Time to kick Iran

[RandFan]

What??
You ask why should India take America seriously?
Who do you think Indians are?
A moltitude of buffoons or stupids?
Or people who think Americans are buffoons?

? Not a clue dude.

Agreed.

Cool.

 

[Gurdur]

A moltitude is when a multitude have melted.

Ice.

 

[Ziggurat]

LOL!!

I am laughing out loud..
You see how biased you are?
Japanese` s response is " emotional ", yours is " rational ".

No, Matteo. Your response was emotional, not rational. You brought up a question whose answer isn't even relevant to the point I was making, without even realizing that it wasn't relevant.

You Americans are criticizing Putin, the guys in the middle East, Chavez, Morales, the Japanese and the Chinese?
Who else?

You, Matteo. I'm criticizing you. And unlike you, I'm not classifying posters just on the basis of their nationality.

 

[Matteo Martini]

No, Matteo. Your response was emotional, not rational. You brought up a question whose answer isn't even relevant to the point I was making, without even realizing that it wasn't relevant.

You wrote ( post n. 1155 ):
" on what basis is America's use of nuclear weapons immoral? Not on the basis that we were the first or only country to use them, that's for damned sure "
I was just quoting the Japanese people attitude and opinion on the 1945 dropping of the bombs, which is basically very different from yours.
I can provide you with tons of evidence of what I am saying.
Why am I " emotional "?
Why you are not?

You, Matteo. I'm criticizing you. And unlike you, I'm not classifying posters just on the basis of their nationality.

Nope.
Wrong.
You criticized Russia in post 1082:
Russia has a long history of throwing its weight in its neighborhood, going back well before the USSR even. They are an ambitious nation, always have been.
You criticized Venezuela` s leader in post 90 of thread " Chavez taking necessary steps to ensure equality and liberty "
You could define a dictator that way, sure. But recall: I did not say Chavez was a dictator, I said he was an aspiring dictator.
Also, your comment above about the 1945 accident, would be seen as extremely unpleasant ( to say the least ) to many Japaneses

About classifing posters about their nationality, I do see many ( particuarly Americans ) posters criticizing many nations, and many leaders, failing to take into account the leaders they have in their country.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Nope.
Wrong.
You criticized Russia in post 1082:
Russia has a long history of throwing its weight in its neighborhood, going back well before the USSR even. They are an ambitious nation, always have been.

No. He didn't.

That was in response to your assertion that Russia's actions were a response to or caused by the US. He was pointing out that responding to the US was not the only possible motive for Russia's actions. It was a direct response to your point.

You criticized Venezuela` s leader in post 90 of thread " Chavez taking necessary steps to ensure equality and liberty "
You could define a dictator that way, sure. But recall: I did not say Chavez was a dictator, I said he was an aspiring dictator.

This can be considered a criticism of a leader, not the entire country -- so it has little to do with blanket criticisms of an entire population (i.e., it does not relate to the point).

Also, your comment above about the 1945 accident, would be seen as extremely unpleasant ( to say the least ) to many Japaneses

Quite possibly. Another point that seems to drift off the topic of blanket condemnation of an entire population, however.

About classifing posters about their nationality, I do see many ( particuarly Americans ) posters criticizing many nations, and many leaders, failing to take into account the leaders they have in their country.

First, I think you are simply engaging in confirmation bias -- judging by this thread, anyway. Second, assuming that "many" posters do this, and that some number of them are American, it appears that you are condemning the entire population of the country based on the posts of probably 4-5 people.
Hardly a representative sample.

 

[Ziggurat]

You wrote ( post n. 1155 ):
" on what basis is America's use of nuclear weapons immoral? Not on the basis that we were the first or only country to use them, that's for damned sure "
I was just quoting the Japanese people attitude and opinion on the 1945 dropping of the bombs, which is basically very different from yours.

I'm sure many Japanese feel that way, but I doubt all of them do. Furthermore, you still haven't figured it out: whether or not dropping a nuke in this particular instance was justified is a different question entirely than whether or not dropping a nuke, in principle, is justified. Your opinions on the former will not do much to indicate your opinions on the latter - at least if you've thought about it.

Why am I " emotional "?
Why you are not?

I have no idea why you're emotional, Matteo. I can tell you why I say you're emotional, though: you responded to my post where I discussed whether or not dropping nukes was justified in principle with a post about how people feel about whether or not it was justified in this particular instance. There's no logical connection there, Matteo, and it's argument ad populum anyways.

Nope.
Wrong.

You asked who else I was criticising, and I responded: I was also criticising you. How, exactly, is that wrong, Matteo? Or are you simply objecting to everything I say reflexively? Because it sure as hell looks like it, since your responses frequently have no logical connection to the statements I actually made.

Also, your comment above about the 1945 accident, would be seen as extremely unpleasant ( to say the least ) to many Japaneses

Argument ad populum again. And why on earth would you call it an accident? That's the one thing it was most assuredly not, as both critics and defenders know quite well.

About classifing posters about their nationality, I do see many ( particuarly Americans ) posters criticizing many nations, and many leaders, failing to take into account the leaders they have in their country.

All of which has (once again) no logical connection to how one classifies posters on this board. Swing and a miss, yet again.

 

[Ion]

Yeah, right. Your link explicitly refutes the point you were trying to make...

My links enforce that Poincare invented new mathematics as a founder of topology (over ruling your claim that he didn't invent any new mathematiques), and that Poincare's topology is being used in relativity (over ruling your claim that Poincare didn't contribute to the relativity science).

Again:

you never heard of Poincare until I told you, then you Googled and patched up holes in your education.

Like any U.S. poster here.

Now consider that Poincare's (in French the way I learned it) Group, Anneau, Corps, they are taught in first year post-secondary in France.

Millions there know it.

And they know Riemann (not your Reimann), Lagrange, etc..

I am pointing out to the lower intellectual standards that you have in U.S..

For example, I quoted that less than 70% of Americans believe in Evolution, and more than 80% of French believe in Evolution.

It was for Matteo who went into ducking this fact, but also for anyone else to see.

Another lack in your education is to not be exposed to Olympic Swimming which you deride.
Competition by developing one's character and body in a fair race that doesn't lie, that's alien to you and Bush (of the fame of lying for the war in Iraq)
The concepts of Healthy Mind in a Healthy Body and Renaissance Man from the European Enlightenment, they are foreigner to you.
I bet it shows in how you appear.

U.S. is inept.

Face it:

U.S. (with its Capitalism, religion and wars) = Crap

So U.S. needs to be more intellectual and welfare inclined -socially-, instead of bullying others.

 

[Pardalis]

We got the message Ion, now can you please move on?

 

[Matteo Martini]

I'm sure many Japanese feel that way, but I doubt all of them do.

The vast majority do.

Furthermore, you still haven't figured it out: whether or not dropping a nuke in this particular instance was justified is a different question entirely than whether or not dropping a nuke, in principle, is justified. Your opinions on the former will not do much to indicate your opinions on the latter - at least if you've thought about it.

History and and our lives are not made by principles, but by facts.
What is the point, of saying that dropping a nuke is, say, wrong, and that say that, in that particular case it was justified?

I have no idea why you're emotional, Matteo.

You are ( willingly? ) mis-representing what I wrote..
I wrote:
" Why am I " emotional "?
Why you are not? "
which has to be obviously intetended:
Why should I be called " emotional "?
Why you should not?

I can tell you why I say you're emotional, though: you responded to my post where I discussed whether or not dropping nukes was justified in principle with a post about how people feel about whether or not it was justified in this particular instance. There's no logical connection there, Matteo, and it's argument ad populum anyways.

There is not logical connection between the principle of dropping a bomb ( or not ) and the fact of dropping a bomb?
I can quite see the connection.
Wait, this is why I am " emotional "
Getting bored..

You asked who else I was criticising, and I responded: I was also criticising you. How, exactly, is that wrong, Matteo? Or are you simply objecting to everything I say reflexively? Because it sure as hell looks like it, since your responses frequently have no logical connection to the statements I actually made.

Mis-representing my position again.
I am starting to get bored ( and understand how Oliver feels, sometimes.. )
I wrote:
" I am laughing out loud..
You see how biased you are?
Japanese` s response is " emotional ", yours is " rational ".
You Americans are criticizing Putin, the guys in the middle East, Chavez, Morales, the Japanese and the Chinese?
Who else? "
Of course, the " who else? " question was a rethorical one.
It means that you are criticizing quite a lot of people, foreign leaders, without taking into account what your own leader is doing right now.
It was obvius, I think..

Argument ad populum again. And why on earth would you call it an accident? That's the one thing it was most assuredly not, as both critics and defenders know quite well.

Why " argument ad populum "?
Also, you are ( again ), picking up my word " accident " why was not by any means the core of the discussion.
Call it " accident ", call it " fact ", call it " disaster ", call it " happening " does not change a iota of my sentence:
" Also, your comment above about the 1945 accident, would be seen as extremely unpleasant ( to say the least ) to many Japaneses "
Why are you not willing to engage in a serious discussion on this matter?

All of which has (once again) no logical connection to how one classifies posters on this board. Swing and a miss, yet again.

I basically can not see a how you can be sincerely willing to really engage in a serious discussion.
Better leave like this..

 

[Ion]

We got the message Ion, now can you please move on?

Not really.

Justice starts when Iraq and Iran war proponents from U.S. go to jail.

 

[Matteo Martini]

No. He didn't.

That was in response to your assertion that Russia's actions were a response to or caused by the US. He was pointing out that responding to the US was not the only possible motive for Russia's actions. It was a direct response to your point.

Yes he did.
I am not questioning whether his remarks were or not a response to my point.
I am saying that saying that a nation is " an ambitious nation, always have been. " is a criticism ( even if not a direct insult ) to that nation.

This can be considered a criticism of a leader, not the entire country -- so it has little to do with blanket criticisms of an entire population (i.e., it does not relate to the point).

It does relate to the point.
Were Chavez a dictator who took the power in a coup d` etat, you would be right.
But Chavez has been elected with free elections, with quite a majority, by the Venezuelans, the majority of whom also seem to back his administration, so far.
Criticizing Chavez is an indirect criticism to the people who have voted for him
I can not see how you can be serious on this..

Quite possibly. Another point that seems to drift off the topic of blanket condemnation of an entire population, however.

I did not say that Ziggurat criticized or condemn the entire Japanese population.
I wrote:
" Also, your comment above about the 1945 accident, would be seen as extremely unpleasant ( to say the least ) to many Japaneses "
I was pointing out that his comments would be seen as an insult in Japan, to the vast majority of people.
Are we playing games, here?

First, I think you are simply engaging in confirmation bias -- judging by this thread, anyway. Second, assuming that "many" posters do this, and that some number of them are American, it appears that you are condemning the entire population of the country based on the posts of probably 4-5 people.
Hardly a representative sample.

Not 4 or 5 people.
Second, I am not condemning anyone?
What are you talking about?
I wrote:
" About classifing posters about their nationality, I do see many ( particuarly Americans ) posters criticizing many nations, and many leaders, failing to take into account the leaders they have in their country. "
Is that condemning an entire population?
I am just pointing out at what are my impressions about the behaviour of many Americans.
You do not like what I write?
Fine.
But, do not write that I write what I do not.

 

[Ziggurat]

History and and our lives are not made by principles, but by facts.
What is the point, of saying that dropping a nuke is, say, wrong, and that say that, in that particular case it was justified?

Boy, did you miss the boat on this one. It's the other way around, Matteo. There is an argument to be made that in this particular case, dropping the nuke was wrong. The basis for that argument is the idea that Japan would have surrendered even without the nuke. But that argument depends upon the particulars of what took place, and different circumstances could invalidate it coimpletely. If Japan was not willing to surrender, if it was in a stronger position and could hold out much longer, requiring many more casualties (on both sides) to end the war, then why would dropping the nuke be wrong? I've never seen an argument which made any sense that dropping the nuke would have been wrong regardless of the circumstances. And you most certainly haven't presented one. Therefore, everything you wrote about Japanese objections to the bomb is essentially irrelevant.

You are ( willingly? ) mis-representing what I wrote..

No, Matteo, you're writing sloppy. That's not my fault.

There is not logical connection between the principle of dropping a bomb ( or not ) and the fact of dropping a bomb?

No, Matteo. There is no logical connection between arguments against dropping the bomb in a particular case which depend upon the particular circumstances of that case, and an argument about whether or not the bomb can ever be used in a justified manner.

Of course, the " who else? " question was a rethorical one.

It may have been intended rhetorically, but it had a real answer, and so I gave it. Again, don't blame me because of your sloppy writing.

Why " argument ad populum "?

Because the number of people who take a certain position does not indicate the validity of that position. So it doesn't matter how many Japanese feel which way about the use of the bomb, the number doesn't indicate the correctness of the position. Do you not know what "argument ad populum" means? If so, this should have been obvious to you.

Also, you are ( again ), picking up my word " accident " why was not by any means the core of the discussion.

If you don't like me picking apart what you write, then don't write is such a sloppy manner. Once again, don't blame me for your problems.

Why are you not willing to engage in a serious discussion on this matter?

I am, Matteo. But you have yet to make a substantive point of any relevance to my original argument.

 

[Elizabeth I]

I am saying that saying that a nation is " an ambitious nation, always have been. " is a criticism ( even if not a direct insult ) to that nation.

"Ambitious" is a criticism or an insult? And anyhow, read the life of Peter the Great, Catherine the Great, Lenin, Stalin, Kruschev, you name it...Russia HAS always been an ambitious country, whether it's an insult or not.

 

[RandFan]

Justice starts when Iraq and Iran war proponents from U.S. go to jail.

Wouldn't it be cheaper to simply send them to Detroit?

 

[Matteo Martini]

"Ambitious" is a criticism or an insult?

In the context in which was placed, it was quite a criticism of Russia, as I can see..

And anyhow, read the life of Peter the Great, Catherine the Great, Lenin, Stalin, Kruschev, you name it...Russia HAS always been an ambitious country, whether it's an insult or not.

Let` s see..
Ronald Reagan, Harry Truman, George Bush ( father and son ), Eisenhower, John Kennedy, ..
Maybe, Russia was not alone..
Some people, usually from that nation, fail to see something they have just under their eyes.

 

[Gurdur]

All you have done, Matteo, with your tu quoque, is show that both Russia and the USA are ambitious nations.

Congrats. What next? The Pope is a Catholic? Declaring that mentioning that the Pope is a Catholic is an insult?

 

[Matteo Martini]

"Ambitious" is a criticism or an insult? And anyhow, read the life of Peter the Great, Catherine the Great, Lenin, Stalin, Kruschev, you name it...Russia HAS always been an ambitious country, whether it's an insult or not.

To be fair, I have also to mention at least France: Napoleon, Louis XIV, Charles de Gaulle, ..

 

[Gurdur]

Brilliant. Now you have shown that Russia, the USA and France are ambitious nations.


So much for your attempt to excuse Russia. Congrats again.

 

[Matteo Martini]

All you have done, Matteo, with your tu quoque, is show that both Russia and the USA are ambitious nations.

You have problably not followed the dialogue between Ziggurat and me.
I was exactly pointing out that he was criticizing Russia ( for being ambitious ), Chavez ( for being an aspiring dictator ), and maybe others, without considering the situation in his own country.
My point, is as always, that many ( mostly American ) people have the use to over-criticize foreign leaders and do not consider their own problems..

 

[Matteo Martini]

Brilliant. Now you have shown that Russia, the USA and France are ambitious nations.


So much for your attempt to excuse Russia. Congrats again.

I did not excuse Russia.
And, I forgot at least Germany ( Adolph Hitler, and Bismark ) and our pathetic Mussolini..