entwined Posted February 4, 2006 Posted February 4, 2006 I had a cousin (well' date=' second cousin actually) who was blown up by Nelson Mandella's thugs and a (not so close) friend killed by the (American funded) IRA. Why was that so different from Al'qaeda? For that matter, there are a lot more people killed in car accidents every day, but we don't ban cars. This 'war on terror' isn't being fought because there is any real danger to the populace. It is being fought as a public relations exercise. It is supposed to make us feel safe in our beds at night. Because the western public are such sensitive souls (just like Pangloss).[/quote'] And how about crime? Don't you think that one could say the same thing about criminal activity? Are we to believe that law enforcement is just another public relations exercize?
Pangloss Posted February 4, 2006 Posted February 4, 2006 Nope. No slippery slope there. Try harder next time. Well okay, if you insist. Can anyone explain to me how... Today they are bugging Al'qeada operatives, tomorrow they bug Al'qaeda supporters and the day after they will bug anyone who disagrees with them. ... is not a slippery slope argument? How it could be anything else? (Note I didn't say it was a fallacy, I just identified the approach. I'm arguing merits on point, not declaring your argument to be illogical.)
Severian Posted February 4, 2006 Posted February 4, 2006 ... is not a slippery slope argument? How it could be anything else? Because it is not the basis of an argument. As I said before, I think the reason you shouldn't give the NSA the freedom to bug people's phones willy nilly is because it is wrong - not because it is a slippery slope. The sequesnce of events was merely a prediction - I left it to you to asses whether or not you like that world. Also - it has to be causal to be a slippery slope. In other words, the bugging of A'qaeda operative would have to lead to the bugging of Al'qaeda supporters etc. I think the NSA are sufficiently amoral to bug people without needing a cause.
Pangloss Posted February 4, 2006 Posted February 4, 2006 But in point of fact it was the *only* basis for your appeal aside from your personal opinion. It was the only thing you offered in evidence as a reason why it shouldn't be allowed. That's called an argument. People have a right here to respond to it on that basis, and you have an obligation to acknowledge and not deny that foundation.
Severian Posted February 4, 2006 Posted February 4, 2006 But in point of fact it was the *only* basis for your appeal aside from your personal opinion. It was the only thing you offered in evidence as a reason why it shouldn't be allowed. That's called an argument. Lol. Well, I suppose it is just my 'personal opinion' that bugging people without proper process is wrong. If you don't think this is wrong, then there is not much to discuss. But let me repeat the question I have asked a few times (although I think some were deleted): would you regard the leader of Hamas as a 'suspected terrorist'? Your argument seemed to consist of 'the sky won't fall down', which I can't really argue with either, but it isn't a very persuasive line of reasoning.
Dave Posted February 4, 2006 Posted February 4, 2006 Okay, I've just about had enough of this bickering. Frankly, you're all sounding like a bunch of 12 year olds, and from the standards of posting around here that's not something I've come to expect. I also do not like the condescending attitudes that are being slung around. Clearly some people have problems here. Go and blow off some steam elsewhere. I'm just about sick of it.
Recommended Posts