more turmoil in Afghanistan - Page 2

Boris Godunov · March 21, 2004, 19:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Giancarlo
So you think the stadium executions were fine to continue because the taliban stabilized the country?

And where did I say such a thing? Do you and Ted share the same brain, or are strawman arguments just the order of the day?

When did you stop beating your boyfriend?

The stadium executions weren't a sign of instability, they were actually a sign of the opposite--the harsh level of tyrannical control of the Taliban.

Quote:

Wake up man, I did say the taliban stabilized the country..

No, you didn't. You just said there was less fighting, which isn't the same thing. And even the way you said it was deceptive, as the fighting ended in virtually the entire country, except for the 5% controled by the NA. That's not a civil war, that's contained rebels.

alva · March 21, 2004, 19:33

So, let's see if I see your point:

murderous, evil, rotten = great

I'm leaning something new everyday, english is proving to be much more difficult then I thought.

Ted Striker · March 21, 2004, 19:36

The POINT is that people are assinging virtue in the stablity of the Taliban.

Sure they were murderous, evil, and rotten, but at least they were more "stable" than the current regime.

Like somehow that magic stability overshadows everything else and is the magic elixir.

Giancarlo · March 21, 2004, 19:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

And where did I say such a thing? Do you and Ted share the same brain, or are strawman arguments just the order of the day?

I am asking you.. what is your choice.... Karzai or the Taliban? Do you want a stronger Karzai? Or do you want the taliban back?

Quote:

When did you stop beating your boyfriend?

Was that really necessary? That was blatantly rude. I am very nice to him. I am actually an incredibly laid back guy (very shy too) and so is he. I used to have a short temper but I am pretty good at controlling it.

Quote:

The stadium executions weren't a sign of instability, they were actually a sign of the opposite--the harsh level of tyrannical control of the Taliban.

I don't support such control or brutality of women and girls.

Quote:

No, you didn't. You just said there was less fighting, which isn't the same thing. And even the way you said it was deceptive, as the fighting ended in virtually the entire country, except for the 5% controled by the NA.

As I said I don't support either. I support Hamid Karzai. Personally he's a hero of mine, and it goes farther then clothing style (I love his nice hat). There was still fighting but you are right it was minimal. But it was still happening. And yes I totally acknowledge that the taliban stabilized the country.

Quote:

That's not a civil war, that's contained rebels.

Yeah it is.. and?

Drake Tungsten · March 21, 2004, 20:42

Defending the Taliban, Boris?

Giancarlo · March 21, 2004, 21:08

What made me really angry is he supporting women beaters and killers, and at the same time accusing me of hitting my boyfriend. I am deeply offended and hurt. I never realized a gay man can hate women so much. Being a gay man, quite a few of my friends are girls. One has parents who are from Afghanistan though she was born here.

joncha · March 21, 2004, 21:29

Nobody here supported the Taliban. It's just that some of us didn't support the Northern Alliance either.

And Fez, Boris G's remark, "when did you stop beating your boyfriend" refers to the type of argument you are advancing... constructed in such a way as to be impossible to answer (precisely because you never did beat your boyfriend!)

Giancarlo · March 21, 2004, 21:32

Quote:

Originally posted by joncha
Nobody here supported the Taliban. It's just that some of us didn't support the Northern Alliance either.

I even said I support neither, I don't know how much more clear I have to make this. Personally I want all the warlords gone and I want Karzai in firm control.

Quote:

And Fez, Boris G's remark, "when did you stop beating your boyfriend" refers to the type of argument you are advancing... constructed in such a way as to be impossible to answer (precisely because you never did beat your boyfriend!)

That comment went way too far. He could of used a different example. I am just asking for an apology since he said that.

joncha · March 21, 2004, 21:37

Fez, it's an established example: "When did you stop beating your wife?" But since you are not married, and gay, he changed "wife" to "boyfriend."

Your reaction makes about as much sense as you being offended at his "straw man" remark because you aren't made of straw!

Giancarlo · March 21, 2004, 21:38

Quote:

Originally posted by joncha
Fez, it's an established example: "When did you stop beating your wife?" But since you are not married, and gay, he changed "wife" to "boyfriend."

Your reaction makes about as much sense as you being offended at his "straw man" remark because you aren't made of straw!

I don't think so, joncha. Offensive comments like that are not necessary. I am just asking Boris whether he supported the taliban or a stronger Karzai.

joncha · March 21, 2004, 21:44

Here you go, Fez, since you won't take my word for it:

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/loadques.html

Quote:

A "loaded question", like a loaded gun, is a dangerous thing. A loaded question is a question with a false or questionable presupposition, and it is "loaded" with that presumption. The question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" presupposes that you have beaten your wife prior to its asking, as well as that you have a wife. If you are unmarried, or have never beaten your wife, then the question is loaded.
Since this example is a yes/no question, there are only the following two direct answers:

1. "Yes, I have stopped beating my wife", which entails "I was beating my wife."

2. "No, I haven't stopped beating my wife", which entails "I am still beating my wife."

Thus, either direct answer entails that you have beaten your wife, which is, therefore, a presupposition of the question. So, a loaded question is one which you cannot answer directly without implying a falsehood or a statement that you deny. For this reason, the proper response to such a question is not to answer it directly, but to either refuse to answer or to reject the question.

Some systems of parliamentary debate provide for "dividing the question", that is, splitting a complex question up into two or more simple questions. Such a move can be used to split the example as follows:

1. "Have you ever beaten your wife?"

2. "If so, are you still doing so?"

In this way, 1 can be answered directly by "no", and then the conditional question 2 does not arise.

Since a question is not an argument, simply asking a loaded question is not a fallacious argument. Rather, loaded questions are typically used to trick someone into implying something they did not intend. For instance, salespeople learn to ask such loaded questions as: "Will that be cash or charge?" This question gives only two alternatives, thus presuming that the potential buyer has already decided to make a purchase (this is similar to the Black-or-White Fallacy). If the potential buyer answers the question directly, he may suddenly find himself an actual buyer.

Giancarlo · March 21, 2004, 21:46

That's not really relevant. I am just saying his comment was not called for and I am asking for an apology.

Urban Ranger · March 21, 2004, 23:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Ted Striker
The POINT is that people are assinging virtue in the stablity of the Taliban.

Sure they were murderous, evil, and rotten, but at least they were more "stable" than the current regime.

Like somehow that magic stability overshadows everything else and is the magic elixir.

As I pointed out somewhere else, the current "regime" has very little control outside of Kabul. Everywhere else is as bad if not worse than Taliban days. The only difference is it was more stable with less crimes during the Taliban days.

Giancarlo · March 21, 2004, 23:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

As I pointed out somewhere else, the current "regime" has very little control outside of Kabul. Everywhere else is as bad if not worse than Taliban days. The only difference is it was more stable with less crimes during the Taliban days.

And I am saying you are dead wrong. Everything was much worse during the taliban era. Defending the taliban I see?

mrmitchell · March 22, 2004, 00:03

Quote:

Offensive comments like that are not necessary.

You mean like the one in your sig? This one?

Quote:

If you join an anti-Iraq war march you are protesting against the well being of the Iraqi people and are pro-saddam. Filthy traitors

Giancarlo · March 22, 2004, 00:05

Quote:

Originally posted by mrmitchell

You mean like the one in your sig? This one?

It is not offensive because it is the truth.

Boris Godunov · March 22, 2004, 00:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Defending the Taliban, Boris?

I hope you're parodying Fez instead of just being blatantly stupid.

Boris Godunov · March 22, 2004, 00:11

Fez, I'll reiterate what was in my PM: joncha explained what the point of the comment was. It wan't a real accusation as to your affairs with your bf.

However, your stadium statement WAS a real accusation as to what I was supposed to believe, and that was incredibly insulting. So I think you should be apologizing to me for that remark, not the other way around. You can make it in public or private, however you choose.

Giancarlo · March 22, 2004, 00:15

What I find insulting is you try to defend the taliban. I am sorry but this is the way I see it: You do not support Karzai. I do. I see no other alternatives to Karzai. Afghanistan is getting better. Getting rid of the taliban was necessary. I would never apologize to you until you apologize to me.

Boris Godunov · March 22, 2004, 00:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Giancarlo
I don't support such control or brutality of women and girls.

Well, gee, that makes two of us!

Why are you (and apparently Drake) so dense as to think anyone who is critical of how things are going in Afghanistan now means they want the Taliban back? That's called a False Dichotomy, and is another very obvious fallacy. I want Afghanistan peaceful, but I think it has been mishandled a great deal by the U.S. since the invasion. I don't know how often you can parade this strawman argument that if someone doesn't like what they see in Afghanistan now it means they are a Taliban-loving woman-hater. Of course, given that quote in your sig, it's not surprising to see you take such a hysterical, frothed-mouth stance that is utterly devoid of thought.

Boris Godunov · March 22, 2004, 00:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Giancarlo
What I find insulting is you try to defend the taliban. I am sorry but this is the way I see it: You do not support Karzai. I do. I see no other alternatives to Karzai. Afghanistan is getting better. Getting rid of the taliban was necessary. I would never apologize to you until you apologize to me.

Where did I ever defend the Taliban?

Nowhere! Jesus, you are so freaking dense, it's mind-boggling. See above post. See what I wrote on the first freaking page! Notice all that stuff about how I think the Taliban is evil and nasty and supported the Afghanistan war? I know English isn't your first language, but you're eloquent enough, so I can only think this is just willful ignorance on your part.

Now you owe me 2 apologies for claiming, falsely, that I supported/defended the Taliban. I can keep a running score, if you'd like.