![]() |
I thought we were safe under GW: Feds warn of terror plotting against NYC subways - Printable Version +- MacResource (https://forums.macresource.com) +-- Forum: My Category (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1) +--- Forum: 'Friendly' Political Ranting (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=6) +--- Thread: I thought we were safe under GW: Feds warn of terror plotting against NYC subways (/showthread.php?tid=67042) |
Re: I thought we were safe under GW: Feds warn of terror plotting against NYC subways - kj - 11-26-2008 And, maybe one of you should also set up a blog for the "economy rock" that gave us prosperity during Bill Clinton's presidency. kj. Re: I thought we were safe under GW: Feds warn of terror plotting against NYC subways - kj - 11-26-2008 Greg the dogsitter wrote: What he "translated" was a strawman argument anyway (which was my point), so who cares if he translated it correctly. kj. Re: I thought we were safe under GW: Feds warn of terror plotting against NYC subways - Lux Interior - 11-26-2008 kj wrote: You can combine it with the rock that just sank the economy. Re: I thought we were safe under GW: Feds warn of terror plotting against NYC subways - Greg the dogsitter - 11-26-2008 kj wrote: What he "translated" was a strawman argument anyway (which was my point), so who cares if he translated it correctly. kj. Strawman: I assert that you believe x, which you really don't. Quoted: x, therefore y and z. I didn't see an opinion being attributed. Re: I thought we were safe under GW: Feds warn of terror plotting against NYC subways - Rick-o - 11-26-2008 Filliam H. Muffman wrote: It was obviously not a properly set up blog. Try this one. http://antiterrorismrock.blogger.com/ Grrr!!! Hulk getting :XANGRY!!! Re: I thought we were safe under GW: Feds warn of terror plotting against NYC subways - kj - 11-26-2008 His argument assumes someone believes other than this: >>>they are still around Mission was NOT accomplished and the theory that fighting them over there will not require us to fight them here is naive at best<<< As I explained, no one believes 1) the terrorists are no longer still around 2) the mission being accomplished means we won't have problems with terrorists ever again, 3) that we won't need to fight them here. If no one believes these things he's arguing with someone he's invented. There's your x. kj. Re: I thought we were safe under GW: Feds warn of terror plotting against NYC subways - Greg the dogsitter - 11-26-2008 No, it means that the poster believes it's a stronger point. Making an assertion about my own belief does not mean I'm asserting anything about yours. Besides, the "translation" was unnecessarily inflammatory. If I assert that egg nog is better without alcohol, that doesn't say anything about your opinion. And if I intended it to do so, nobody would really care. However, turning "terrorists are still around" into "I hope they are still around" is different. Re: I thought we were safe under GW: Feds warn of terror plotting against NYC subways - kj - 11-26-2008 >>>Making an assertion about my own belief does not mean I'm asserting anything about yours. He believes someone is saying that there aren't terrorists still around? Well he's wrong. No one has ever said that. He invented a strawman that said that. No real person ever said there aren't any terrorists left alive, etc. There was no reason to even bother with the "translation", because the whole argument was bogus. kj. Re: I thought we were safe under GW: Feds warn of terror plotting against NYC subways - Greg the dogsitter - 11-26-2008 kj wrote: I perceived it as a counterpoint, not as positioning someone's else's argument for them. Re: I thought we were safe under GW: Feds warn of terror plotting against NYC subways - kj - 11-26-2008 Lux Interior wrote: You can combine it with the rock that just sank the economy. Nah, I'm thinking the whole rock thing is a really dumb idea. kj. |