Hugo Chavez Loves Free Speech...

[DC]

So why mention it in an argument against someone who is against term limits?

Silvio is a bad man. You support him eh?

he is a bad man?
not according to the Italian Voters

 

[DC]

No, you changed the subject. You made a false claim about me. Take it back and we move on.

cry me a river

 

[funk de fino]

he is a bad man?
not according to the Italian Voters

Ask his wife. Ask the courts.

 

[funk de fino]

cry me a river

Scared to move past it and act like a grown up? Think I may prove you wrong again?

Just bring anything where I have claimed the election was stolen. It seems all you have now is to make up false arguments?

 

[Pardalis]

I especially said, leave away your prejudice about me.

It's not prejudice, I'm commenting on what you say.

If you don't like it say something else.

and you didnt, and what happened, you understood my post totaly wrong.

Yes I did. You want to ban dissident media on the pathetic pretext that they could lead to "a coup".

That's the excuse every dictator use.

 

[Meed]

Why would you be surprised? Don't you think it is strange that I have met not one Venezuelan who thinks Chavez is the glorious leader those not from Venezuela think he is?


Try again.

This is a typical response from you. Vaguely pointing to me being wrong about something while conveying the minimum amount of information possible. You could have explained what your point was or something, but it seems you prefer to be evasive/difficult. Try again? No thanks.

I asked you for evidence.

As I've explained to you multiple times, you responded that some of my account was accurate and other parts were exaggerated. Whenever I ask you to specify which parts you think are exaggerated you refuse. It would have taken you like 30 seconds assuming you actually knew what you were talking about, but instead you give responses like:

"Look, I am not spelling everything out for you."

"I repeat my previous post on this. I do get fed up going through hoops in the past for information that is out there from both sides of the argument only for it to be handwaved or ignored. Sorry if that seems harsh but I have gone though this stuff before and do not have much time left this week before I head to mexico."

I'm not going to do a bunch of work finding evidence for you when:
A. I don't even know which parts you want evidence for and which parts you agree with since you won't tell me.
B. You've been consistently lazy and unhelpful in your own responses. You've told me to do my own research and expressed a negative opinion over people who excessively ask for evidence.

My job is not to prove anything to you. I stated clearly that my account is my understanding based on the sources I've read. Never did I say "this is definitely what happened" or anything that requires a high degree of evidence. It was also my hope that you'd correct me on anything I had wrong, but so far that hasn't happened (which slightly ups my confidence about its accuracy).

With that I'll bring our exchange to a close. Cheers, man.

 

[Meed]

Information Operations Task Force

Was this intended to show that America is not an exemplary example of free speech? I don't see what it has to do with free speech at all, even if it is sort of interesting.

The US has the freest speech in the world, or close to it. Definitely more than Canada, for example.

 

[Praktik]

/derail double-edged sword though, at least without the puritannical approach to free speech of our southern neighbours we are more able to regulate election spending... since "money = speech" hasn't really flown up here...

 

[Meed]

I disagree with money = speech. I was referring to things more along the level of banning Holocaust denial.

 

[funk de fino]

This is a typical response from you. Vaguely pointing to me being wrong about something while conveying the minimum amount of information possible. You could have explained what your point was or something, but it seems you prefer to be evasive/difficult. Try again? No thanks.

You did not come across as someone who would miss a schoolboy point but it seems I was wrong. I have travelled all over the word in the last 20 years to many, many countries. Venezuela is about the only country where I have only met people who are critical of the glorious leader they have at that time. That strikes me as strange. It's also sad that some of them were wary of doing so as they had suffered persecution in the past for being openly (or in some cases forced into the open) in opposition to him and did not want the same fate. I find it sad that he can intimidate people like that. Do you? Do you think voting for Chavez and actually supporting him may be different things altogether?

Even in Libya there was a mix of people in support and against our friend Gadaffi. Again the opposition voices were hushed.

As I've explained to you multiple times, you responded that some of my account was accurate and other parts were exaggerated. Whenever I ask you to specify which parts you think are exaggerated you refuse. It would have taken you like 30 seconds assuming you actually knew what you were talking about, but instead you give responses like:

"Look, I am not spelling everything out for you."

"I repeat my previous post on this. I do get fed up going through hoops in the past for information that is out there from both sides of the argument only for it to be handwaved or ignored. Sorry if that seems harsh but I have gone though this stuff before and do not have much time left this week before I head to mexico."

I'm not going to do a bunch of work finding evidence for you when:
A. I don't even know which parts you want evidence for and which parts you agree with since you won't tell me.
B. You've been consistently lazy and unhelpful in your own responses. You've told me to do my own research and expressed a negative opinion over people who excessively ask for evidence.

So when you said I did not ask you for sources you were wrong?

My job is not to prove anything to you. I stated clearly that my account is my understanding based on the sources I've read. Never did I say "this is definitely what happened" or anything that requires a high degree of evidence. It was also my hope that you'd correct me on anything I had wrong, but so far that hasn't happened (which slightly ups my confidence about its accuracy).

With that I'll bring our exchange to a close. Cheers, man.

No sources then? I couldnt have asked excessively as you seemed to completely have forgotten about it.

PS My account would be based on sources I've read. Funny that eh?

 

[Skeptic]

So he was arrested not because Chavez is a dictator, but because he's a "counterrevolutionary".

Yeah, right.

Just like, oh, a few tens of millions of other "counterrevolutionaries" dictators arrested...

 

[DC]

It's not prejudice, I'm commenting on what you say.

If you don't like it say something else.

Yes I did. You want to ban dissident media on the pathetic pretext that they could lead to "a coup".

That's the excuse every dictator use.

wrong again.

No i think its not a good way, but i can understand it somehow.

 

[Pardalis]

No i think its not a good way, but i can understand it somehow.

How considerate of you. I wonder why you let him off the hook so easily.

 

[Meed]

I find it sad that he can intimidate people like that. Do you?

Yes I find intimidation sad, although I'm obviously not familiar with the stories of the people you know there.

Do you think voting for Chavez and actually supporting him may be different things altogether?

No. The elections are anonymous.

So when you said I did not ask you for sources you were wrong?

No.

 

[funk de fino]

Yes I find intimidation sad, although I'm obviously not familiar with the stories of the people you know there.

Correct.

No. The elections are anonymous.

And for the people forever labeled "opposition" and persecuted they are guaranteed this how?

Is campaigning and supporting opposition parties anonymous? Do you think they feel no danger in being in opposition based on previous actions of the govt? Do you think abominations like the Tascon List and the Maisanta database may give them cause to hesitate?

No.

Really? I did not ask you for evidence? Thats strange because I distinctly remember posting my quotes where I did. You're not playing semantic games now are you?

You have not asked for a source for anything

While you are at it why dont you bring the evidence that RCTV did anything wrong.

How clear did you need that to be?

 

[funk de fino]

For praise and also criticism this report is from the OAS, who are the go to guys from those who say elections are fair in venezuela. Only now they are critical Chavez refuses to let them in the country.

http://cidh.org/countryrep/Venezuela2009eng/VE09.TOC.eng.htm

 

[Skeptic]

For praise and also criticism this report is from the OAS, who are the go to guys from those who say elections are fair in venezuela. Only now they are critical Chavez refuses to let them in the country.

Apparently the useful idiots were useful enough for Chavez: they were suckered into declaring his election fair, so that other useful idiots will quote this "fact" in perpetuity.

Now they are no longer needed, and are in fact a burden to him, since actually looking into human rights affairs in Venezuela will make Chavez look bad, so he naturally refuses them entry.

In short, the usual useful idiots were suckered into supporting the budding dictator and are now discarded.

Standard operating procedure for "socialist" dictators, standard stupidity for the useful idiots.

 

[Meed]

And for the people forever labeled "opposition" and persecuted they are guaranteed this how?

Is campaigning and supporting opposition parties anonymous? Do you think they feel no danger in being in opposition based on previous actions of the govt? Do you think abominations like the Tascon List and the Maisanta database may give them cause to hesitate?

You asked if I thought voting for Chavez means supporting him (as I interpreted it). My answer is yes. Campaigning is a different question, although certainly not an unimportant one.

Really? I did not ask you for evidence? Thats strange because I distinctly remember posting my quotes where I did. You're not playing semantic games now are you?

I never interpreted you as asking me for a source. I gave you a reasonable and detailed answer to this complaint a couple posts ago and you completely ignored the substance of it.

While you are at it why dont you bring the evidence that RCTV did anything wrong.

How clear did you need that to be?

I honestly don't see that as a request for a source. When we ask for sources, it's usually in respect to some particular claim.

I posted the things I thought RCTV did wrong and why I thought they were wrong earlier in the thread. You never indicated that you agreed with me about them being wrong, in fact it seemed to me that you were arguing the opposite if anything. So was I to bring the evidence that my subjective opinion was right? Or was I to clear up some source of factual dispute? If so was I to guess which claims of the many you secretly thought was inaccurate? I told you repeatedly that if you wanted to discuss the accuracy of the account you would have to tell me which parts you thought were correct and which parts you thought were exaggerated. You refused repeatedly. Given the context, a line like "While you are at it why dont you bring the evidence that RCTV did anything wrong." just comes off as empty twaddle.

Any other questions?

 

[funk de fino]

You asked if I thought voting for Chavez means supporting him (as I interpreted it). My answer is yes. Campaigning is a different question, although certainly not an unimportant one.

You still dont get it. Voting for him does not necessarily mean they support him. It means they are in fear of voting the other way.

I never interpreted you as asking me for a source. I gave you a reasonable and detailed answer to this complaint a couple posts ago and you completely ignored the substance of it.

That is rubbish. When someone asks you of evidence for your claims it means they want a source. All you had to do was say "Sorry I missed that". Your reply was a whine about me not supplying sources.

I honestly don't see that as a request for a source. When we ask for sources, it's usually in respect to some particular claim.

See above, get real.

I posted the things I thought RCTV did wrong and why I thought they were wrong earlier in the thread. You never indicated that you agreed with me about them being wrong, in fact it seemed to me that you were arguing the opposite if anything. So was I to bring the evidence that my subjective opinion was right? Or was I to clear up some source of factual dispute? If so was I to guess which claims of the many you secretly thought was inaccurate? I told you repeatedly that if you wanted to discuss the accuracy of the account you would have to tell me which parts you thought were correct and which parts you thought were exaggerated. You refused repeatedly. Given the context, a line like "While you are at it why dont you bring the evidence that RCTV did anything wrong." just comes off as empty twaddle.

So I have to produce evidence and sources first or you pretend I havent asked? That makes this easy eh? You bring the sources and we discuss them. If you dont it's just waffle and the same goes for me.

Any other questions?

Yes, have you read the report I linked to? Especially the part about the presidential broadcasts. Unfortunately for the Chavista this cannot be dismissed as a political attack.

PS - That's a source.

 

[Meed]

You still dont get it. Voting for him does not necessarily mean they support him. It means they are in fear of voting the other way.

No, I get that this is your view. I just happen to disagree with it, for reasons stated earlier.

That is rubbish. When someone asks you of evidence for your claims it means they want a source.

In my view, a source for "RCTV did something wrong" only becomes relevant once there is a factual dispute over something that we both agree would be "wrong" had it actually happened. I didn't interpret your vague statement "bring the evidence that RCTV did anything wrong" as a request for a source, since there was no factual dispute and "wrongness" has a component of subjectivity to it. I provided you with my argument that RCTV had acted wrongly based on my understanding of what their actions had been along with an invitation to dispute any of the factual details. Had you done so, I would have seen this as a request for a source, but you explicitly declined. If you meant you wanted a source, sorry, but I didn't read it that way and you had ample opportunity to specify what you wanted a source for.

All you had to do was say "Sorry I missed that". Your reply was a whine about me not supplying sources.

I didn't miss it. And your reading comprehension is way off if you think my reply was a whine about you not supplying sources.

As I've explained to you multiple times, you responded that some of my account was accurate and other parts were exaggerated. Whenever I ask you to specify which parts you think are exaggerated you refuse. It would have taken you like 30 seconds assuming you actually knew what you were talking about, but instead you give responses like:

"Look, I am not spelling everything out for you."

Asking you to clarify which parts you disagree with is not asking you to supply a source.

I'm not going to do a bunch of work finding evidence for you when:
A. I don't even know which parts you want evidence for and which parts you agree with since you won't tell me.
B. You've been consistently lazy and unhelpful in your own responses. You've told me to do my own research and expressed a negative opinion over people who excessively ask for evidence.

A. is same as above. B. was not about you not providing sources, but about you declining to answer questions.

So I have to produce evidence and sources first or you pretend I havent asked?

No. See above.

Yes, have you read the report I linked to? Especially the part about the presidential broadcasts. Unfortunately for the Chavista this cannot be dismissed as a political attack.

PS - That's a source.

I'll give it a read when I get time (I'm a graduate student and don't have a ton of free time). From skimming it, it does seem to indicate some serious problems.

As I've said I'm not a Chavez fan or a Chavez hater (there are things I like and dislike about him). It's certainly possible that he's worse than my current understanding, though, and I do have interest in learning more on the subject.