Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Just goes to show, the Israeli government is just as dangerous a terrorist group as anyone else... maybe even more so. After all, we've got their backs.

Andrew1975 wrote:
No, I don't think it was that. I mean when I said "learn to argue like an adult" it was obvious to anybody that I did not mean argue like a person of a certain age, that's just silly.

Yes, it is, and that's the basis for understanding 'adult' and words like intelligent, wise, or mature as synonyms. I was questioning your use of the word because I don't consider it to be reasonable use of it in the course of anything approaching reasonable argument; ie. people may use 'adult' in that fashion, but I don't care because I consider it to be a worthless usage. You can cite dictionary definitions all you want, but at that point all you're doing is making an appeal to authority, which is really justadmitting that you can't make the argument yourself.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Threats are by nature indicative of causing harm.

The minimal definition of 'threat' is 'something impending', the word carries a negative connotation, but connotation is not definitive. This is what I meant by my comment regarding your seemingly linear thought process. There are plainly other definitions of threat that are not negative; notably 'something impedning' comes from Merriam-Webster's. However, instead of acknowledging that my example made sense in light of that, and made sense in light of the original dispute (regarding whether or not differing threats require differing responses) you chose to pretend as though it couldn't possibly be valid; despite the fact that I clearly explained the the circumstances in which it could be.

Andrew1975 wrote:
A threat assessment does not include counting the enemies ability to give hugs to your troops.

No, in that environment hugs would not be considered a threat, but in another, they might. Again, the whole point of my dispute with you in that thread regarded your lean on the idea that brutality is always the best way to deal with threats. I began with a very abstract example in order to force you into admitting that different threats require different responses. I would have then proceeded to argue that, based on that, even if you accept that brutal responses are always better, you still have to situationally define what constitutes a brutal response; turning the whole 'brutal is better' argument into what is essentially platitude. The thread close before I had a chance to do that, though.

Andrew1975 wrote:
The use of the term hug as a threat is only viable as an oxymoron, it had no place in the argument.

You wouldn't feel threatened if a beautiful woman stated that she would give you a lingering hug; knowing that it would make your wife jealous?

Andrew1975 wrote:
The fact that you followed it up with more semantic debates, and pretended not to know the full meanings of words, and then injected your chosen meanings, well i felt it was underhanded and not worthy tactics. But whatevs everyone has their style, yours is more guerrilla, then I appreciate though. It's a fair tactic, but hardly sporting.

I didn't pretend not to know the meaning of anything, I honestly asked you what your intended meaning was. Again, dictionaries, like all other sources, are not considered definitive of anything except themselves; ie. what dictionary.com says a word means is only what dictionary.com says a word means. I then injected my own meaning into the argument because I didn't agree with yours. You processed that as an underhanded argument for some reason, possibly because you're not accustomed to the type of argument that is common in academic circles. Note again that this followed from you asking me to 'argue like an adult'.

Ah, i see Dogma, You can twist my meanings, but when I don't buy your twisted meanings it's my dictionary that is wrong. My use of adult in a general meaning is something that 99% of people would understand. Your use of the word threat is something 99% of people would find laughable.

You can twist with logic all you want, maybe you buy it, but I don't and I don't think to many other people do either.

Andrew1975 wrote:Yeah, it's a tolerance center with all kinds of admin and civic departments.....I know this. It's also a Mosque. I'm not questioning his intent to build a tolerance center. I'm questioning the logic of building a tolerance center where the location itself is inspiring intolerance. Granted you want to build a tolerance center where intolerance is high, i mean that's the point. But try to pic a spot where the actual location itself does not run contrary to your goals.

Because the location makes such an outreach effort more poignant. That said, I don't think it was the wisest of moves, and many prominent Muslims said as much before the centre was built. There was scope for the national conversation to be about sensitivity vs good intentions.

But a somber conversation on that wouldn't have gotten people all riled up and angry. So instead we've had ridiculous, incendiary rhetoric and constant references to terrorism (including FOX remarkably implying a terror connection to a guy who turned out to be a major shareholder in FOX).

My question is does anybody know/think the Israelis chose this time specifically to make a political staement because of Kordoba house? It just seams too coincidental. In may ways they are completely different issues, but when emotions are inflamed they can look very similar.

Israel bulldozes things the Palestinians don't want them to bulldoze all the time. This one just got noticed because of the Cordoba house incident.

Andrew1975 wrote:Ah, i see Dogma, You can twist my meanings, but when I don't buy your twisted meanings it's my dictionary that is wrong.

No, I never said your that your definitions were wrong, or that mine were right. I said that if you refuse to at least assume that a given definition is correct for the purposes of the argument in which it is presented, then you have no business critiquing the argument at all. I addressed your definitions in the context of your arguments, and showed them to be inconsistent with your conclusions. Even in the case of the word 'adult' I based my objection to the usage of the word on the basis of the meaning your had ascribed to it.

Andrew1975 wrote:
My use of adult in a general meaning is something that 99% of people would understand.

You continue to appear to presume that I didn't understand your meaning, when I plainly did per the post in which I first addressed it. As I said, I attacked your usage of the word because I feel that the word is poorly defined in colloquial discourse. This is certainly a minor concern, but recall what you posted to provoke the line of argument in question.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Your use of the word threat is something 99% of people would find laughable.

What you meant to say here is that you believe 99% of people would find my usage of 'threat' to be laughable, which is really just a nice way to hide the fact that you find it laughable and are unwilling to let that fact stand on its own. Regardless, given that at least one dictionary agrees with my usage, I doubt that the percentage of people who would find my usage laughable is anywhwere near 99%.

Andrew1975 wrote:
You can twist with logic all you want, maybe you buy it, but I don't and I don't think to many other people do either.

The irony of this statement is incredible. You're impugning me for arguing from logic while engaging in sophistry.