Page 72 of 156 FirstFirst ... 2262707172737482122 ... LastLast
Results 711 to 720 of 1555

Thread: Photos show U.S. GIs posing with dead Afghans[W:1146]

  1. #711
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,513

    re: Photos show U.S. GIs posing with dead Afghans[W:1146]

    Quote Originally Posted by mac View Post
    Odd statement considering I just saw on the news today that the Afghan government is trying to get us to keep a permanent presence in Afghanistan...

    Now, that's a flip flop on their part. Where did you hear that?
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  2. #712
    Sage
    Gimmesometruth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    US Southwest
    Last Seen
    09-13-17 @ 10:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    22,405

    re: Photos show U.S. GIs posing with dead Afghans[W:1146]

    Quote Originally Posted by Republic Now! View Post
    Attacking the speaker is only one form of ad hominem. An ad hominem in general is an argument against the speaker or arguer instead of the argument itself. And yes, saying that my opinion is less significant because I'm not an Afghan is an ad hominem.
    No, it is not since the attack is against the opinions, the comparison is between your opinion and the opinion of Karzia/Afghans. If I say your view is not as valid as mine since you do not share the same experiences as I do, I am not attacking your person, I am attacking your idea that your experience in the matter at hand is better than mine. I could turn it around and claim that your opinion is an "attack" on my person because you think your opinion is better than mine....but it would be stupid for me to substitute an idea or opinion for a person or personal characteristics ( my nose, my face, my IQ....).

    If an attack on anothers' opinion is "ad hominem", then there are "personal attacks" in nearly every post.......so YOU had better inform the mods of these HUGE numbers of "personal attacks".

    An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.
    And note, it is pointing out a negative belief UNRELATED to the belief, opinion or view that is in question. If Cat had said: "Your opinion is invalid because you believe in right to life", that would be an ad hominem.

    If you say: "My opinion of an Afghan restaurant X is more valid that the opinion of Afghans of that restaurant", and we say: "No, that is not valid since you are not eating there.", that would be an ad hominem?

    I don't think so.
    Quote Originally Posted by trouble13 View Post
    If you wanna know why Trumpsters are ignoring you its for the same reason you ignored the KKKs complaints about Obama.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    When it comes down to it, all facts are cherry picked.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    He didn't say it didn't make sense. He said it is complete nonsense.

  3. #713
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    re: Photos show U.S. GIs posing with dead Afghans[W:1146]

    Quote Originally Posted by mac View Post
    Or perhaps you just like to apply the "rules" to the "other side" while claiming (falsely) that you don't break them.
    Refer back to what I told GMST. You're doing it again.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  4. #714
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    re: Photos show U.S. GIs posing with dead Afghans[W:1146]

    Quote Originally Posted by mac View Post
    Actually no. For example, there are no more waivers for not graduating high school....among other things.
    But they did waver for a time? I could look that up if you like.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  5. #715
    Farts in Elevators
    OscarB63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Alabama
    Last Seen
    09-06-14 @ 07:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,526

    re: Photos show U.S. GIs posing with dead Afghans[W:1146]

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    But they did waver for a time? I could look that up if you like.
    yes, but you still had to have a GED...whatever that is worth. that's the sad part, they were so desperate for numbers that they accepted people who had no business being in the military. and they have so pussified basic training that it no longer weeds out the undesirables and misfits. you don't even have to pass a PT test to get out of basic these days.
    The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

    An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.

  6. #716
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    re: Photos show U.S. GIs posing with dead Afghans[W:1146]

    Quote Originally Posted by OscarB63 View Post
    yes, but you still had to have a GED...whatever that is worth. that's the sad part, they were so desperate for numbers that they accepted people who had no business being in the military. and they have so pussified basic training that it no longer weeds out the undesirables and misfits. you don't even have to pass a PT test to get out of basic these days.
    Which si all I was saying. They did lower the standard.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  7. #717
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,351
    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Which si all I was saying. They did lower the standard.


    So oscar waxes ignorance, and you double down....... /facepalm

    http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joini...y/f/faqged.htm
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  8. #718
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,351
    Also note gimmiesumtruth, avoided my direct question on what an atrocity was.... I wonder why?
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  9. #719
    Farts in Elevators
    OscarB63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Alabama
    Last Seen
    09-06-14 @ 07:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,526

    re: Photos show U.S. GIs posing with dead Afghans[W:1146]

    Quote Originally Posted by ReverendHellh0und View Post
    So oscar waxes ignorance, and you double down....... /facepalm

    U.S. Military FAQ -- I have a GED. Am I eligible to join the military?
    of course they don't accept every GED tard who applies...but then again, they don't accept every HS graduate who applies either. the point is, for a time, they accepted people who, if they had applied a few years earlier would have been denied without consideration. they waived crap that never would have been waived pre 2003

    The numbers are shocking when you actually see the scope of the issue:

    Dr. Andrew Krepinevich, a retired Army officer, points out that in 1992 98 percent of recruits had a high school diploma. By 2004, that number had fallen to 86 percent. In 2007, only 79 percent of Army recruits had completed high school. Whereas nearly everyone in the Army had a diploma 15 years earlier, by 2007, fewer than four out five soldiers did.

    In terms of maintaining a professional force, the numbers of "conduct" waivers are even more troubling. For felonies or serious misdemeanors (or three minor misdemeanors), the Army granted entrance waivers to 4.6 percent of its recruits in 2004. That number had more than doubled to 11 percent at the end of 2007. And in the first half of 2008, the number ballooned to 13 percent. To put it starkly, this means that one out of every eight Army recruits now has a criminal record.
    Reclaiming Army Standards
    The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

    An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.

  10. #720
    Guru
    Republic Now!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Seen
    09-12-14 @ 11:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2,671

    re: Photos show U.S. GIs posing with dead Afghans[W:1146]

    Quote Originally Posted by Gimmesometruth View Post
    No, it is not since the attack is against the opinions, the comparison is between your opinion and the opinion of Karzia/Afghans.
    No, it's not an attack, it's an argument based on the arguer instead of the argument itself.


    If I say your view is not as valid as mine since you do not share the same experiences as I do, I am not attacking your person, I am attacking your idea that your experience in the matter at hand is better than mine.
    No, that's sophist drivel. There would be no point in arguing if that was your basis.
    I could turn it around and claim that your opinion is an "attack" on my person because you think your opinion is better than mine....but it would be stupid for me to substitute an idea or opinion for a person or personal characteristics ( my nose, my face, my IQ....).
    Again, ad hominem attacks are only one type. In general, ad hominem is an argument aimed at the arguer instead of the argument.


    If an attack on anothers' opinion is "ad hominem", then there are "personal attacks" in nearly every post.......so YOU had better inform the mods of these HUGE numbers of "personal attacks".
    He didn't attack my "opinion," he claimed I didn't have the authority to say because I'm not an afghan. Yes, that's an ad hominem, it's not an attack on anything, it's basing a counter argument on who I am instead of my argument.

    An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.
    I see you quoted some unnamed source that only gives a brief description. Interestingly enough, even your incomplete definition does not make any claim about an "attack" being a required trait, like you affirm it is.

    See here:
    Informal Structure of ad Hominem

    Person L says argument A.
    Person L's circumstance or character is not satisfactory.
    Argument A is not a good argument.
    Argumentum Ad Hominem -



    And note, it is pointing out a negative belief UNRELATED to the belief, opinion or view that is in question. If Cat had said: "Your opinion is invalid because you believe in right to life", that would be an ad hominem.
    No, just because we're talking about something that happened to happen in the area doesn't make my citizenship there relevant.

    If you say: "My opinion of an Afghan restaurant X is more valid that the opinion of Afghans of that restaurant", and we say: "No, that is not valid since you are not eating there.", that would be an ad hominem?
    Yes, it would, since I could have eaten there in the past, or I could have tasted the food, or I could dislike the food. It depends on what my reason was for the conclusion. Also, constantly stating "opinion" is unnecessary. If I state something, it is implied to be my opinion and focusing so much on anything being an opinion is futile.

    Finally, an individual restaurant and a concept like atrocities are two grossly different things. The Afghan president is not suddenly the authority of what qualifies as an atrocities simply because he governs a country in which the event occurred.
    One who makes himself a worm cannot complain when tread upon.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •