerve gas cannisters were unearthed at one point. dating back to before gulf war I. much hay was made of it, but it hardly counts.

now, the reality is, hussein had indeed engaged in building WMD's. this is not at all in dispute. people seem to have quickly forgotten all the SCUD and other missiles that were dismantled not long before the war began. so it's kind of a dodge when people say that we went to war over WMD's that weren't there. many were there before the war began. there's some anecdotal evidence that some WMD's were shuttled out of iraq over to syria in the final days before the invasion began. further, the entire valerie plame/joe wilson/yellow cake contretempes has already been shown to be further a dodge - hussein's representatives had indeed sought to procure yellow cake. that very fact makes it clear that hussein was not a pious angel who had disarmed and wasn't a threat. he held his populace tightly under control, there's no disputing the violent torture and death citizens were subject to under his rule. people found with satellite dishes were summarily executed. this was not a lovely country before the war, that we suddenly turned into a nightmare. it was a nightmare kept tightly under wraps by a despot.

but i digress.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 9:39 pm

Accountable wrote: I'd have a HUGE problem with that! I'd also have a problem with another nation(s) stepping in to limit our freedoms. We represent freedom. How can we not support it elsewhere? We have interceptors, et al. I truly don't think it likely that Iran will use a nuke, even if they get one.

Even if they do ............ yeh, it's worth the risk.

here's the problem with the argument: "I'd also have a problem with another nation(s) stepping in to limit our freedoms. We represent freedom. How can we not support it elsewhere?"

i don't see the ownership of nuclear weapons as either a privilege or a right that any nation has. inconsistent? no. we, along with the soviets, built massive nuclear stockpiles. truly massive. ever since the soviet union fell, we've been dismantling our nuclear stockpiles, as have the russians (though rather carelessly at times, unfortunately). do we have nuclear weapons still? yes. should we have nuclear weapons? no. and the more nations with nuclear weapons, the more likely there will someday be an accident, with truly tragic consequences. and the more likely that a despot may come to power - likely through violent coup or some other means - who will have no compunctions about using his newfound power. i think it's a damned shame that china has nukes. and india. and pakistan. and france. and the UK. and israel. anyone else out there? do we need any more?

to put it bluntly: the united states used the nuclear bomb once, to end world war II. it hasn't been used since, and I - and quite a great many people around the world - know that we are unlikely to ever use nukes again. yes, it's a double standard. we have them, we don't want anyone else to have them. if we weren't gradually reducing our arsenal, i'd say that has merit. while we get rid of nuclear bombs, other nations build up their stockpiles. i lived the first 30 years of my life under the umbrella of mutually assured destruction, and it's amazing how quickly that cloud has lifted - and been forgotten.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 9:42 pm

Lulu2 wrote: OK, I have a question. When this poll first came up, I voted and realized it hadn't registered. I knew that because I was seeing people's names in the line under their vote! Now the names are gone and we only see the votes. How'd THAT happen?

i don't see any change. it still lists the names for me. i set it up as a public poll, and unless admin changed it, it should still be.

nvalleyvee · Post by **nvalleyvee** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 9:46 pm

Iran KNOWA if they make a major move on the US ........they are fried..................Does not matter in the past 20 minutes.

seekerw · Post by **seekerw** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 9:47 pm

anastrophe wrote: should we have nuclear weapons? no.

i think it's a damned shame that ... israel [has nuclear weapons].

yes, it's a double standard. we have them, we don't want anyone else to have them.

I agree with most of what you say. However, I think that every responsible nation ought to have nuclear weapons, meaning those who'd never use them except in self defense.

I think it's crucial that Israel have them. That, IMO, is the only thing preventing the Arab nations from trying overtly again to wipe out Israel. They know that if they tried, that Israel would take them all down with it.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:48 am

anastrophe wrote: here's the problem with the argument: "I'd also have a problem with another nation(s) stepping in to limit our freedoms. We represent freedom. How can we not support it elsewhere?"

i don't see the ownership of nuclear weapons as either a privilege or a right that any nation has. inconsistent? no. we, along with the soviets, built massive nuclear stockpiles. truly massive. ever since the soviet union fell, we've been dismantling our nuclear stockpiles, as have the russians (though rather carelessly at times, unfortunately). do we have nuclear weapons still? yes. should we have nuclear weapons? no. and the more nations with nuclear weapons, the more likely there will someday be an accident, with truly tragic consequences. and the more likely that a despot may come to power - likely through violent coup or some other means - who will have no compunctions about using his newfound power. i think it's a damned shame that china has nukes. and india. and pakistan. and france. and the UK. and israel. anyone else out there? do we need any more?

to put it bluntly: the united states used the nuclear bomb once, to end world war II. it hasn't been used since, and I - and quite a great many people around the world - know that we are unlikely to ever use nukes again. yes, it's a double standard. we have them, we don't want anyone else to have them. if we weren't gradually reducing our arsenal, i'd say that has merit. while we get rid of nuclear bombs, other nations build up their stockpiles. i lived the first 30 years of my life under the umbrella of mutually assured destruction, and it's amazing how quickly that cloud has lifted - and been forgotten.
I dunno. Maybe I'm too simple. I don't see any justification to impose our will on anybody. We have a right to defend ourselves against attack - not potential attack, an actual one.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:53 am

seekerw wrote: I agree with most of what you say. However, I think that every responsible nation ought to have nuclear weapons, meaning those who'd never use them except in self defense.Those who would never use them? And who is this psychic committee that will determine this elite group?

seekerw wrote: I think it's crucial that Israel have them. That, IMO, is the only thing preventing the Arab nations from trying overtly again to wipe out Israel. They know that if they tried, that Israel would take them all down with it.But you would prevent Israel's enemies from being similarly armed? You would go to war to ensure another country can't go to war against Isarael? That just doesn't make sense.

cherandbuster · Post by **cherandbuster** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 4:04 am

Lulu2 wrote: Look, I grew up in the Navy. My father was killed in service to this country. I know all about the terrible price military families pay and, because I'm empathetic, I know all about the terrible price the Iraqis are paying because George Bush had an erection to go to war!

We've caused civil war in Iraq. We've escalated the hostility of Muslims all over the world. We've devastated entire communities there.

And none of it was justified. Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. Even the US Senate knows it. Said so. Too late.

This is the bottom line on Iraq for me.

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 5:26 am

tmbsgrl wrote: I'm with ya on this- I voted to Nuke simply because its says if we don't then they will.

Me, too.

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 5:27 am

Wolverine wrote: because of Prez Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, i personally boycott CitGo gasoline.

Me, too!

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 5:47 am

flopstock wrote: I'll have to abstain from this one... I still hold a grudge from the hostage taking...

That is soooo 70's-ish !

brazenhead · Post by **brazenhead** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 9:35 am

seekerw wrote: I agree with most of what you say. However, I think that every responsible nation ought to have nuclear weapons, meaning those who'd never use them except in self defense.

I think it's crucial that Israel have them. That, IMO, is the only thing preventing the Arab nations from trying overtly again to wipe out Israel. They know that if they tried, that Israel would take them all down with it.

Well Israel is a country with a democratically elected government so I think they have more right to have nuclear weapons than Iran who are ruled by a non elected fundamentalist muslim theocracy.

As for the question of first strike on Iran, I think if it can be proved they are attempting to obtain or create weapons grade plutonium then something should be done. I am not sure a nuclear strike would really solve the problem it would merely inflame an already highly unstable region of the world.

I would back a move to use conventional military force against Iran if the situation warranted it, or a none nuclear/wmd bombing/cruise misslie campaign on strategic nuclear and military targets to disrupt any attempt at creating their own WMD's.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 9:49 am

seekerw wrote: I agree with most of what you say. However, I think that every responsible nation ought to have nuclear weapons, meaning those who'd never use them except in self defense.

I think it's crucial that Israel have them. That, IMO, is the only thing preventing the Arab nations from trying overtly again to wipe out Israel. They know that if they tried, that Israel would take them all down with it.

you'll find few who defend israel more than me around FG, but i don't think they at all require nukes. nukes are almost inherently a non-defensive weapon. their destruction is essentially indiscriminate. if you thought a bad map that led to israel bombing a UN vehicle is bad, wait until a nuke is used.

while Mutually Assured Destruction does work as a means of stalemate, it is so oppressive to the soul that nobody should live under it.

no nukes. period. no country should have them. conventional weaponry is far more discriminate. there are no targets so large that a nuke is the only tool to accomplish its destruction.

brazenhead · Post by **brazenhead** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 9:55 am

I agree that nukes are a bit......whats the phrase I would use ?.................................

Over the top as a response ?.....well to anything really !

But they are at the very least awesome to look at !;)

They served their purpose well during the cold war but now I kinda agree with you that a nuclear threat isn't really called for in a world where we have the technology to fly a missle to someones front door and make it knock politely before deploying itself !

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 9:57 am

brazenhead wrote: I agree that nukes are a bit......whats the phrase I would use ?.................................

Over the top as a response ?.....well to anything really !

But they are at the very least awesome to look at !;)

They served their purpose well during the cold war but now I kinda agree with you that a nuclear threat isn't really called for in a world where we have the technology to fly a missle to someones front door and make it knock politely before deploying itself !

i watched part of 'Trinity and beyond' last night in hidef. atomic explosions are indeed beautiful phenomena. some, quite exquisite in fact.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 12:26 pm

brazenhead wrote: Well Israel is a country with a democratically elected government so I think they have more right to have nuclear weapons than Iran who are ruled by a non elected fundamentalist muslim theocracy.

So a kingdom (which still exist in the world, btw) has less right to choose their method of self-defense than a democracy? I'm just trying to understand your heirarchy.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 12:34 pm

Accountable wrote: So a kingdom (which still exist in the world, btw) has less right to choose their method of self-defense than a democracy? I'm just trying to understand your heirarchy.

i would again submit that nuclear weapons are not defensive weapons, nor does any nation have a "right" to own them (setting aside for the moment that nations and governments have powers, not rights).

Post by **spot** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 1:01 pm

Accountable wrote: So a kingdom (which still exist in the world, btw) has less right to choose their method of self-defense than a democracy? I'm just trying to understand your heirarchy.
You know, you guys do seem to ignoring the essential detail that Iran is a transparently democratic country with free and open elections and that the current administration there plainly reflects the will of the electorate.

brazenhead · Post by **brazenhead** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 1:11 pm

Accountable wrote: So a kingdom (which still exist in the world, btw) has less right to choose their method of self-defense than a democracy? I'm just trying to understand your heirarchy.

My ideal heirachy would be something like this....in order of preference.......

1 - Anarchy - full nuclear capabilities, and black magic, giant robots etc

2 - Mob rule - upto date conventional weapons, medium seized robots etc

3 - Republic - flintlock pistols, cannon balls etc

4 - communist dictatorship - siege weapons (catapults etc)

5 - facist dictatorship - iron swords, shields, armour etc

6 - caste system - bronze swords, shields, armour etc

7 - Any under 5'2" and over 6'5" to be housed in ghetto's - wooden clubs, animal hide armour etc.

8 - people who enjoy line dancing to be banished to the north pole - paper aeroplanes, pea shooters.

9 - Star trek fans - clumps of dried grass, melons.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 1:20 pm

spot seems to be ignoring the fundamentally undemocratic reality that candidates for president are only approved after the unelected guardian council determines his loyalty to the Islamic Revolution, and his decisions in all things are subordinate to those of the appointed Supreme Leader, a theocrat. the guardian council (again, an unelected theocratic body) can veto the popularly elected parliament.

it's a smokescreen. it's a 'democratic republic' that is subordinate to an unelected theocracy.

Post by **spot** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 1:32 pm

anastrophe wrote: spot seems to be ignoring the fundamentally undemocratic reality that candidates for president are only approved after the unelected guardian council determines his loyalty to the Islamic Revolution, and his decisions in all things are subordinate to those of the appointed Supreme Leader, a theocrat. the guardian council (again, an unelected theocratic body) can veto the popularly elected parliament.

it's a smokescreen. it's a 'democratic republic' that is subordinate to an unelected theocracy.
And how many Senators or Congressmen are currently in office who have not been pre-vetted by the Democratic or Republican Party selection process?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 1:41 pm

spot wrote: You know, you guys do seem to ignoring the essential detail that Iran is a transparently democratic country with free and open elections and that the current administration there plainly reflects the will of the electorate.Tell that to Brazenhead. He's the one who said it's not a democracy.

Post by **spot** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 2:00 pm

Accountable wrote: Tell that to Brazenhead. He's the one who said it's not a democracy.I'm still waiting for someone to liken the unelected nature of "the guardian council (again, an unelected theocratic body) [which] can veto the popularly elected parliament" with the Supreme Court, myself. Countries do tend to have these checks and balances built into their Constitutions. The Supreme Court can veto the popularly elected parliament, if I remember right, and I can't recall when a Justice was last brought to office by any mandate of a widely-enfranchised electorate.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 2:05 pm

spot wrote: I'm still waiting for someone to liken the unelected nature of "the guardian council (again, an unelected theocratic body) [which] can veto the popularly elected parliament" with the Supreme Court, myself. Countries do tend to have these checks and balances built into their Constitutions. The Supreme Court can veto the popularly elected parliament, if I remember right, and I can't recall when a Justice was last brought to office by any mandate of a widely-enfranchised electorate.They all were. They're nominated and appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate.

Post by **spot** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 2:09 pm

Accountable wrote: They all were. They're nominated and appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate.We do things far more rationally in the UK. Our Upper House is appointed for life by various mechanisms. They inherit their seat, or they're installed by the Prime Minister of the day, or they're directly placed there by the Queen.

Post by **spot** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 12:13 am

Accountable wrote: They all were. They're nominated and appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate.Go on, I'll bite - in what way is that a "mandate of a widely-enfranchised electorate", rather than a partisan appointment by an interested party? Are you suggesting that a presidential appointment like this isn't made with a political consequence as its foremost intent? That's not an impression that popular debate would give one to understand. I suggest that positions on the Supreme Court are political and irreversible appointments for life, and I think most people would agree with me.

Post by **spot** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 12:27 am

anastrophe wrote: nukes are almost inherently a non-defensive weapon.And yet the UK and USSR have been to war and possessed nuclear weapons and not used them offensively. India has fought Pakistan and possessed nuclear weapons and not used them offensively, and vice versa. No nation has possessed nuclear weapons and been invaded other than on disputed border territory. The facts suggest that contrary to your assertion nuclear weapons are inherently a defensive weapon.

No nation has possessed nuclear weapons and used them to arm a "terrorist" organization. "Oh but they might" doesn't cut a lot of ice. What you fear is a reflection of your state of mind, not of the truth on the ground. That sentence, thinking about it, could be usefully adopted as the emblem of the CIA, carved in granite over their main front door and printed under the logo on their headed stationery.

You may not like the idea of proliferation but I think it's in the interests of world peace that it should be encouraged, not prohibited. Brazil, for example, would feel a lot safer if it had a nuclear deterrent. There's too few Portuguese-speaking devices in the world.

venus · Post by **venus** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:53 am

Nomad wrote: No one is nuking anyone. The only thing getting nuked is my leftover chile. Now stop this nonsense.

Im with the professor on this one, now pass the chilli....

William Ess · Post by **William Ess** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 4:26 am

anastrophe wrote: sorry zink, took me a minute or two to actually create the poll. please vote now!

It is a foolishly misleading poll because it assumes that Iran is going to 'nuke' America. What is the position if there are acceptable assurances that Iran is not going to attack America? The poll does not allow for this.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 5:18 am

spot wrote: Go on, I'll bite - in what way is that a "mandate of a widely-enfranchised electorate", rather than a partisan appointment by an interested party? Are you suggesting that a presidential appointment like this isn't made with a political consequence as its foremost intent? That's not an impression that popular debate would give one to understand. I suggest that positions on the Supreme Court are political and irreversible appointments for life, and I think most people would agree with me.The US Senate is a "widely-enfranchised electorate". They can stop any appointment. Now go split hairs on your own.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 5:24 am

William Ess wrote: It is a foolishly misleading poll because it assumes that Iran is going to 'nuke' America. What is the position if there are acceptable assurances that Iran is not going to attack America? The poll does not allow for this.Sure it does. "...I do NOT think we should nuke Iran before they nuke us" clearly implies that if Iran never nukes us, we should never nuke them. At least that's how I read it. Clean the prejudice off your glasses & you'll see more clearly.

William Ess · Post by **William Ess** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 6:48 am

Accountable wrote: Sure it does. "...I do NOT think we should nuke Iran before they nuke us" clearly implies that if Iran never nukes us, we should never nuke them. At least that's how I read it. Clean the prejudice off your glasses & you'll see more clearly.

Where does prejudice come into it? I think before someone of your type enters the debating chamber, you should first of all learn how to present an argument and then understand how to respond to points raised.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 7:01 am

William Ess wrote: Where does prejudice come into it? I think before someone of your type enters the debating chamber, you should first of all learn how to present an argument and then understand how to respond to points raised.:yh_rotfl My type??

Post by **spot** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 8:20 am

Accountable wrote: :yh_rotfl My type??
He's spent too long in Bronwen's company recently. With a bit of work we can persuade him that, Bronwen notwithstanding, forums are actually places where insults hinder the presentation of an argument.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 9:50 am

William Ess wrote: It is a foolishly misleading poll because it assumes that Iran is going to 'nuke' America. What is the position if there are acceptable assurances that Iran is not going to attack America? The poll does not allow for this.

the poll also does not allow for the position that every single nation on earth should have nuclear weapons, so that we can all live with the scythe hovering over our heads forever. i chose not to tailor the poll to the incorrigibly mentally decrepit block of voters.

a poll is a poll; polls here are implicitly inaccurate, and no claim otherwise has been made - for that matter, i already addressed the issue of the misleading character of it - did you bother reading the whole thread before commenting?

if you don't like how it's constructed, go out and make one of your own.

William Ess · Post by **William Ess** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 11:18 am

anastrophe wrote: the poll also does not allow for the position that every single nation on earth should have nuclear weapons, so that we can all live with the scythe hovering over our heads forever. i chose not to tailor the poll to the incorrigibly mentally decrepit block of voters.

a poll is a poll; polls here are implicitly inaccurate, and no claim otherwise has been made - for that matter, i already addressed the issue of the misleading character of it - did you bother reading the whole thread before commenting?

if you don't like how it's constructed, go out and make one of your own.

To be balanced a poll should cover all likely possibilities. Polls do not have to be implicitly inaccurate - it depends how carefully the questions have been compiled. Consider the 1930's proposal:

1. All Jews should be put into prison

2. All Jews should be exterminated.

After the results have been counted, the Polster might be able to report that an overwhelming proportion of those who took part thought that all Jews should either be sent to prison or exterminated.

However, had there been a balanced question (3. The Jews should be left in peace), there would have been a very different conclusion.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 11:24 am

William Ess wrote: To be balanced a poll should cover all likely possibilities. Polls do not have to be implicitly inaccurate - it depends how carefully the questions have been compiled. Consider the 1930's proposal:

1. All Jews should be put into prison

2. All Jews should be exterminated.

After the results have been counted, the Polster might be able to report that an overwhelming proportion of those who took part thought that all Jews should either be sent to prison or exterminated.

However, had there been a balanced question (3. The Jews should be left in peace), there would have been a very different conclusion.

as before. is there something impeding you from generating your own poll, that satisfies your wishes for how it should be done?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 1:13 pm

Come on, Willy, don't be shy. What's my type?

William Ess · Post by **William Ess** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 1:26 pm

Accountable wrote: Come on, Willy, don't be shy. What's my type?

Someone who doesn't know how to present an argument and who doesn't understand how to respond properly to points raised.

If you are going to enter a debating forum then learn the basics of debate.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 1:28 pm

William Ess wrote: Someone who doesn't know how to present an argument and who doesn't understand how to respond properly to points raised.

If you are going to enter a debating forum then learn the basics of debate.

you argue from a faulty premise. this is not a debating forum.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:12 pm

Rats! I wanted to say that!

William Ess · Post by **William Ess** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:12 pm

anastrophe wrote: you argue from a faulty premise. this is not a debating forum.

Then I am indeed in the wrong place.