28-04-2004 06:04									#31
	Support Apolyton

Sava is looking spot on about now, K.

	28-04-2004 06:06									#32
	Inflate your Upload Space

I didn't argue for or against the letter, Aggie - just pointed out a pretty blatant fallacy in the opening post.

	28-04-2004 06:09									#33
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Anyway, calling Sharon a person who prefers "religious despotism" is, well, silly. Sharon ain't religious, for example.

"I vow that if I was just an Israeli civilian and I met a Palestinian I would burn him and I would make him suffer before killing him. With one hit I've killed 750 Palestinians (in Rafah in 1956). I wanted to encourage my soldiers by raping Arabic girls as the Palestinian women is a slave for Jews, and we do whatever we want to her and nobody tells us what we shall do but we tell others what they shall do."

Ariel Sharon, In an interview with General Ouze Merham, 1956.

	28-04-2004 06:24									#34
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Tripledoc quote: to vilify all Arabs? You'll have to back this up, real good. Excerpt from Bob Woodwards new book "Plan of Attack". see here In 2002 Ken Adelman published an article named "Cakewalk in Iraq" in which he concluded that, "Measured by any cost-benefit analysis, such an operation would constitute the greatest victory in America's war on terrorism." see here Ken Adelman, also known as Kenneth L. Adelman, served as Assistant to U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld from 1975 to 1977. Adelman was U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations during the Ronald Reagan administration as well as serving as Reagan's director of arms control. Kenneth Adelman is a frequent guest commentator on Fox News.

To this very point, you answered a question I never asked. I sure hoe you copy-pasted this, otherwise, it's such a shame of time.

quote: Adelman, who by own admission is Jewish, has also engaged in anti-Egyptian slander.

"His own admission"? Is the IAEA chief, Al-Baradei also disqualified from making a judgement on nukes in muslim countries?

anyway, this link:
see here
[/q]
is an attack on the Egyptian government, not "vilifying governments". Also, a note: "slander" involves not telling the truth. What he writes about the egyptian media is the truth.

quote: And more than insinuated that Iraq was involved in terror. While playing down Israeli warcrimes in Jenin. see here

Again, not vilifying all arabs, just the Saddam regime, moving right on...

quote: A PNAC letter to Bush urging war against Iraq concludes. "Israel’s fight against terrorism is our fight. Israel’s victory is an important part of our victory. For reasons both moral and strategic, we need to stand with Israel in its fight against terrorism." see here

turns out to be a rant, and not an actual argument. can't say I am surprised, that you've still not answered the question.

quote: Is Mr. Adelman working for the interests of the American people, or is he working for the interests of a greater Israel? Too harsh on mr Adelman? Well he has not been shy in attacking Muslims. quote: Ken Adelman, a member of Bush's Defense Policy Board, has joined several other hawks in direct attacks on Islam. Calling Islam a peaceful religion "is an increasingly hard argument to make," announced Adelman. "The more you examine the religion, the more militaristic it seems. After all, its founder, Mohammed, was a warrior, not a peace advocate like Jesus."

This, perhaps, is the only thing resembling a proof. Of course, this too, is not, vilification of all arabs. Not, not even all muslim ones. It passes judgement on the nature of Islam, yes. a very delicate one. Would you say that saying:

quote: Christianity isn't a very open-minded Religion, after all, there are many accounts of Christian authorities persecuting various people

is vilifying all christians?

quote: see here Recall what he said according to Woodward? "It's so easy for me to write an article saying, 'Do this.'" Its so easy to start a war on false premises. Too easy. He should be tried as a war crimininal in my oppinion. After all he did say in his "Cakewalk" article the following: And if Mr. Adelman perpetuated the lie about Saddams weapons of Mass destruction, is anything else he has said true at all. of course it might be unfair to point to mr. Adelmans joy at the prospect of dead iraqis and Americans, since that was said at a private dinner party. But when the French Ambassador Daniel Bernhard called Israel "a shitty little country" at a private dinner party it was used against him.

Nice spin, demagogue. Where is Mr. Adelmans joy at the prospect of dead Iraqis and Americans? Oh, you mean that he was happy about the war? Well, that's a nice spin.

	28-04-2004 06:26									#35
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Ooooh, you know how to make the letters red, nice.

Now, how does this make him religious?

	28-04-2004 06:26									#36
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Kucinich I didn't argue for or against the letter, Aggie - just pointed out a pretty blatant fallacy in the opening post.

A fallacy?

So if 50 prominent US diplomats did the same thing to Bush, given all that we know about diplomats and their high levels of tact, you wouldn't pause to think?

	28-04-2004 06:40									#37
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Azrael:

Adelman specifically says that what got him turned on about the Egyptian propaganda was that he himself is Jewish. Read the article linked to.

I am not on an anti-Jewish crusade here, but if mr, Adelman is in any way motivated by insults to his religion, then he is not a person whom the US State dept. should listen to.

And that is the point, because Adelmans arguments would be laughed out in the State dept., but he was listened on by Cheney and the Defense dept.

What I am saying is, that a lot of bad **** happened because people were too interested in promoting their own agenda, instead of taking an objective view on things.

	28-04-2004 07:07									#38
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Azazel Now, how does this make him religious?

I think the quote reveals a fanatic mindset, and since he believes that Jews should tell other people what they should do, and not the opposite, it is kind of hard making any sort of deal what so ever.

I mean it is amazing how Sharon is being coodled by the US. The man is a war criminal and a fanatic. He scares people.

	29-04-2004 06:56									#39
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Agathon A fallacy? So if 50 prominent US diplomats did the same thing to Bush, given all that we know about diplomats and their high levels of tact, you wouldn't pause to think?

Not based on the fact that it was fifty prominent US diplomats. I'd actually look at their arguments.

(btw, if this is a claim over a factual matter, on which they would simply be better informed, then it isn't a fallacy)

	29-04-2004 07:02									#40
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Not based on the fact that it was fifty prominent US diplomats. I'd actually look at their arguments.

Thus exposing your own intellectual bankruptcy.

How many ex diplomats do you know, and how many of them do you regularly talk politics with?

	29-04-2004 10:19									#41
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Tripledoc quote: Anyway, calling Sharon a person who prefers "religious despotism" is, well, silly. Sharon ain't religious, for example. "I vow that if I was just an Israeli civilian and I met a Palestinian I would burn him and I would make him suffer before killing him. With one hit I've killed 750 Palestinians (in Rafah in 1956). I wanted to encourage my soldiers by raping Arabic girls as the Palestinian women is a slave for Jews, and we do whatever we want to her and nobody tells us what we shall do but we tell others what they shall do." Ariel Sharon, In an interview with General Ouze Merham, 1956.

Oooh... colors

quote: Mariam Sobh introduced her Dec 11 piece with the following statement, purportedly uttered by Ariel Sharon, in order “to show a clearer picture of the Israeli leadership:” quote: "I don't know something called International Principles. I vow that I'll burn every Palestinian child (that) will be born in this area. The Palestinian woman and child is more dangerous than the man, because the Palestinian child's existence infers that generations will go on, but the man causes limited danger. I vow that if I was just an Israeli civilian and I met a Palestinian I would burn him and I would make him suffer before killing him. With one hit I've killed 750 Palestinians (in Rafah in1956). I wanted to encourage my soldiers by raping Arabic girls as the Palestinian woman is a slave for Jews, and we do whatever we want to her and nobody tells us what we shall do but we tell others what they shall do," Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said in an interview with General Ouze Merham in 1956. This shocking quote, a staple on Arab propaganda Web sites, is an internet hoax for which the journalism student, not surprisingly, provided no source. There is no record of any “General Ouze Merham” or any truth to the claim that Sharon made the quoted comments. The paper’s decision to run such an inflammatory statement with no attribution is indefensible.

link

	29-04-2004 16:37									#42
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

That faked quote is a disgrace. You might consider deleting your post Tripledoc.

It is interesting that the 52 ex-diplomats believe that the way to improve prospects in Iraq is to focus firmly on the arab/Israeli conflict.

I would not, myself, have reached such a conclusion. But I can - hazily - see that they may be right.

Unfortunately as matters currently stand to turn from one to the other just seems to go from one hopelessly intractable mess to another.

It is so absolutely weird. Here we are, a species that has put men on the moon, cracked the genetic code, produced Shakespeare, Beethoven and Michaelangelo, we have tamed our planet and taken our understanding of the universe back as far as the big bang.

Hell, the other day I managed a progressive squeeze at bridge.

And yet there are still sizeable numbers of us who think that when we have a problem the way to solve it is to go out and shoot a stranger or blow them to smithereens.

Virtually no other species kills each other. They squabble away and males fight over precedence - but they have all evolved social skills which allow the thing to stop short of killing.

While we spend quite a lot of effort and energy developing ever more effective ways to kill more and more quicker and quicker.

Someone explain to me just why all the Israelis and every single arab can't just get up this very minute and all go and find an Israeli or an arab to talk to and to say that all they want to do is to just get on with living as happy a life as they can, that they don't feel compelled to hate anyone and that maybe if they discuss the use of all the land and the fruits of it there might turn out to be more than enough good things to go round?

The German and English soldiers got out of the trenches and did something similar once during the Great War.

And if there is some nutter who won't do that all the people with goodwill can just send them somewhere well away to get on with raking over the past or whatever other fatuous thing they want to wreck their life with.

	29-04-2004 18:51									#43
	Remove this text

well actually that is what diplomacy is about, building bridges between people.

It's no easy task to get so many retired Ambassadors to agree about anything, including to put aside personal differences and rivalries, sometimes career long.

Ambassadors tend to be mavericks - independent thinkers, contrary to the popular stereotypes. They aren't "joiners". It's quite a feat by whoever put the letter together.

It also raises the interesting question as to whether they were put up to it by serving foreign service officers appalled by Blair's ape-like kow towing to Bush.

	30-04-2004 07:47									#44
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Agathon Thus exposing your own intellectual bankruptcy.

WTF? I'm intellectually bankrupt because I don't accept the fallacy of arguments from authority?

	30-04-2004 07:50									#45
	Tired of ads?

We accept arguments from authority all the time because no one can be an expert in every field. Not to do so would have you living in a swamp, chewing rats. It's just a matter of fact that to some degree, we have to trust the experts if we aren't experts ourselves. Of course there are unreasonable ways to abuse this principle, but that doesn't make it any less forceful.

You sound as if you've been reading some first grade informal logic book. You are forgetting that epistemic notions introduce complications into arguments that a simple view of logic can't deal with.

	30-04-2004 07:53									#46
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: We accept arguments from authority all the time because no one can be an expert in every field.

No, we accept statements of empirical fact from authority, because they are the ones who have access to it. It is a fallacy to back up an argument with "this expert supports it".

	30-04-2004 08:05									#47
	Put an end to popups!

Skywalker:

Why do you even listen to your teachers in anything but math and physics?

	30-04-2004 08:05									#48
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Wrong again.

When such statements are used in an argument by another person, we accept those too.

quote: An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form: Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S. Person A makes claim C about subject S. Therefore, C is true. This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.

i.e. when the person mentioned is qualified to make such a judgment, it's not a fallacy.

Are you implying that the 52 diplomats are not experts about international diplomacy?

If so

If not, the argument is not fallacious.

Either way - quit wasting people's time by using notions you don't understand properly.

	30-04-2004 08:08									#49
	Support Apolyton

You forgot biology, computer science, and history

In English, I listen to the interpretations and reasoning put forward by the teacher, and then draw my own conclusions. The reason teaching in those subjects is useful is because it suggests answers that the student may not have derived on his own, but it does not mean that the student should accept those answers without question.

EDIT: re fakeboris

	30-04-2004 08:10									#50
	Increase the size of your Attachments

So why don't you tell us your reasoning to back up the claim that 52 experts in international relations are wrong?

	30-04-2004 08:11									#51
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Agathon i.e. when the person mentioned is qualified to make such a judgment, it's not a fallacy.

It refers to facts Aggie, facts. The argument "we should bomb the palestinians back to the stone age" is no more correct from a diplomat than from a rabid xenophobe.

	30-04-2004 08:12									#52
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Oncle Boris So why don't you tell us your reasoning to back up the claim that 52 experts in international relations are wrong?

When did I say they were? I refer you to my second post in this thread:

quote: I didn't argue for or against the letter, Aggie - just pointed out a pretty blatant fallacy in the opening post.

	30-04-2004 08:15									#53
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: but it does not mean that the student should accept those answers without question

Wrong again.

It means that you should accept the answers unless you have good reason to doubt them. If you don't have reason to doubt them, you accept them as that is the truth as far as you know.

But, while you don't have to accept them dogmatically (i.e. you should leave them open to the possibility of being falsified by new evidence), you still have to accept them because you have no good reason not to. Doing this is what people mean by being "open minded"; doubting everything without sufficient reason to do so is just plain idiocy.

	30-04-2004 08:16									#54
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Nothing effective has been done either to move the negotiations forward or to curb the violence. Britain and the other sponsors of the road map merely waited on American leadership, but waited in vain. ... This abandonment of principle comes at a time when rightly or wrongly we are portrayed throughout the Arab and Muslim world as partners in an illegal and brutal occupation in Iraq. ... To describe the resistance as led by terrorists, fanatics and foreigners is neither convincing nor helpful. Policy must take account of the nature and history of Iraq, the most complex country in the region.

Then, derived from these facts, the conclusion about what we should do.

quote: We share your view that the British government has an interest in working as closely as possible with the US on both these related issues, and in exerting real influence as a loyal ally. We believe that the need for such influence is now a matter of the highest urgency. If that is unacceptable or unwelcome there is no case for supporting policies which are doomed to failure.

Facts are used by experts to draw a conclusion. What's your problem today?

	30-04-2004 08:17									#55
	Got spare money?

quote: I didn't argue for or against the letter, Aggie - just pointed out a pretty blatant fallacy in the opening post.

There's no fallacy there, and certainly not a fallacious appeal to authority.

Please tell me what good reason you have to doubt the expertise or sincerity of these people? If not, admit you were wrong and ask your mother to spank you for it.

	30-04-2004 08:22									#56
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Agathon Wrong again. It means that you should accept the answers unless you have good reason to doubt them. If you don't have reason to doubt them, you accept them as that is the truth as far as you know.

Facts, Aggie. With respect to arguments, you listen and evaluate them yourself. You don't automatically doubt it; you just don't accept the fact that they claimed it as an argument for its truthhood.

	30-04-2004 08:24									#57
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Agathon There's no fallacy there, and certainly not a fallacious appeal to authority.

You're opening post makes it clear (to me, at least) that you are trying to say "Bush/Blair = bad because these people say so".

	30-04-2004 08:26									#58
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Facts, Aggie. With respect to arguments, you listen and evaluate them yourself. You don't automatically doubt it; you just don't accept the fact that they claimed it as an argument for its truthhood.

So if your doctor told you that you had cancer, you wouldn't take this as reason to believe it true, even if you had no good reason to doubt him?

The whole point of consulting experts or using their statements in arguments is that we take their expertise as good reason to believe that what they say is true.

	30-04-2004 08:29									#59
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: So if your doctor told you that you had cancer, you wouldn't take this as reason to believe it true, even if you had no good reason to doubt him?

How many times do I have to say it - facts obviously can be justified by an appeal to authority. "You have cancer" is an empirical, scientific fact.

	30-04-2004 08:32									#60
	Remove this text

quote: You're opening post makes it clear (to me, at least) that you are trying to say "Bush/Blair = bad because these people say so".

No. More like "here are some experts in the field who have no underlying political reason to push an anti-Bush/Blair line saying that the policy is wrong. This is good reason for us to strongly consider that they may be right."

That is not a fallacious appeal to authority. Go read up on that particular fallacy - it doesn't mean what you think it means.

What if I'd said, "It's reported that most scientists of high academic reputation who aren't funded by carbon emitting industries say that global warming is a myth"?

Wouldn't you begin to doubt global warming, or can't you trust anyone?