The British Politics Thread

[Anil]

Originally Posted by Spark

Because his point is not relevant to the post it was trying to answer, which was that emotive appeals to the fact that because of _____ people died cut both ways. You can't apply the logic to one situation and not the other.

Want to make the argument that invading Iraq was counterproductive? Sure, go ahead, it's easy enough. But you can't make the argument that "well, people died because of the Iraq war therefore the worst thing ever" and then not apply it the other way.

It doesn't work. And it turns people off the debate. Who the hell wants to argue with someone who is trying to prove that those who disagree with them condone death in war or genocide?

what?! did you actually read the post i responded to?

Originally Posted by cover drive man

Ok then, if we follow that logic what would you say to the families of hundreds of thousands of murdered Kurds? 'Sorry, but we can't get involved'?

i responded directly to this...because it is so obviously untrue...and i responded with some sarcasm...but where exactly is the straw man here?! if you or anyone else is naive enough to believe that (saving the kurds from genocide) was the intent of the iraq invasion, i don't see any point in continuing the discussion...

[Spark]

I think you've made the point for him.

Key words "if we follow that logic"

[Anil]

Originally Posted by Spark

I think you've made the point for him.

Key words "if we follow that logic"

but that was clearly not the reason why the invasion happened...so you can't follow that logic with his argument which is what i was trying to assert...why is that so difficult to understand?

[Burgey]

So, Pakistan and India both have nuclear weapons. Kashmir is in dispute.

It's worth a thought.

Meanwhile, more importantly, what a great gig for Jay QC. You'd back him to have a zillion briefs rolling in after this is done.

[Spark]

...

His point is that the obvious fallacy of that argument indicates that the logic is faulty.

[Uppercut]

Originally Posted by Anil

but that was clearly not the reason why the invasion happened...so you can't follow that logic with his argument which is what i was trying to assert...why is that so difficult to understand?

The argument that "if you said that to someone in a particular traumatic situation, they would become very angry, therefore it isn't true" is logically incoherent and totally worthless. CDM just illustrated that point by countering your variation of it with an equal-and-opposite variation of his own.

[Anil]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

The argument that "if you said that to someone in a particular traumatic situation, they would become very angry, therefore it isn't true" is logically incoherent and totally worthless. CDM just illustrated that point by countering your variation of it with an equal-and-opposite variation of his own.

that statement above is meaningless, how you compared what i said to that, i have no idea...also i doubt cdm was "illustrating" anything of the sort...the cooked-up intelligence and the iraq invasion were both morally (i mean the (non-religious) morals of any half-decent non-war mongering human being) reprehensible no matter how much of an murderous asshole saddam was...that was all i wanted to convey, it was short and direct and there is no logical incoherence there for me...it doesn't really matter to me whether you agree with the opinion or the way i presented it and so i am signing out of this conversation...

[Spark]

You still aren't getting it. It's little to do with the Iraq war and everything to do with blatant logical fallacy.

[Agent Nationaux]

The same people will be complaining when the Iraqis decide that they are going to follow Saudi and enforce a barbaric version of Sharia, where women are oppressed and killed. And then when the new government decides to toe out of line for even a second against the US's wishes like Saddam did, the whole process will start all over again. Great progress for the Iraqis.

[GIMH]

Hang on what

[Uppercut]

Originally Posted by Anil

what is utterly laughable is the bolded part...say that to any remaining family for the hundreds of thousands of innocents who perished as collateral damage in "operation iraqi freedom"

Originally Posted by Uppercut

The argument that "if you said that to someone in a particular traumatic situation, they would become very angry, therefore it isn't true" is logically incoherent and totally worthless.

Originally Posted by Anil

that statement above is meaningless, how you compared what i said to that, i have no idea

...

You've just made me realise how to troll myself.

[Anil]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

...

You've just made me realise how to troll myself.

man, did you see what that post was in response to? cdm said you can't stand by and watch innocents die or something to that effect...let's for a second pretend that it was actually the reason for the war and so what is the ideal thing to do there? invade and kill a whole bunch of innocents yourselves! that is just pure sanctimonious bull****...i did not at any point defend saddam or his human rights record, but if you judge the sick **** on his record, you should judge the invading ****ers on their record as well...and it's quite comparable...it's not about the iraq war according to spark but all about some logical fallacy in my argument...well i was trying to answer straight to cdm's post where he seemed to be defending the invasion and i wasn't being subtle or playing with words...i am done with this...i keep having to repeat myself and it is getting quite boring, hopefully you won't spend any more time "trolling yourselves"...

[Spark]

He wasn't defending the invasion for the last time in that post. He was saying that it was a logically flawed argument, because if you apply to the other situation, you get two completely contradictory answers.

[grecian]

The Thick of it becomes real life.

Excruciating, but I would.

[Scaly piscine]

Originally Posted by grecian

The Thick of it becomes real life.

Excruciating, but I would.

Couldn't watch beyond Ed Balls. What a ****ing **** he is. Has a glint of Blair's evil in him but without a shred of the competence.