Status of Iraq

[Adron]

Adron: Don't twist the meaning of my statements. To clarify for those who were confused about that and misunderstood: When I said "You can't prove any of this since you are a dumb individual." I meant that he was dumb for making a post like that because of his inability to prove his statements.

I am merely pointing out that when you sink to personal assaults, and start saying that properties of his person is the reason he will not be able to prove this or that, then you essentially are not commenting on his claims. Or, indicating that as you cannot refute his claims, you need to attack his person instead.

[Explicit]

Ad hominems?

[iago]

Well, I think there is some justification to why somebody in Canada (or England, or Sweden) might know more about the US than US citizens.  When you're inside a box, you don't know what the box looks like; all you see are edges, not the full shape.  If you're really close to a TV or monitor, all you see is the dots, you don't see the full picture.  It seems to me that the same goes for a country: if you're too close or inside it, you miss the full picture. 

To put it another way, and to use arguments that Americans use against other countries: you're brainwashed by your government.  So is everybody.  We all think what we're told to think.  You believe what you've been programmed to believe.  You will certainly disagree, and argue that your country is the ONLY one that's not brainwashed.  You'll argue that your country is the ONLY one where people can think for themselves.  And that's the first mistake.  Everybody in every country thinks that they are thinking clearly, without being influenced by anybody, but realistically, you're a sum of what you've been taught, and what you've been taught comes directly from your country. 

I will admit that I'm "brainwashed" with Canadian ideals.  I'm sure Arta and Adron will admit that they buy into their English or Swedish ideals.  That's fine, that's what people do.  But Americans have trouble admitting that, because what they've been taught is that they're free.  If you've been told that what you have is freedom from the time you're born, then of course you're going to believe it, and whenever you are told that your freedom is threatened, you will react violently.  That's what you and everybody in your country (and my country) has been programmed to do. 

As I said, I know you'll disagree with this.  It's hard to argue against it, though, because I can argue that you've been brainwashed to not believe this type of thing. 

[Invert]

Adron: Don't twist the meaning of my statements. To clarify for those who were confused about that and misunderstood: When I said "You can't prove any of this since you are a dumb individual." I meant that he was dumb for making a post like that because of his inability to prove his statements.

I am merely pointing out that when you sink to personal assaults, and start saying that properties of his person is the reason he will not be able to prove this or that, then you essentially are not commenting on his claims. Or, indicating that as you cannot refute his claims, you need to attack his person instead.

I did comment on his claims and I did refute his claims, the personal assault was an added bonus. And what do you mean by "sink"? Please don't give me your opinion of what's right and wrong since I do not care much for it.

iago: I can argue that you have been brainwashed to believe that I am brainwashed and to think what you think about Americans. Pointless.

Also let me ask you this: Do you think that someone else knows you better than you know yourself because they can see you from the outside?

[Adron]

I did comment on his claims and I did refute his claims, the personal assault was an added bonus. And what do you mean by "sink"? Please don't give me your opinion of what's right and wrong since I do not care much for it.

I would hold it commonly accepted that using assaults on a person in a debate is low. Although, with the differences between American culture and everywhere else, it is quite possible that slinging mud on your opponents is accepted practise over there.

iago: I can argue that you have been brainwashed to believe that I am brainwashed and to think what you think about Americans. Pointless.

The difference is that there are more of us outside America than of you inside. So we win the argument democratically simply by our numbers.

Also let me ask you this: Do you think that someone else knows you better than you know yourself because they can see you from the outside?

Yes, that sounds correct. I would not say that any people are qualified to properly analyze themselves.

[Topaz]

Hahahahahahahah that guy isn't posting anymore.

[CrAz3D]

iago, but since you're that close to the box/TV wouldnt you know more about its structure & more detail about it?  Countries other than our own have a general view of the US, we have a more precise view...as I see it

[Invert]

I would hold it commonly accepted that using assaults on a person in a debate is low. Although, with the differences between American culture and everywhere else, it is quite possible that slinging mud on your opponents is accepted practise over there.

Once again, this is your personal opinion that I don't care much for.

Swedes should be forbidden to talk about morality and what is right and wrong since they were the people who profited form the Holocaust converting Nazi gold into Swedish crowns. Not to mention providing iron ore and ball bearings to Nazis. Also Swedish documents reveal that some Swedes actually sided with the Nazis and volunteered to fight for Hitler. Some Swedes were members of the Waffen SS and served in police battalions.

The difference is that there are more of us outside America than of you inside. So we win the argument democratically simply by our numbers.

You are right there are more people outside America but you do not know how many agree with you and iago. I'm glad you proclaim yourself a winner, good for you. I'm sure this will help you convince people.

Yes, that sounds correct. I would not say that any people are qualified to properly analyze themselves.

So you are telling me that a friend of yours would know you better than you would know yourself and in a case where I would want to know your deepest thoughts and feeling I should go ask your friend?
Since you decide who is qualified and who is not, thank you for your opinion doctor of psychology.

[Adron]

I would hold it commonly accepted that using assaults on a person in a debate is low. Although, with the differences between American culture and everywhere else, it is quite possible that slinging mud on your opponents is accepted practise over there.

Once again, this is your personal opinion that I don't care much for.

Just to show that there are actually more people considering personal assaults wrong in an argument, I provide this here link to the ad hominem logical fallacy in wikipedia.

Swedes should be forbidden to talk about morality and what is right and wrong since they were the people who profited form the Holocaust converting Nazi gold into Swedish crowns. Not to mention providing iron ore and ball bearings to Nazis. Also Swedish documents reveal that some Swedes actually sided with the Nazis and volunteered to fight for Hitler. Some Swedes were members of the Waffen SS and served in police battalions.

What would be the reason for forbidding that? Was it morally wrong to serve in Waffen SS? Would you say that all germans should be forbidden to talk about morality? Obviously, all americans would have to be forbidden from talking about morality, since they are the only ones ever to drop an a-bomb?

The difference is that there are more of us outside America than of you inside. So we win the argument democratically simply by our numbers.

You are right there are more people outside America but you do not know how many agree with you and iago. I'm glad you proclaim yourself a winner, good for you. I'm sure this will help you convince people.

Absolutely. Convincing you is a good start, having done that, I am sure everyone else will be convinced easily.

So you are telling me that a friend of yours would know you better than you would know yourself and in a case where I would want to know your deepest thoughts and feeling I should go ask your friend?
Since you decide who is qualified and who is not, thank you for your opinion doctor of psychology.

If you wanted an objective analysis of me, I would recommend that you have someone other than myself perform the analysis yes. And thank you for acknowledging my superiority.

[Charlie]

Lmao, Adron you own. Dude all you do is state facts. Your a good debater man. 

[Explicit]

Charlie, don't instigate.

[Charlie]

I'm not really instigateing v_v; All I was doing was commenting on Adron's debateing skills. I don't think that's really Instigateing, or is it o_O;

[Explicit]

If you're not trying to instigate, then just PM him since it's on a more personal level.  You give off the notion that you're taking sides, and unless it's something important to add to the debate, it's not really worth mentioning since all it does is set yourself up for attacks.  I'm sure that's not what you want.

[Charlie]

Good point...I'll do that Next time I'm sorry. 

[Invert]

Just to show that there are actually more people considering personal assaults wrong in an argument, I provide this here link to the ad hominem logical fallacy in wikipedia.

Congratulations on your great debate skills in proving to me something that we were not even arguing about.

I never stated that other people don't share your opinion. If you lack the understanding of what I meant when I said "your personal opinion" let me clarify.

I did not mean that it's solely yours; I said that it was your personal opinion to differentiate it from my personal opinion.

What you should do is back up this statement: "Although, with the differences between American culture and everywhere else, it is quite possible that slinging mud on your opponents is accepted practise over there."

What would be the reason for forbidding that? Was it morally wrong to serve in Waffen SS? Would you say that all germans should be forbidden to talk about morality? Obviously, all americans would have to be forbidden from talking about morality, since they are the only ones ever to drop an a-bomb?

Forbidding this would prevent you from being a hypocrite. I don't see any Germans arguing with me about how we should treat people.

It's funny you mention the a-bomb. I recently watched a program on the history channel where they were discussing how the dropping of the a-bomb had saved more American and Japanese lives than it destroyed. By dropping the a-bomb America was able to put a quick end to the war instead of prolonging it for many more months. Because of this there was no need for American troops to invade Japan and fight many more battles where many civilian and military lives would have been lost.

Absolutely. Convincing you is a good start, having done that, I am sure everyone else will be convinced easily.

There is nothing you have said so far that would sway me in believing in what you believe.
The only way you can convince me is by proving to me that more people in the world believe that Americans are brainwashed and everyone else knows more about Americans than Americans do.

You have not provided any factual evidence to support your argument.

If you wanted an objective analysis of me, I would recommend that you have someone other than myself perform the analysis yes. And thank you for acknowledging my superiority.

I did not ask for an objective analysis of you, I asked for your deepest thoughts and feelings. Answer the question. Would I ask you or your friend?

I have never acknowledged your superiority to anyone. Mocking you because you try to pass your opinion as some professional opinion is not considered acknowledging your superiority.