• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

No, you just proved again that you totally missed the context of my comments, I gave no opinion on the "atrocity", I commented on "Republics" idea of what an ad hominem is.

Take your hands away from your face..... and read...then think....then respond.

PS....."ring ding"?..... pastry...or the sound a 2-stroke engine makes?



So say it now then. And well be clear. Burning korans or juggling dead savage terrorist bodyparts on you tube are not "attocities".


Agree?

Yes or no.

Thanks
 
My point is these atrocities are turning public sentiment in this country and Afghanistan to an earlier withdrawal.

If a few of the far right don't wish to see these actions as atrocities, they can just keep their heads buried in the sand and be surprised that the Afghans and the Americans demand an early withdrawal of troops from there.

And...... God Bless every one of you guys there who risk their lives to send those mother****ing terrorist to their just rewards in HELL!!! Keep up the good work!

Kill as many as you can :2razz:
 
Perhaps you read too much into comments. See this response by GMST:

Or perhaps you just like to apply the "rules" to the "other side" while claiming (falsely) that you don't break them.
 
Ddin't we lower standards because recuritment was low? Not saying it had anything to with what happened here, but your statement led me to recall smoehting about that.

Actually no. For example, there are no more waivers for not graduating high school....among other things.
 
Afghanistan is certainly not the same culture as Iraq. They are worlds apart.

they're exactly the same if you categorize every country as either us or notus.

Us: The USA, of course, the shining beacon on the hill
Notus: All those other nations, every one either socialist of populated by brown skinned natives.
 
My point is these atrocities are turning public sentiment in this country and Afghanistan to an earlier withdrawal.

If a few of the far right don't wish to see these actions as atrocities, they can just keep their heads buried in the sand and be surprised that the Afghans and the Americans demand an early withdrawal of troops from there.

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...
 
That was a "blatant" attack on your person? Saying that your opinion is not as significant as the view of the leader of Afghanistan on an issue within his own country?

Really?

Wow, the sensitivity and self importance levels are getting pretty high around here.

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. It's a form of red herring, as it does not have any relevance to the actual topic, which is, the categorical classification of an atrocity.

And no, the Afghan leader isn't absolute authority of the definition of atrocity just because it happened in his country. If you don't actually have any valid argument as to WHY it's an atrocity, then sit down. There's no point in having a discussion on a forum if all we're gonna do is say "Oh yeah? Well, this guy said this so you're wrong! Ha!" It's not productive. Again, if you ACTUALLY have a basis to say this is an atrocity, then express it, or, link to someone who expressed it.

And, as I've said before, yes this shouldn't happen. It's a problem that needs to be solved inside the military because it is beneath the standard of behavior set by the US military. Despite this, to say this is an atrocity is absurd. It's not cruel, or unusual, it's just disrespectful.
 
Last edited:
they're exactly the same if you categorize every country as either us or notus.

Us: The USA, of course, the shining beacon on the hill
Notus: All those other nations, every one either socialist of populated by brown skinned natives.

Took me 32 seconds to see that Notus was not a word but a Not Us.
 
they're exactly the same if you categorize every country as either us or notus.

Us: The USA, of course, the shining beacon on the hill
Notus: All those other nations, every one either socialist of populated by brown skinned natives.


No racial component to it Ditto, but nice hackery move there.


j-mac
 
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?
 
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.
 
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. :coffeepap
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Also note gimmiesumtruth, avoided my direct question on what an atrocity was.... I wonder why? :ssst:
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
You are not an Afghan, nor have you ever been....that is the critical fact that you cannot escape.

If an Afghan says that the treatment of a fellow Afghans' body, even if than Afghan is on the other side in civil war, is atrocious (appalling, horrifying), I will value his opinion over yours. It is his cultural view that has more subjective validity over yours.

That is in no way an ad hominem against you, it is simply a fact of LIFE.
 
Last edited:
You are not an Afghan, nor have you ever been....that is the critical fact that you cannot escape.

That's not really relevant.

If an Afghan says that the treatment of a fellow Afghans' body, even if than Afghan is on the other side in civil war, is atrocious (appalling, horrifying), I will value his opinion over yours. It is his cultural view that has more subjective validity over yours.

Subjective validity is an oxymoron, at least in the context you're using it for.

Also, atrocious is not the same thing as an atrocity. One is an adjective, one is a noun. An atrocity holds universally understood weight and throwing the word around and justifying it because "that guy said so" is not only reckless it's unfair.

That is in no way an ad hominem against you, it is simply a fact of LIFE.

I linked you a source on ad hominem. Saying one's argument cannot be valid because of x, x being a property or trait of ones, is an ad hominem. If you don't find the source adequate, I'll find you another.
 
That's not really relevant.
It is totally relevant, you were making the same argument about the subjective nature of the observer. You are not of that culture, nor have you ever been, you cannot have a more valid POV.



Subjective validity is an oxymoron, at least in the context you're using it for.
No, the terms are not contradictory, at all. In fact you canot even bring yourself to explain how they contradict. Atrocious is totally subjective, the question, again, comes down to who has the most valid view. It is not you as already explained, and that is still not an ad hominem. It is a fact of life.

Also, atrocious is not the same thing as an atrocity. One is an adjective, one is a noun. An atrocity holds universally understood weight and throwing the word around and justifying it because "that guy said so" is not only reckless it's unfair.
LOL....

Atrocity:
1: the quality or state of being atrocious
2: an atrocious act

That is totally in the eye of the beholder. You claim it is not atrocious, the Afghan president says it is. Who has the most valid viewpoint when it concerns an Afghan. You have the audacity to claim a better understanding of their culture, their POV?



I linked you a source on ad hominem. Saying one's argument cannot be valid because of x, x being a property or trait of ones, is an ad hominem. If you don't find the source adequate, I'll find you another.
Do what ever you like, it won't change the fact that you cannot have a superior Afghan POV.
 
It is totally relevant, you were making the same argument about the subjective nature of the observer. You are not of that culture, nor have you ever been, you cannot have a more valid POV.

Where did I make that argument?


No, the terms are not contradictory, at all.

In fact you canot even bring yourself to explain how they contradict.
Subjectivity is the feelings held by the observer, IE, the individual perceiving the object. These are varying and hold no credence to reality. Validity is rational following of a logical assertion. Subjectivity cannot be properly measured, as it is neither bound by the truth nor is it an effective measure for truth, and as such, arguing "subjective validity" is absurd.

Atrocious is totally subjective, the question, again, comes down to who has the most valid view.

No, atrocious is not "totally subjective." If it were, we couldn't use it as a word. We use it as a word because it holds meaning, and recklessly using the word in a context that does not call for it is very disingenuous.

It is not you as already explained
What do you mean by that?


LOL....

Atrocity:
1: the quality or state of being atrocious
2: an atrocious act

Fair enough, stating both are reckless. Interesting that the definition is no longer subjective, however. I guess it's totally subjective but not TOTALLY subjective.



That is totally in the eye of the beholder.

Then how do we use it as a word? There is a common understanding buddy. That's how words work!

You claim it is not atrocious, the Afghan president says it is.

Yes, and I explained why. What is the Afghan's presidents reasoning?

Who has the most valid viewpoint
Whoever brings forth the most valid reasoning.

when it concerns an Afghan.

How is this relevant?

You have the audacity to claim a better understanding of their culture, their POV?
Their culture is irrelevant. What's relevant is the commonly held weight of the word atrocity, which is blind to their cultural conventions. Furthermore, I claim no such thing. I simply put forward an opposition, and, instead of actually addressing the opposition, you all go on this sophistic rant. I'm more than open to reconsidering my viewpoint, but the problem is, you've presented nothing to make me reconsider it except saying I can't know because I'm not him, which is absurd.

Do what ever you like, it won't change the fact that you cannot have a superior Afghan POV.

So basically you absolutely refuse to even acknowledge the thousands of years of thought given to the subject and instead come in on your own tear about how it's okay that I can't contradict mr.x because I'm not him? Is it audacious to do such a thing? Oh wait, no because it's subjective! But wait, if it's subjective, how can any position be audacious? Because, ya know, words are totally subjective. But wait! If words are totally subjective, how can any use of any word at any time be wrong? Oh, subjective is subjective! Of course!

If you actually want to have an argument about something, say so. Otherwise, you and Catawba can play words with each other all night long by yourselves.
 
Back
Top Bottom