! ! << ! I was not making an analogy comparing the images to indoor ! plumbing, and ! thereby "cheapening" the former. I was using that absurd example to ! expose the absurdity of Ed's alleged logic. ! >> ! ! Bob ! ! I get it, I just don't agree with it. ! ! Ed posted a link to a site which contained distressing images of war. ! War is not pretty, and so the images were hardly expected to ! be anything ! else either. My only objection to Ed's post was his use of the word ! "endorse".
Which was the entire point of his post. ! I am sure nobody involved in this war openly ! advocates such ! images, and perhaps another word would have been more appropriate. Well convince Ed of that---he seems persuaded otherwise. ! ! What I found offensive was your decision to use this post to score a ! point about Ed's tactic for debate. So we're not allowed to question someone's absurd assertions when distressing photos are involved? Since when is debate disallowed when someone makes a debatable point? ! While you may not have ! referred to ! their content directly, it was an inappropriate post to use to make ! *any* point. IMO of course! Well on that we certainly do not agree. Ed posted them to make such cheap point; I rebutted with an absurd analogy to illustrate why his point was cheap. And your complaint is that I was being cheap. You must understand how strangely that sounds to me. ! ! You are obviously surprised that I do not agree with you, but ! there you ! go. No I'm not surprised you don't agree with me. I am surprised that you think what I did was somehow worse than what Ed did. Esp. if you are honest when you say it's wrong to make any point involving those pictures. Ed was not just piously showing woozy photos of dead people in commemoration or something---he was saying that those images are what I and other supporters are FOR. I called bulls*t on, literally and figuratively, and you say I'm the one being cheap. :\ You aren't taking Ed head-on with what was objectionable to you about his post. I would take your delicate sensibilities on this point a bit more seriously if you weren't using Ed's post as a soapbox from which to take pot shots at my attempt at reductio ad absurdam against, not the photos, but Ed's political point in using them. - Bob ! ! Regards ! ! Dominic Burford BSc Hons MBCS CITP ! Third Party Developer Program Senior Software Engineer ! ! * Tel: +44 (0) 1536 495074 ! * [EMAIL PROTECTED] ! ! "I conclude that there are two ways of constructing a software design: ! One way is to make it so simple there are obviously no ! deficiencies, and ! the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious ! deficiencies." -- Tony Hoare, Turing Award Lecture 1980 ! ! ! -----Original Message----- ! From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On ! Behalf Of Bob Calco ! Sent: 20 June 2006 12:52 ! To: 'ProFox Email List' ! Subject: RE: [OT] Images of war ! ! ! ! ! << Jeez Dominic do I have to spell it out? ! ! ! ! Now who's getting all shrill ;-) ! ! That's not shrill, that's "wondering how to get past three inches of ! bone to help the message sink in"... ;) ! ! ! ! ! Bob, as I said, I *do* get your point, but I just think in ! this ! instance ! it was cheap. ! ! Let me try one more time, because I think you are judging my intent ! _completely_ incorrectly. ! ! I was not making an analogy comparing the images to indoor ! plumbing, and ! thereby "cheapening" the former. I was using that absurd example to ! expose the absurdity of Ed's alleged logic. ! ! You can't say you get it if you still think it was cheap in ! the way you ! describe, as if I was somehow making a statement about the images ! themselves. I was being openly fecetious, but I was also ! being serious, ! about Ed's use of those images to score some kind of political point. ! ! I consider Ed's use of those images as a "cheap" shot against those of ! us whose positions are a bit more nuanced than "we want more ! pictures of ! dead children". ! ! THAT is what I think is "cheap" and frankly sewage was an awkward but ! appropriate analogy since that's what I think of Ed's argument. ! ! I'm curious why you don't find his assertion "cheap"... ! ! - Bob ! ! ! ! ! Regards ! ! ! ! Dominic Burford BSc Hons MBCS CITP ! ! Third Party Developer Program Senior Software Engineer ! ! ! * Tel: +44 (0) 1536 495074 ! ! * [EMAIL PROTECTED] ! ! ! ! "I conclude that there are two ways of constructing a software ! design: ! ! One way is to make it so simple there are obviously no ! ! deficiencies, ! and ! the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no ! obvious ! deficiencies." -- Tony Hoare, Turing Award Lecture 1980 ! ! ! ! ! -----Original Message----- ! ! From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ! [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On ! ! Behalf Of Bob Calco ! Sent: 20 June 2006 11:55 ! To: 'ProFox ! Email List' ! ! Subject: RE: [OT] Images of war ! ! ! ! ! ! ! << The analogy to indoor plumbing isn't entirely glib ! ! ! ! Of course it is. How can you possibly compare indoor ! ! plumbing to ! war? ! ! ! ! Jeez Dominic do I have to spell it out? ! ! ! ! Because we are not 'making war' for the sake of killing ! people so that ! ! we can have more misery and death captured on gruesome ! photographs, as ! ! Ed crudely claims. He is appealing to emotion---the natural human ! ! reaction to seeing the images---and impugning motives (as if ! to say, ! see ! what monsters they are, the people who support this policy) ! in ! order to ! set up an unsound syllogism---"To be for the policy of ! liberating Iraq ! from the terrorists and thugs you must be for babies ! getting ! killed and ! families torn apart. Since no human ! can possibly ! be for that ! (just look ! at the gruesome images and ask your own ! heart!), people who ! support the ! policy must be inhumane." ! ! ! ! He was analogously saying that people who ostensibly advocate ! ! something ! positive (say, indoor plumbing) REALLY advocate its dark ! side (more ! stink and sewage). ! ! ! ! ! ! ! To my knowledge, indoor plumbing has never killed anyone, or ! ! ! resulted in ! civil war. How many women and children have ! been killed ! ! from indoor ! plumbing? I think you have over stepped the ! mark in ! bad ! ! ! taste here Bob. ! ! ! ! I think I was using the analogy to illustrate the absurdity ! of Ed's ! ! renowned and esteemed logic. Ed was the one IMHO who stepped ! over the ! ! line. ! ! ! ! I don't advocate hiding the images and the reality of war's ! dark side, ! ! but I also think the desire to use them in the way Ed and ! then Dave ! ! Crozier advocates is simply because they know the images can ! be used ! to ! cloud logic with emotion to the benefit of their policy position. ! ! ! ! Fine propagandize all you want with the images (people use ! this tactic ! ! all the time, regardless of political persuasion)---not ! even ! knowing ! (as ! the author of the article admitted he didn't know) when or how ! most of ! the images came about. The implication was that ! they were all ! ! victims of ! American bombing, but in case you didn't notice most of ! the ! bombs in the ! last three years have been going off ! because Iraqi ! reactionaries and ! foreign terrorists have been engaged in a campaign ! to produce ! as many of ! those pictures as they can in order ! to weaken ! our resolve to ! defeat them ! and reassert authoritarian control over ! the Iraqi population ! [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
