R.I.P. Ariel Sharon (a tribute thread)

[Mouthwash]

Irony, I think, rather than sarcasm, but point taken.

Words have meanings. "Simple fact" describes a statement of uncomplicated, empirically-verified truth. You claim, "that any Arab leader who had Sharon's human rights record would have been given the Nobel peace prize five times over", is nothing of the sort. In the first place, it is an exaggeration for rhetorical effect, that much should be plain even to yourself. In the second, the claim it expresses, that a Palestinian leader who behaved as Sharon did would have a more positive reputation, is not an empirically-verified truth, but simply speculation, a "what if?". You might be able to find empirical evidence to support the claim that that Israeli leaders-in-general are held to more stringent standards than Palestinian leaders-in-general, but that's by necessity a generalisation, which can't be used to prove or disprove claims pertaining to any one individual, much less an entirely hypothetical one.

So when you say "simple fact", what you in fact mean is "complicated fiction", and that's just not the same thing at all.

Oh, I see. You were discussing the semantics of my statement rather than the actual subject at hand. For future reference, I believe it is called "hyperbole."

However, I think it does raise a good point. Why don't you apparently find the Israeli government "accountable to the same standards" as other governments in the region?

I don't follow this sentence.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Well, appeal to authority just plain sucks. I hit myself on the head every time I catch doing to myself and I am extremely sensitive when others do it as well, especially when the sources are kind of lowest of the lowest.

Only I didn't make an appeal to authority, as I just explained above.

Why do you claim these two articles to be "lowest of the lowest"? Perhaps you can point out which facts were incorrect? Or do you say that merely because you have a different personal opinion?

Robert Scheer, a contributing editor to The Nation, is editor of Truthdig.com and author of The Great American Stickup: How Reagan Republicans and Clinton Democrats Enriched Wall Street While Mugging Main Street (Nation Books), The Pornography of Power: How Defense Hawks Hijacked 9/11 and Weakened America (Twelve) and Playing President (Akashic Books). He is author, with Christopher Scheer and Lakshmi Chaudhry, of The Five Biggest Lies Bush Told Us About Iraq (Akashic Books and Seven Stories Press.) His weekly column, distributed by Creators Syndicate, appears in the San Francisco Chronicle.

Carl Herman is a National Board Certified Teacher in economics, government, and history. His hobby is research, education, and lobbying for improved public policy. He can be reached at Carl_Herman@post.harvard.edu.

What are your qualifications?

 

[Traitorfish]

Oh, I see. You were discussing the semantics of my statement rather than the actual subject at hand. For future reference, I believe it is called "hyperbole."

And I believe that stating something to be a "simple fact" when it is nothing of the sort is called "dishonesty", and is generally seen as bad form. If you want to be taken seriously, and my impression is that you do, you should be more mindful of stuff like this. Nothing wrong with rhetorical hyperbole properly couched, but if you just string words together with no consideration for their meaning, then nobody's going to know what you think you're saying, or how they're supposed to take it.

 

[Zack]

Only that clearly wasn't my point of pointing this out.

Again, do all these other people who also use the word "democracy" to describe the government of Iran at the time also don't understand the word?

How about the President of the United States? Does he also not understand the word for merely disagreeing with the personal opinion of some in this regard?

This is a textbook example of appealing to authority. It's exactly what you're doing. In fact, you're using another logical fallacy (circular reasoning, i.e. I'm right because I say I am right) to argue that you're not appealing to authority.

 

[Takhisis]

Never mind that authority to which he is referring…

 

[Mouthwash]

And I believe that stating something to be a "simple fact" when it is nothing of the sort is called "dishonesty", and is generally seen as bad form. If you want to be taken seriously, and my impression is that you do, you should be more mindful of stuff like this. Nothing wrong with rhetorical hyperbole properly couched, but if you just string words together with no consideration for their meaning, then nobody's going to know what you think you're saying, or how they're supposed to take it.

I'm pretty sure it was "properly couched" in an appropriately facetious tone of voice. Or did you prefer I express it another way?

 

[Formaldehyde]

This is a textbook example of appealing to authority. It's exactly what you're doing. In fact, you're using another logical fallacy (circular reasoning, i.e. I'm right because I say I am right) to argue that you're not appealing to authority.

You don't seem to know what those words mean. Again, I wasn't claiming they must be "right". Now was I?

I was merely pointing out that they, along with the President of the United States, used the word "democracy" to describe the government of Iran during that period. Whether it was or not is a personal opinion, not a fact. You are free to disagree if you wish.

Ironically, your own statements are a logical fallacy. You continue to strawman my views, even after I made them quite clear.

 

[Zack]

You don't seem to know what those words mean. Again, I wasn't claiming they must be "right". Now was I?

I was merely pointing out that they, along with the President of the United States, used the word "democracy" to describe the government of Iran during that period. Whether it was or not is a personal opinion, not a fact. You are free to disagree if you wish.

Ironically, your own statements are a logical fallacy. You continue to strawman my views, even after I made them quite clear.

Your entire argument is literally "well these people said x, so who are you to question x?" How is that not appealing to authority? You haven't given a single reason other than saying, "it isn't."

EDIT: And I know "strawman" is your favorite word, but it does not apply at all in this case. Your misuse of it throws into question if you even understand what it means.

 

[timtofly]

Why does every topic have to be a debate, when it is not?

 

[Formaldehyde]

Your entire argument is literally "well these people said x, so who are you to question x?" How is that not appealing to authority? You haven't given a single reason other than saying, "it isn't."

Again, I was specifically responding to this post:

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Choxorn claimed that I didn't know what the word "democracy" meant because he alleged I continued to use it incorrectly in context with the government of Iran during that period. So I came up with two usages of the very same word by opposite ends of the political spectrum in the US to describe the very same period. I then asked him if they too didn't know what the word means. Later, I even discovered another usage by the current president.

At no time did I state that because they also used the word in the same manner that I did that we must be "right" and he must be "wrong". I was merely pointing out that using Choxorn's own "logic" that we all must not know what it means, merely because our personal opinions disagree with his own personal opinion in the matter.

EDIT: And I know "strawman" is your favorite word, but it does not apply at all in this case. Your misuse of it throws into question if you even understand what it means.

But it indeed does apply here. You continue to misinterpret what my opinion in this matter actually is, even after I have repeatedly explained it.

 

[Zack]

At no time did I state that because they also used the word in the same manner that I did that we must be "right" and he must be "wrong".

lol, that's precisely what you've been saying.

I was merely pointing out that using Choxorn's own "logic" that we all must not know what it means, merely because our personal opinions disagree with his own personal opinion in the matter.

Nice tautology.

But it indeed does apply here. You continue to misinterpret what my opinion in this matter actually is, even after I have repeatedly explained it.

Your "explanation" is awful.

I'm not discussing this any further. It's a ridiculous argument that is completely off-topic, and clearly you're not going to admit you're wrong anytime soon.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Nope. You interpreted it that way when it should now be quite obvious that wasn't what I meant.

You continue to strawman my opinions even after I have made them quite clear.

 

[choxorn]

We come to conclusions about your opinions based on what we think you're saying. If everyone is constantly misrepresenting your opinions with "strawmen", maybe, just maybe, you might be saying this in such a way that we think the strawman is what your opinions actually are?

 

[Formaldehyde]

Is that supposed to be some sort of defense for apparently alleging your own personal opinion in this matter must be right? That you somehow knew beforehand that Zack would later strawman a statement I made after your last post?

Again, do you think the two authors and the current president also don't understand what the word "democracy" means for simply disagreeing with your own personal opinion?

 

[Traitorfish]

I'm pretty sure it was "properly couched" in an appropriately facetious tone of voice. Or did you prefer I express it another way?

Yes, I would you express it another way. That's kind of what I've been getting at, with this whole thing.

Why does every topic have to be a debate, when it is not?

Because: Formaldehyde.

 

[Mouthwash]

Yes, I would you express it another way. That's kind of what I've been getting at, with this whole thing.

Well, my poor illiterate brain just can't seem to grasp why my sentence "The simple fact is that any Arab leader who had Sharon's human rights record would have been given the Nobel peace prize five times over," wasn't understandable as hyperbole. Perhaps you could show me how hyperbole actually works?

 

[Traitorfish]

It was understandable as hyperbole. As I said, even you must have realised that what you were saying was ridiculous. My complaint, rather, is that it's hyperbole deployed without self-awareness or irony, a passive-aggression version of illiterate constructions like "I was so embarrassed I literally died". It doesn't make for good debate, it stops people from taking you seriously, and it gets right up my nose.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

This WAS a tribute thread... Somebody misses the man. History will judge him... let the body rest. No need to be unkind.

 

[caketastydelish]

The Arabs are violent, genocidal primitives who should be praised for even mouthing the word "concession

Even the most snobby persian nationalist on the forum wouldn't take it near this far, what has gotten into you?

Anyway, yeah as ReindeerThistle said, this is a tribute thread. RIP

 

[Mouthwash]

No, because it's racist. The Arabs are violent, genocidal primitives who should be praised for even mouthing the word "concession," but how dare the enlightened white Jews ever allow civilians to come to harm.

OK, I'm not sure why so many people are having trouble with this: I said this to outline Western attitudes towards them. It's obvious sarcasm, in my opinion. They get praise and awards for doing small things that they should have done about thirty years earlier. I'm arguing that the treatment should be fair, not that Arabs are actually savages and need to be treated as such.

There. Are we all cleared up?