I'm almost certainly less wrong than you.
The obvious effects are not always the main intentions.
Printable View
Funny how every argument with you about how shitty a POTUS Trump is turns into some version of 'what about Hillary's emails?'
I didn't mention any emails, and haven't done for a very long time.
It's more "what about how fucking psychopathic Hilary is".
Her voting history is sufficient evidence for me. Show me she voted against these wars and I'll start to listen.Quote:
If you can find a large consensus of them that aren't politically motivated AND that say Hillary would have been a war monger POTUS, then I'll start to listen.
I genuinely don't know, and I'm not going to find out by googling. I have no idea what actions Trump has taken to end wars that USA were already involved in, and neither do you.Quote:
Is that a yes or a no?
The war against ISIS has been "won" during Trump's time in office. I interpret that as Trump deciding to pull the plug.
Same shit different pile.
Also, don't forget 'Obama did bad things'. That's another of your whatabout arguments you use to deflect from Captain Retard's failings.
I actually don't care because she's irrelevant since she lives in the woods now.
I'm genuinely confident it's a number close to zero. And he's not been put up for the Nobel Peace Prize afaik, so there's that.
I missed a post...
We're in agreement here. I've said multiple times now that USA should accept their responsibilities to migrants in their country.Quote:
Again, not relevant to how they're treating people on the US side.
13 too many. Yes, in a perfect world. It's not a perfect world,and it wouldn't be if Trump wasn't in office. 13 or whatever the actual number is, it's a tiny fraction and can be accidental and unavoidable.Quote:
13/90,000 is 13 too many. Trump's human rights abuse is on a much larger scale, however.
And Trump's human rights abuse? Every president since fuck knows is guilty of major human rights abuse. Who is to blame for Guantanamo Bay? Not Trump.
The war was won because ISIS didn't have any territory left. I don't think that was due to Trump's military genius or the grand total of 2k US troops that were there. He didn't exactly need to do a Napoleon on ISIS to beat them.
And most of those 2k US troops are still in Syria.
Yes, I do like to argue that while Trump isn't a fantastic guy, he's less terrible than his predecessors. That's because his predecessors didn'y get nearly the level of hatred that Trump is subject to, both from the media and the public.Quote:
Also, don't forget 'Obama did bad things'. That's another of your whatabout arguments you use to deflect from Captain Retard's failings.
Good.Quote:
I actually don't care because she's irrelevant since she lives in the woods now.
Wasn't Bush Jnr nominated for that? That "prize" is a joke in today's world.Quote:
I'm genuinely confident it's a number close to zero. And he's not been put up for the Nobel Peace Prize afaik, so there's that.
Another question... who funded ISIS?
Ikr? There's all sorts of bad things that Trump didn't do, why do people keep blaming him for the bad things he is doing?
I mean this is just a partial list of things he's not responsible for. What about them? Why are people so focussed on the present?
Vietnam War
Bikini Atoll testing
Allende Coup
Custer's Last Stand
1980s techno pop
The EU
Acid rain
Cancer
Pizza cheese that sticks to the carton
Was it Google? Apple? I don't know.
Edit: Well here's what Wiki says, but it's probably lying to cover up the conspiracy that it was... Hillary!!!!!
Quote:
According to a 2015 study by the Financial Action Task Force, ISIL's five primary sources of revenue are as followed (listed in order of significance):
proceeds from the occupation of territory (including control of banks, oil and gas reservoirs, taxation, extortion, and robbery of economic assets)
kidnapping for ransom[1]
donations by or through non-profit organizations
material support provided by foreign fighters
fundraising through modern communication networks[2]
I bet there's also a long list of thiings Trump hasn't done that other people might be doing in an alternate universe where they are POTUS. Jesus, I never even considered that.
Here's a list of Trump's human rights abuses...
Not adequately feeding and cleaning migrants
Feel free to add anything I've missed.
Here's more from Wikipedia...Quote:
Edit: Well here's what Wiki says, but it's probably lying to cover up the conspiracy that it was... Hillary!!!!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timber_Sycamore
Note that "In July 2017, US officials stated that Timber Sycamore would be phased out". Who was POTUS in July 2017?
Is it a coincidence that as soon as the USA stopped funding and arming "Syrian rebels" (aka ISIS), they started to lose the war? I'll credit Trump with that.
Ransoms and donations is not enough to maintain a caliphate. You need arms, and international support.
No, a coincidence is when things happen at the same time. ISIS was already losing when Trump took over. This probably didn't hurt, but it wasn't the deciding factor.
Yeah, 'cause they never would have found anywhere to buy arms from if not for this Timber Sycamore thing. Riiiigght.
Oh, and here's another of those expert opinions you value so much.
Quote:
Robert Baer, a former CIA officer and CNN contributor, strongly criticized the Trump administration's cancellation of the program, calling it "a strategic mistake" and "a gift to Vladimir Putin."
Do you really live in a world where Putin is worse than ISIS?Quote:
Robert Baer, a former CIA officer and CNN contributor, strongly criticized the Trump administration's cancellation of the program, calling it "a strategic mistake" and "a gift to Vladimir Putin."
Jesus fucking wept.
Who the fuck is going to provide arms and funding on the same scale as USA + allies?Quote:
Yeah, 'cause they never would have found anywhere to buy arms from if not for this Timber Sycamore thing. Riiiigght.
Answer - nobody.
It sort of is. I mean it was the opposite of a gift to ISIS. The idea it was a "gift to Putin" is based on the fact Putin was actually fighting ISIS, rather than pretending to while actually arming and funding them.
Sorry if you're not grasping that scale of abuse is an important factor.Quote:
Point is if you only ever commit one human rights atrocity, it's hardly a point in your favour.
I mean, I would argue that creating migrants is a bigger human rights abuse than treating already existing migrants with contempt.
I do agree here. I'm not saying it's ok. I'm simply saying that, by human rights abuse standards, it's pretty minor. Much worse has been happening the last few decades as a result of US policy.Quote:
My point, in case you need clarification, is that this doesn't make the latter ok, even if it is your only human rights abuse.
Really, we can go and create another list of things Trump isn't currently doing that abuses human rights if that's your wish. I already absolved him of blame for the war in Vietnam though and several other things that happened before he became POTUS, so it seems redundant to add another list for other horrible things he isn't currently doing. He may very well not be beating his wife either. That seems like a point in his favour by your standards.
I disagree that unnecessarily causing human suffering is minor. And I also think it's irrelevant to compare the current problem with problems created or exacerbated by others in the past, because that can be used to excuse virtually anything.
Anything but the Holocaust is 'not as bad as the Holocaust'. So?
Not the topic I'm discussing here. You got me sidetracked for a post or two, that's it. If you want to go full Mojo and blame the crisis at the border on the industrial revolution and the introducton of the combine harvester, then go right ahead. Just don't expect me to engage.
Human suffering is widespread. I do agree that the treatment of migrants in US camps is "unnecessary". It is indeed a black mark against the Trump administration. But it's perfectly reasonable to compare it to previous human rights abuse, especially recent ones at the hands of Trump's predecessors. If this is the extent of USA's human rights abuse, then it's a vast improvement.Quote:
I disagree that unnecessarily causing human suffering is minor.
Same is true in the UK, fwiw. France is perfectly safe, so those at Calais wanting to come here are economic migrants who have chosen the UK for economic reasons.
Actually no it isn't.
Arguably it isn't, but really it's a moot point. If Germany went and started WWIII but only killed 2 million jews no-one would say 'well, that's an improvement. At least this new guy isn't as bad as Hitler was.'
How do you once again compare not giving migrants soap with the killing of Jews?Quote:
If Germany went and started WWIII but only killed 2 million jews
You're on another planet.
Does this mean France shouldn't have to treat them humanely, or if some of them swam over to Dover that the UK wouldn't have to treat them humanely?
Or is there some other way in which this is relevant to the discussion of human rights abuses at the US border?
Combine harvester?
You're conflating presenting an analogy to support a logical argument about degrees of 'badness' with making a direct comparison between the border and the Holocaust.
Here, try this if you're going to get triggered by the Holocaust analogy.
If you steal 5 marbles from your friend, but your dad once stole 10 marbles from his friend, stealing 5 marbles is still wrong.
I wonder if a lawyer would ever argue in court that his client deserves a light sentence because he only raped a single child when he was a Boy Scout leader and the guy who had the job before him actually raped three.
Stealing 5 marbles is not as bad as stealing 10 marbles. Well done, you're getting somewhere. Stealing marbles off your friend is a shitty thing to do. But it's not nearly as shitty as, say, raping his sister.
Oh look you went back to arguing that an analogy is a direct comparison.
Actually he wouldn't because he's a lawyer and it's not his job to point out the stupidly obvious to a judge. He also wouldn't compare it to stealing 11 marbles, 6 marbles, or 300 billion marbles. He also woudn't say it's not as bad as a human rights abuse because that's also stupidly obvious.
So, in the end I sum up your position as follows:
1. Human rights abuses at the border are bad and should be stopped.
2. Shit could be worse.
3. Arrgggh, immigrants!
Is that about it?
The point of an analogy is to provide a comparison.Quote:
Oh look you went back to arguing that an analogy is a direct comparison.
Allow me to sum up your position...
1. Human rights abuses at the border are bad and should be stopped.
2. This is analogous to, but not directly comparable to, killing Jews and raping boy scouts
3. Arrgggh, Trump!
Is that about right?
An analogy is a comparison on some level, but not a direct comparison. That's why 'analogy' and 'comparison' are separate words with distinct entries in the dictionary.
If I had argued Trump is as bad as Hitler because the southern border is the equivalent to Auschwitz, then 'arrrrgggh!' would have been an appropriate response. I did not say that, however, because it's retarded and I generally don't say things that are blatantly retarded. Generally.
What I said was you don't get excused from a human rights abuse because worse abuses have been committed in the past. That's pretty much the opposite of saying the current situation is comparable to the worst mass crime in human history. So if anything 'arrrghgghg!' to yourself for interpreting my analogy as a direct comparison.
An analogy is suppose to draw a reasonable comparison. I wouldn't draw an analogy between having a bonfire and setting fire to a hospital, despite both involving fire.
4. is analogous to "arrrgggggh Trump!".
On my planet, an analogy is used to make a logical point stand out independent of context. In the present discussion, I provided two very different analogies using jews and then marbles to argue about the scale of a crime because I wrongly assumed you would see the logic behind the first one.
If I had anticipated you making the silly assertion that I was offering such a stupid and unfounded direct comparison as one between 6 million dead jews and tens of thousands of shabbily-treated immigrants, I would have presented the marble analogy first.
No, but you could draw an analogy between burning things down and human rights abuses at the US border. You could say in response to your 'but other people have done worse shit' argument, e.g., that burning a house down is a bad thing to do, regardless of the fact that burning a hospital down is worse.
No, because you're a lib who likes to use powerful language to overstate your point. I basically was not allowing that.Quote:
because I wrongly assumed you would see the logic behind the first one.
That's one interpretation I guess.
I'm more inclined to think you wrongly assumed I was deliberately making a direct comparison that made no sense rather than a convenient analogy with the first human rights abuse that came to mind because it seemed like a good way to discredit me.
Further, I'm guessing that the fact it's obvious that such a comparison would be wrong didn't dissuade you from ascribing it to me because you're against 'libs' in general and it struck you as as a good opportunity to take a shot at one.
Either that or you really are just learning today the subtle difference between an analogy and a comparison.
Key word - "subtle".Quote:
...the subtle difference between an analogy and a comparison.
Nope. It's obviously not a direct comparison, we both agree on that. So based on that, you should understand why it's a bad analogy. It's more in fitting with your tendency to use language to exaggerate your point.Quote:
I'm more inclined to think you wrongly assumed I was deliberately making a direct comparison
Though I am aware that these two words do mean different things, you're wrong to say that different words always mean different things.Quote:
That's why 'analogy' and 'comparison' are separate words with distinct entries in the dictionary.
For example, I have used two words recently which mean exactly the same thing... "exaggerate" and "overstate".
What a lot of people don't get about analogies is that they're not about a general equivalence between the two sets of things being compared. They're a logical framework for highlighting an important aspect of an argument.
A:a is analagous to B:b, but it's also analagous to tree:sapling or adult:child. One is bigger than the other. That doesn't mean making such an analogy is anything like concluding that 'A' is therefore an adult and 'a' is therefore a child.
If you said Holocaust:US border is analogous to A:a, therefore it's not a big deal, I'd say it's a perfectly valid analogy, but that you've drawn a poor conclusion.
Other key word - "difference". It's the combination of "subtle" and "difference" that highlights the distinction is nuanced but real.
But you argued it was a poor comparison, not a poor analogy.
I understand why you want to argue it's a bad analogy. However, it's a perfectly valid one, just as the marble analogy is.
If this is really a tendency of mine, perhaps you can provide some more examples to support your contention?
You implied they are different words with different meaning simply because they have their own entry in the dictionary.
It's a poor analogy because it's a poor comparison.Quote:
But you argued it was a poor comparison, not a poor analogy.
They're both bad analogies.Quote:
However, it's a perfectly valid one, just as the marble analogy is.
I have no intention of reading your 6000+ posts to support such a claim. Referring to the Holocaust when talking about lack of soap is enough evidence for me.Quote:
If this is really a tendency of mine, perhaps you can provide some more examples to support your contention?
No I did not. I said they have different meanings and this involved different entries in the dictionary. If you want to be a pedant, perhaps I should have elaborated with 'and the entry for analogy does not simply say 'see comparison'.'
lol, give it up.
What do you think an analogy is, apart from a fancy word for comparison?
yeah but 6000 posts is less than 6 million jews, so it's ok.
It's a reasonable comparison. The more reasonable the comparison, the better the analogy.Quote:
What do you think an analogy is, apart from a fancy word for comparison?
You said it's why they have different entries in the dictionary. Here...Quote:
No I did not. I said they have different meanings and this involved different entries in the dictionary.
Quote:
That's why 'analogy' and 'comparison' are separate words with distinct entries in the dictionary.
There's nothing in there about that except the bold.
Also, a logical analogy is not 'better' or 'worse' it's either valid or invalid.
analogy
/əˈnalədʒi/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: analogy; plural noun: analogies
1. a comparison between one thing and another, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
"an analogy between the workings of nature and those of human societies"
2. a correspondence or partial similarity.
"the syndrome is called deep dysgraphia because of its analogy to deep dyslexia"
3. a thing which is comparable to something else in significant respects.
"works of art were seen as an analogy for works of nature"
4. Logic
a process of arguing from similarity in known respects to similarity in other respects.
"argument from analogy"
Let me help you connect the dots further here:
reasonable
/ˈriːz(ə)nəb(ə)l/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
adjective: reasonable
1.
having sound judgement; fair and sensible.
"no reasonable person could have objected"
based on good sense.
"it seems a reasonable enough request"
archaic
able to reason logically.
"man is by nature reasonable"
2.
as much as is appropriate or fair; moderate.
So, using the definition of analogy from logic (I'll leave it to you to look up logic and what it means re: arguments, 'cause I don't have all day to teach you for free), which is certainly going beyond any simple comparison, a reasonable analogy would be a logical one. It has nothing to do with appropriateness of scale. A:a is logically just as analagous to tree:sapling as it is to universe: proton.
I mean fair enough I gave you too much credit for knowing what a logical analogy was, instead of assuming you thought all analogies required a direct comparison (which also isn't true, but is a more common misunderstanding of the word).
But even once I explained how it was a logical analogy you still tried to argue it was a bad comparison, like somehow logical analogy and direct comparison are interchangeable terms.
Great. Now google synonyms of "reasonable" and "analogy", and tell me if "sensible comparison" is a synonym of "reasonable analogy".
It's interesting you keep saying "direct comparison", as though I've used that phrase.
I haven't. That's you adding that word in to support your flawed argument.