"I am sure everything what we discuss here is also censored by U.S goveronment as well."
And you would be wrong.
"And you also will be F***ed talking about what really happened in iraq."
Right. Because you can't find ANYONE who denounces the US on a regular basis in the US, especially on Slashdot...
Let me ask you a question.
Why is it a dick measuring contest for you, pitting the US against China? Why is it that the only way you can think of "freedom" is to compare it to another country?
"Wow...the wheels have certainly come off now, haven't they?"
At least you've finally admitted it.
"My original statement directed you to check the documentary 'OutFOXed' to see how Rupert Murdoch has prostituted his 'news' program in the service of his right-wing ideology. You claimed this as an ad hominem"
Um why are you linking to a link I provided you first? And most certainly is an ad hominem in specific
"Ad hominem circumstantial
Ad hominem circumstantial involves pointing out that someone is in circumstances such that he is disposed to take a particular position. Essentially, circumstantial ad hominem constitutes an attack on the bias of a person. The reason that this is fallacious is that it simply does not make one's opponent's arguments, from a logical point of view, any less credible to point out that one's opponent is disposed to argue that way. Such arguments are not necessarily irrational, but are not correct in strict logic. This illustrates one of the differences between rationality and logic."
But if you'd read my link you'd know that.
"Sure sounds like a defense"
No, it doesn't. It sounds like you made a claim that was in fact a logical fallacy and I corrected you. Which makes it even funnier that you're still wrong about it.'
At no point did I mention Rupert Murdoch. You did that, and I didn't even address him. I understand you needed to find something, but you look pretty silly making the case that I defended Murdoch by telling you you used a logical fallacy.
It had N-O-T-H-I-N-G to do with Rupert Murdoch, and everything to do with your use of the circumstantial ad hominem. The statement would not have changed if you'd put any name in there.
I realize you feel a deep need not to be wrong, but you are. I've never seen anyone try so hard to distort one statement into something totally related.
"You also defended Rupert indirectly by denying my assertion that FOX news is incapable of generating an unbiased story"
Rupert Murdoch IS NOT Fox. Rupert Murdoch IS NOT Fox. Rupert Murdoch IS NOT Fox. Rupert Murdoch IS NOT Fox.
Is that clear enough? Or are you going to continue to insist that a person is equivalent to a braodcasting company?
Is your intellect capable of differentiating, or do you nopt have the ability to understand such differences.
You know, how one is a human and the other is a fucking company?
You claimed I defended MURDOCH, not fox, not reporters, MURDOCH. Now, apparently, since you were wrong abou tthat, you have to play fox reporters=fox news=rupert murdoch. But you know that doesn't fly, no matter how much distortion you try.
And all you've done since is a silly dance, in which not a single word has demonstrated your point. Oh, and you linked to an article that refutes your insistence that you didn't use an ad hominem. That was really funny.
I appreciate that you hate being wrong. But you are, and all the pathetic word twisting in the world, all the sad, meaningless insults won't change it.
How does it feel to choke on your own link, little fella?
Um, Rupert Murdoch isn't a logical fallacy, so ???
on
Alaa Has Been Detained
·
· Score: 1
"Check here to see just how much Rupert Murdoch has prostituted..."
Ok, then you can check here, and you'll understand why your point is a glaringly obvious logical fallacy.
Done."
Where in that statement is there anything even addressing Rupert Murdoch by anyone other than YOU?
What the fuck did you think you demonstrated there? I referred to a logical fallacy you were using, as evidenced by the fact that I said
"Ok, then you can check here, and you'll understand why your point is a glaringly obvious logical fallacy."
So, please explain how anyone but you can see that as a defense of Rupert Murdoch. Is he a logical fallacy? What the fuck are you talking about?
That makes no sense at all.
Really, is it so hard for you to admit you were wrong? It's pretty pathetic watching you play six degrees of defending Rupert Murdoch.
Hey, if I'm a Dodgers fan, does that mean Fox can't air unbiased stories too?
Maybe try to write a coherent post this time instead of quoting a totally unrelated point as though you demonstrated anything other than how far you'll distort reality.
Really man, you're just sad now. I never defended Murdoch. The quote you chose makes it pretty clear you know that, otherwise you'd have something by me that is even remotely related to Murdoch.
You don't. So act like a man and admit it instead of blindly flailing about, seeking anything at all that will draw attention from the fact that you're making shit up out of thin air.
"The no-fly zones were illegal creations of the U.S. and Great Britain;"
I really couldn't care less when they dropped out, you intentionally amended the quote, in order to leave France out.
Since your quote addresses who created the NFZ's, you lied by omission.
"When said pilots are in Iraqi airspace illegally, no, it's not a threat to the U.S."
Again, where does this logic come from? Are they US planes and pilots? Explain how a threat to US planes and pilots isn't a threat to the US. Explain how their location has anything at all to do with this. Explain how something that can cause millions of dollars of damage and deaths of personnel isn't a threat.
And this time, "nu uh" won't do as an answer. Try to avoid "because I said so" and "I'm the mommy that's why" also, as they are simply variations of your current argument.
You see, what you've done is a classic case of using a straw man.
"If you've actually watched OutFOXed, and you still persist in defending Rupert,"
Do me a favor, quote the exact place where I defended Rupert Murdoch. Just one quote will do. No exposition, no soliloquy, no unrelated rants, just the quote where I defended Rupert Murdoch please.
Then explain how my defense of individual stories is equivalent to a defense of Rupert Murdoch.
Then explain why you insist on acting as though they are the same.
Then explain why you think anyone should pay attention to your opinion when you're incapable of telling the difference.
One last thing, a spelling error? Is that the only way you could refute me? Really man, a typo makes you think you've proven something? How sad and empty is your life that your best argument to a resounding defeat of your position is to go spell checking?
"If you actually watched OutFOXed [outfoxed.org], you wouldn't bother trying to maintain that FOX News is capable of generating an unbiased story."
I have and I do. But that's because I use my brian instead of relying on movies to do my thinking for me like you have. So, now that I've disproved that bit of nonsense, what next?
"If your opponent has truly 'lost', then you shouldn't have to state in your post. Making that assertion without any support only makes you look stupid"
That would, ordanarily, be true. You however are a special case. It's pretty clear from your repeated use of logical fallacy, your reliance on irrational argument, and your desire to obfuscate fact, that I cannot depend on you knowing that you've lost. In fact, your repeated linking to a piece of propaganda makes it clear that you need others to think for you.
Rather than address my point, you use an ad hominem. How many troll mods do I currently have, chief? Right, zero.
So, any more ad hominems to toss about, or are you through?
"I'm not trying to suggest anything here,"
Really, then what's the next statement you make?
"but I feel it would be best if he was run out of his current account in the same manner as he was run out of his last account."
So you are trying to suggest something. Why preface your statement with a lie?
"This would have the ancillary benefit of temporarily stopping him stalking me as well."
Do I know you? Who the fuck are you? I am, amazingly, not ever concerned with the poster, because I deal with the comments.
So, who are you again? Have you and I even had a discussion before? How would I know you? Where would I remember you from? Why do you think anything you've said or done would be important enough for me to waste my time following you around? Right...
So, now that we're done with that bit, address my points. It was funny how you tried to divert attention like that, epsecially the "stalking" bit, but please address my points.
Or not. It's pretty clear you can't, so you resorted to the ad hominem.
"The no-fly zones were illegal creations of the U.S. and Great Britain;"
and France. I notice you conveniently left them out. Why shouldn't we totally discount your opinion in light of that lie (by omission)?
"a sovereign nation shooting at hostile aircraft that violate its airspace is not creating a threat to the violating nation."
So, shooting down US pilots isn't a threat to the US? Where does this logic come from? Despite the fact the they may be the "violating nation" it's still a threat to them.
"It basically means that we can't do anything they don't like, or they can fuck our economy, or at the very least turn off the money, and we won't find another country to borrow money from."
What a dumb, wrong statement. The Chinese economy can't "fuck" our economy without "fucking" their own. What do you think all that debt is the result of, econogenius? Chinese benevolence?
We buy their stuff. If they try to fuck us, we don't buy it anymore. If you think there won't be a line to take the place of the Chinese in supplying the US, you're a fool.
Don't allow yourself to remain as ignorant as you are. Read about the subject.
"Not as impressive as the development of the Zulfiqar main battle tank or the Raad-2 self propelled artillery."
Wow, I mean, developing a tank that is two generations behind current designs, and an anti-tank missile that is 45 years old in design, just wow. Amazing.
Why does that impress you? Because they successfully copied designs they had acces to?
The fact that those "accompplishments" impress you says more about your ignorance of weapons technology than it does about Iranian military advancement.
"The early universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with an incredibly high energy density and concomitantly huge temperatures and pressures. It expanded and cooled, going through phase transitions analogous to the condensation of steam or freezing of water as it cools, but related to elementary particles.
Approximately 10-35 seconds after the Planck epoch a phase transition caused the universe to experience exponential growth during a period called cosmic inflation. After inflation stopped, the material components of the universe were in the form of a quark-gluon plasma (also including all other particles--and perhaps experimentally produced recently as a quark-gluon liquid [3]) in which the constituent particles were all moving relativistically. As the universe continued growing in size, the temperature dropped. At a certain temperature, by an as-yet-unknown transition called baryogenesis, the quarks and gluons combined into baryons such as protons and neutrons, somehow producing the observed asymmetry between matter and antimatter. Still lower temperatures led to further symmetry breaking phase transitions that put the forces of physics and elementary particles into their present form. Later, some protons and neutrons combined to form the universe's deuterium and helium nuclei in a process called Big Bang nucleosynthesis. As the universe cooled, matter gradually stopped moving relativistically and its rest mass energy density came to gravitationally dominate that of radiation. After about 300,000 years the electrons and nuclei combined into atoms (mostly hydrogen); hence the radiation decoupled from matter and continued through space largely unimpeded. This relic radiation is the cosmic microwave background."
Slashdot Mirror
"I am sure everything what we discuss here is also censored by U.S goveronment as well."
And you would be wrong.
"And you also will be F***ed talking about what really happened in iraq."
Right. Because you can't find ANYONE who denounces the US on a regular basis in the US, especially on Slashdot...
Let me ask you a question.
Why is it a dick measuring contest for you, pitting the US against China? Why is it that the only way you can think of "freedom" is to compare it to another country?
I am going to post a phrase. You post the same phrase. We will continue this game until one of us is arrested.
Phrase
"China is a tyrannical dictatorship, and I will begin overthrowing it immediately"
Your turn.
"So, by this logic..."
We're talking about law and international relations. What logic?
"You are entirely correct. I've been trolling most egregiously."
Fixed that for you.
"GuloGulo, feeding time is over. Hope you got your fill."
I can never have enough of showing you you're wrong. Any time in the future you need it done again, let me know.
No part of that post was a troll. I always get a kick out of loser mods who know I'm right, but can't refute it so they mod me down.
How sad that you morons won't post your thoughts, but instead abuse your fuckingmod points.
"Honestly I sometimes just browse through your posting history for chuckles"
Honestly, I've never heard anything more pathetic. How could your life be so empty that you'd waste time getting chuckles from a "stalker"?
One other thing, your link, that's not my comment. Pretty funny that you can't even get that right...
And you're still afraid to address my points.
"Wow...the wheels have certainly come off now, haven't they?"
At least you've finally admitted it.
"My original statement directed you to check the documentary 'OutFOXed' to see how Rupert Murdoch has prostituted his 'news' program in the service of his right-wing ideology. You claimed this as an ad hominem"
Um why are you linking to a link I provided you first? And most certainly is an ad hominem in specific
"Ad hominem circumstantial
Ad hominem circumstantial involves pointing out that someone is in circumstances such that he is disposed to take a particular position. Essentially, circumstantial ad hominem constitutes an attack on the bias of a person. The reason that this is fallacious is that it simply does not make one's opponent's arguments, from a logical point of view, any less credible to point out that one's opponent is disposed to argue that way. Such arguments are not necessarily irrational, but are not correct in strict logic. This illustrates one of the differences between rationality and logic."
But if you'd read my link you'd know that.
"Sure sounds like a defense"
No, it doesn't. It sounds like you made a claim that was in fact a logical fallacy and I corrected you. Which makes it even funnier that you're still wrong about it.'
At no point did I mention Rupert Murdoch. You did that, and I didn't even address him. I understand you needed to find something, but you look pretty silly making the case that I defended Murdoch by telling you you used a logical fallacy.
It had N-O-T-H-I-N-G to do with Rupert Murdoch, and everything to do with your use of the circumstantial ad hominem. The statement would not have changed if you'd put any name in there.
I realize you feel a deep need not to be wrong, but you are. I've never seen anyone try so hard to distort one statement into something totally related.
"You also defended Rupert indirectly by denying my assertion that FOX news is incapable of generating an unbiased story"
Rupert Murdoch IS NOT Fox. Rupert Murdoch IS NOT Fox. Rupert Murdoch IS NOT Fox. Rupert Murdoch IS NOT Fox.
Is that clear enough? Or are you going to continue to insist that a person is equivalent to a braodcasting company?
Is your intellect capable of differentiating, or do you nopt have the ability to understand such differences.
You know, how one is a human and the other is a fucking company?
You claimed I defended MURDOCH, not fox, not reporters, MURDOCH. Now, apparently, since you were wrong abou tthat, you have to play fox reporters=fox news=rupert murdoch. But you know that doesn't fly, no matter how much distortion you try.
And all you've done since is a silly dance, in which not a single word has demonstrated your point. Oh, and you linked to an article that refutes your insistence that you didn't use an ad hominem. That was really funny.
I appreciate that you hate being wrong. But you are, and all the pathetic word twisting in the world, all the sad, meaningless insults won't change it.
How does it feel to choke on your own link, little fella?
"Check here to see just how much Rupert Murdoch has prostituted..."
Ok, then you can check here, and you'll understand why your point is a glaringly obvious logical fallacy.
Done."
Where in that statement is there anything even addressing Rupert Murdoch by anyone other than YOU?
What the fuck did you think you demonstrated there? I referred to a logical fallacy you were using, as evidenced by the fact that I said
"Ok, then you can check here, and you'll understand why your point is a glaringly obvious logical fallacy."
So, please explain how anyone but you can see that as a defense of Rupert Murdoch. Is he a logical fallacy? What the fuck are you talking about?
That makes no sense at all.
Really, is it so hard for you to admit you were wrong? It's pretty pathetic watching you play six degrees of defending Rupert Murdoch.
Hey, if I'm a Dodgers fan, does that mean Fox can't air unbiased stories too?
Maybe try to write a coherent post this time instead of quoting a totally unrelated point as though you demonstrated anything other than how far you'll distort reality.
Really man, you're just sad now. I never defended Murdoch. The quote you chose makes it pretty clear you know that, otherwise you'd have something by me that is even remotely related to Murdoch.
You don't. So act like a man and admit it instead of blindly flailing about, seeking anything at all that will draw attention from the fact that you're making shit up out of thin air.
"Of course, you could not have asked a man born 2000 years ago to do anything."
Well, if he was the incarnation of an omnipotent, omniscient being, why the fuck not?
"The no-fly zones were illegal creations of the U.S. and Great Britain;"
I really couldn't care less when they dropped out, you intentionally amended the quote, in order to leave France out.
Since your quote addresses who created the NFZ's, you lied by omission.
"When said pilots are in Iraqi airspace illegally, no, it's not a threat to the U.S."
Again, where does this logic come from? Are they US planes and pilots? Explain how a threat to US planes and pilots isn't a threat to the US. Explain how their location has anything at all to do with this. Explain how something that can cause millions of dollars of damage and deaths of personnel isn't a threat.
And this time, "nu uh" won't do as an answer. Try to avoid "because I said so" and "I'm the mommy that's why" also, as they are simply variations of your current argument.
You see, what you've done is a classic case of using a straw man.
"If you've actually watched OutFOXed, and you still persist in defending Rupert,"
Do me a favor, quote the exact place where I defended Rupert Murdoch. Just one quote will do. No exposition, no soliloquy, no unrelated rants, just the quote where I defended Rupert Murdoch please.
Then explain how my defense of individual stories is equivalent to a defense of Rupert Murdoch.
Then explain why you insist on acting as though they are the same.
Then explain why you think anyone should pay attention to your opinion when you're incapable of telling the difference.
One last thing, a spelling error? Is that the only way you could refute me? Really man, a typo makes you think you've proven something? How sad and empty is your life that your best argument to a resounding defeat of your position is to go spell checking?
"I hope you enjoyed those downmods on your last account, I must confess to being responsible for a couple of them myself."
So who is stalking who, there bunky?
"Just on a point of interest, a logged in user can see all of your comments"
Then count em up, chief. Don't give a stupid excuse why you can't, do it.
And you still didn't address my points. Over and over, you throw around insults, but not once did you address any of my points.
Why? Because, as I've stated, you can't. When pressed to respond with something other than an incoherent rant, you fail.
Just this once, rise above your obvious cognitive limitations and address my points.
"If you actually watched OutFOXed [outfoxed.org], you wouldn't bother trying to maintain that FOX News is capable of generating an unbiased story."
I have and I do. But that's because I use my brian instead of relying on movies to do my thinking for me like you have. So, now that I've disproved that bit of nonsense, what next?
"If your opponent has truly 'lost', then you shouldn't have to state in your post. Making that assertion without any support only makes you look stupid"
That would, ordanarily, be true. You however are a special case. It's pretty clear from your repeated use of logical fallacy, your reliance on irrational argument, and your desire to obfuscate fact, that I cannot depend on you knowing that you've lost. In fact, your repeated linking to a piece of propaganda makes it clear that you need others to think for you.
That is why I had to tell you that you lost.
And why it's true.
Rather than address my point, you use an ad hominem. How many troll mods do I currently have, chief? Right, zero.
So, any more ad hominems to toss about, or are you through?
"I'm not trying to suggest anything here,"
Really, then what's the next statement you make?
"but I feel it would be best if he was run out of his current account in the same manner as he was run out of his last account."
So you are trying to suggest something. Why preface your statement with a lie?
"This would have the ancillary benefit of temporarily stopping him stalking me as well."
Do I know you? Who the fuck are you? I am, amazingly, not ever concerned with the poster, because I deal with the comments.
So, who are you again? Have you and I even had a discussion before? How would I know you? Where would I remember you from? Why do you think anything you've said or done would be important enough for me to waste my time following you around? Right...
So, now that we're done with that bit, address my points. It was funny how you tried to divert attention like that, epsecially the "stalking" bit, but please address my points.
Or not. It's pretty clear you can't, so you resorted to the ad hominem.
"A news organization that is biased is no longer objective"
But their individual stories could be.
Oops!
And while you're at it, look up ad hominem and stop relying on them in your arguments.
"Check here to see just how much Rupert Murdoch has prostituted..."
Ok, then you can check here, and you'll understand why your point is a glaringly obvious logical fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Sorry bud, you lost.
"The no-fly zones were illegal creations of the U.S. and Great Britain;"
and France. I notice you conveniently left them out. Why shouldn't we totally discount your opinion in light of that lie (by omission)?
"a sovereign nation shooting at hostile aircraft that violate its airspace is not creating a threat to the violating nation."
So, shooting down US pilots isn't a threat to the US? Where does this logic come from? Despite the fact the they may be the "violating nation" it's still a threat to them.
"What a joke. Especially since the bias has been admitted [slate.com] by Fox itself."
So because a news organiziation admits bias, that automatically moots all their points?
What a stupid position.
"Saddam's regime was no threat whatsoever to Americans."
What the fuck?
A country with vast oil wealth, run by a tyrant, who openly hates America.
What kind of idiot would think such a place is "no threat whatsoever" to Americans?
I'm not pro war, and I'm not pro Bush, but that statement is just unrealistic in the extreme.
I'm not sure what the US has to do with any of this, or why you brought it up other than to troll.
This is about C-A-N-A-D-I-A-N-S. Canada, despite many people's misconceptions, is not part of the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada
Ignorance is not bliss, so do yourself a favor and read the link. Hopefully you won't make the mistake again.
"It basically means that we can't do anything they don't like, or they can fuck our economy, or at the very least turn off the money, and we won't find another country to borrow money from."
What a dumb, wrong statement. The Chinese economy can't "fuck" our economy without "fucking" their own. What do you think all that debt is the result of, econogenius? Chinese benevolence?
We buy their stuff. If they try to fuck us, we don't buy it anymore. If you think there won't be a line to take the place of the Chinese in supplying the US, you're a fool.
Don't allow yourself to remain as ignorant as you are. Read about the subject.
"Not as impressive as the development of the Zulfiqar main battle tank or the Raad-2 self propelled artillery."
Wow, I mean, developing a tank that is two generations behind current designs, and an anti-tank missile that is 45 years old in design, just wow. Amazing.
Why does that impress you? Because they successfully copied designs they had acces to?
The fact that those "accompplishments" impress you says more about your ignorance of weapons technology than it does about Iranian military advancement.
"And pretty soon, they are going to have thermonuclear weapons, and theres not a lot anyone can do about it"
I wouldn't call "a thorough and complete nuking by Israel" nothing.
That is the reality, and the contingency we should be planning for.
http://www.wikipedia.org/
Look it up for yourself.
From wiki
"The early universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with an incredibly high energy density and concomitantly huge temperatures and pressures. It expanded and cooled, going through phase transitions analogous to the condensation of steam or freezing of water as it cools, but related to elementary particles.
Approximately 10-35 seconds after the Planck epoch a phase transition caused the universe to experience exponential growth during a period called cosmic inflation. After inflation stopped, the material components of the universe were in the form of a quark-gluon plasma (also including all other particles--and perhaps experimentally produced recently as a quark-gluon liquid [3]) in which the constituent particles were all moving relativistically. As the universe continued growing in size, the temperature dropped. At a certain temperature, by an as-yet-unknown transition called baryogenesis, the quarks and gluons combined into baryons such as protons and neutrons, somehow producing the observed asymmetry between matter and antimatter. Still lower temperatures led to further symmetry breaking phase transitions that put the forces of physics and elementary particles into their present form. Later, some protons and neutrons combined to form the universe's deuterium and helium nuclei in a process called Big Bang nucleosynthesis. As the universe cooled, matter gradually stopped moving relativistically and its rest mass energy density came to gravitationally dominate that of radiation. After about 300,000 years the electrons and nuclei combined into atoms (mostly hydrogen); hence the radiation decoupled from matter and continued through space largely unimpeded. This relic radiation is the cosmic microwave background."
It was energy first.
"As a believer in the Bible, I truly believe" in fairy tales.
There, I fixed it for you.