Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 
Send Topic Print
'balance' (Read 3520 times)
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49224
At my desk.
Re: 'balance'
Reply #30 - Jan 31st, 2016 at 5:13pm
 
Quote:
I qualify it


You just explained earlier it is not a qualification.

Quote:
because my opinion/position includes the qualification, one you acknowledge but you just find to be an inconvenience to your position.


It is not inconvenient Aussie. It is ambiguous. Let me dumb it down a bit more. It could mean one of two things:

It is not possible to interfere in another state without undermining their sovereignty (duh).

We do not have the right to interfere because it would undermine their sovereignty.

Do you understand the difference? Which position are you taking?
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 38805
Gender: male
Re: 'balance'
Reply #31 - Jan 31st, 2016 at 5:19pm
 
It is not ambiguous at all freediver, and I will not allow you to strawman my position which is:

Quote:
If I am going to impose my belief on any State, I cannot effectively do so without breaching its soveregnty.

I can hold my breath, go blue in the face, make railing speeches at the UN, even get a UN resolution (what chance is there of that if say, China is the relevant State) to send in the troops if that State does not bow to my will, (i.e.......I have to impose it) but....to act physically, i.e. militarily to do so is a breach of the State's sovereignty.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49224
At my desk.
Re: 'balance'
Reply #32 - Jan 31st, 2016 at 5:35pm
 
So now your position completely excludes any statements regarding rights? That is not qualification Aussie. That is backpedaling.

Would I be strawmaning you if I quoted your previous statements about rights?
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 38805
Gender: male
Re: 'balance'
Reply #33 - Jan 31st, 2016 at 5:38pm
 
freediver wrote on Jan 31st, 2016 at 5:35pm:
So now your position completely excludes any statements regarding rights? That is not qualification Aussie. That is backpedaling.

Would I be strawmaning you if I quoted your previous statements about rights?


Go right ahead.  Nothing I have said is different from this:

Quote:
If I am going to impose my belief on any State, I cannot effectively do so without breaching its soveregnty.

I can hold my breath, go blue in the face, make railing speeches at the UN, even get a UN resolution (what chance is there of that if say, China is the relevant State) to send in the troops if that State does not bow to my will, (i.e.......I have to impose it) but....to act physically, i.e. militarily to do so is a breach of the State's sovereignty.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49224
At my desk.
Re: 'balance'
Reply #34 - Jan 31st, 2016 at 5:42pm
 
OK, back to page 1 for Aussie. You said this:

Aussie wrote on Jan 29th, 2016 at 7:51pm:
Quote:
First of all I think it is fairly natural to care about anyone being subjugated, and the sort of oppression faced by women in Muslim countries, and the middle east in particular, is pretty grinding.


Therein lies the problem.  We are sticking our nose into the cultures of another World....and that is grinding, freediver.  It is none of our bloody business.  I'm not here to impose my beliefs on Eskimo culture either.  What gives us the right to tell the people of other Sovereign States how they must live?


Can you tell the difference Aussie?

Or to dumb it down for you, can you tell the difference between these two statements?

It is not possible to interfere in another state without undermining their sovereignty (duh).

We do not have the right to interfere because it would undermine their sovereignty.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 38805
Gender: male
Re: 'balance'
Reply #35 - Jan 31st, 2016 at 5:47pm
 
You have already been to that point, freediver and I responded with the obvious:

Quote:
Oh I see.  You did not understand that I meant physical or actual imposition.


Why do you ignore what I say?  You are, as I have already said, and it will be obvious to anyone reading, misrepresenting my position.  Which is:

Quote:
If I am going to impose my belief on any State, I cannot effectively do so without breaching its soveregnty.

I can hold my breath, go blue in the face, make railing speeches at the UN, even get a UN resolution (what chance is there of that if say, China is the relevant State) to send in the troops if that State does not bow to my will, (i.e.......I have to impose it) but....to act physically, i.e. militarily to do so is a breach of the State's sovereignty.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49224
At my desk.
Re: 'balance'
Reply #36 - Jan 31st, 2016 at 6:54pm
 
I am not ignoring what you say Aussie. I am trying to get you to understand the question (or at least, stop deflecting). Try taking it at face value.

Can you tell the difference between these two statements?

It is not possible to interfere in another state without undermining their sovereignty (duh).

We do not have the right to interfere because it would undermine their sovereignty.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 38805
Gender: male
Re: 'balance'
Reply #37 - Jan 31st, 2016 at 7:02pm
 
Whether I do or not is beside the point.  This is my position, and no matter how many times you ask, you will get the response:

Quote:
If I am going to impose my belief on any State, I cannot effectively do so without breaching its soveregnty.

I can hold my breath, go blue in the face, make railing speeches at the UN, even get a UN resolution (what chance is there of that if say, China is the relevant State) to send in the troops if that State does not bow to my will, (i.e.......I have to impose it) but....to act physically, i.e. militarily to do so is a breach of the State's sovereignty.


Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49224
At my desk.
Re: 'balance'
Reply #38 - Jan 31st, 2016 at 7:20pm
 
Quote:
Whether I do or not is beside the point.


It is the entire point. If you cannot understand the distinction, how do you know if you have clarified your position? I have never seen anyone argue that being able to comprehend a discussion is not necessary t participate in it.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
John Smith
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 74862
Gender: male
Re: 'balance'
Reply #39 - Jan 31st, 2016 at 7:23pm
 
freediver wrote on Jan 31st, 2016 at 1:07pm:
For example here we have John Smith complaining that I have started 1000 threads on the mistreatment of women in Islam, and no threads at all on the mistreatement of women outside of Islam.


you claiming your issue was the mistreatment of women. I don't believe you, you simply use the mistreatment of women as an excuse to attack Islam. Any reasonable person who really had an issue with the mistreatment of women, wouldn't limit it to cases involving Islam only.

freediver wrote on Jan 31st, 2016 at 1:07pm:
Despite having a dedicated board for the discussion of Islam


have you a board dedicated to Catholicism? Or Buddist? What about Hindu?

freediver wrote on Jan 31st, 2016 at 1:07pm:
He claims that he is here more often than I am and has been keeping such careful track of what I do that he knows what topics I don't start threads on.


No, I said that I've been on here most days since I've joined, which is probably more than you, and I've never seen you start a thread on women's right other than as an attack on women. You of course could have put up links to all these threads you made defending womens rights against anyone other than Islam?

freediver wrote on Jan 31st, 2016 at 1:07pm:
He appears to have now conceded the point on thread count (or at least, changed the topic again) and moved on to making it about honesty, particularly when it comes to motivation.


It was always about honesty ... that you fail to realise that speaks volumes



WHile we're at it, why do you feel the need to deliberately misrepresent what people say? Are you that scared that your own arguments won't stack up that you resort to these school yard tactics?
Back to top
 

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49224
At my desk.
Re: 'balance'
Reply #40 - Jan 31st, 2016 at 7:47pm
 
Quote:
you claiming your issue was the mistreatment of women. I don't believe you


That's nice John. Any particular reason?

Quote:
Any reasonable person who really had an issue with the mistreatment of women, wouldn't limit it to cases involving Islam only.


Have you established that is the case, or is this another case of you simply believing whatever you want to believe?

In fact I can recall cases where I have criticised the mistreatment of Muslim women by non-Muslim governments. How does that fit in with your "I don't believe you" bullshit?

Quote:
No, I said that I've been on here most days since I've joined, which is probably more than you, and I've never seen you start a thread on women's right other than as an attack on women.


You'll have to explain that for for the less apologetic among us.

Quote:
It was always about honesty ... that you fail to realise that speaks volumes


So why did you whine about the number of threads? Could you not think of a better excuse at the time?
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 38805
Gender: male
Re: 'balance'
Reply #41 - Jan 31st, 2016 at 8:04pm
 
freediver wrote on Jan 31st, 2016 at 7:20pm:
Quote:
Whether I do or not is beside the point.


It is the entire point. If you cannot understand the distinction, how do you know if you have clarified your position? I have never seen anyone argue that being able to comprehend a discussion is not necessary t participate in it.


Simple.  I do not have a confused mind.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
John Smith
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 74862
Gender: male
Re: 'balance'
Reply #42 - Jan 31st, 2016 at 8:11pm
 
freediver wrote on Jan 31st, 2016 at 7:47pm:
Any particular reason?


go back and read the other thread

freediver wrote on Jan 31st, 2016 at 7:47pm:
In fact I can recall cases where I have criticised the mistreatment of Muslim women by non-Muslim governments. How does that fit in with your "I don't believe you" bullshit?



I don't believe you, bullshit
Back to top
 

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49224
At my desk.
Re: 'balance'
Reply #43 - Jan 31st, 2016 at 8:39pm
 
Quote:
Simple.  I do not have a confused mind.


Let's not complicate things Aussie. Try to figure out the difference between these two statements:

It is not possible to interfere in another state without undermining their sovereignty (duh).

We do not have the right to interfere because it would undermine their sovereignty.

Quote:
go back and read the other thread


Oh, you mean that one. I read it, and it proves that you deflect whenever you are shown wanting.

Quote:
I don't believe you, bullshit


You like to put yourself out on a limb, then saw it off, don't you John? Do you recall responding to a thread I recently started by saying how surprised you are and how you had misjudged me?
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 38805
Gender: male
Re: 'balance'
Reply #44 - Jan 31st, 2016 at 8:54pm
 
freediver wrote on Jan 31st, 2016 at 8:39pm:
Quote:
Simple.  I do not have a confused mind.


Let's not complicate things Aussie. Try to figure out the difference between these two statements:

It is not possible to interfere in another state without undermining their sovereignty (duh).

We do not have the right to interfere because it would undermine their sovereignty.

Quote:
go back and read the other thread


Oh, you mean that one. I read it, and it proves that you deflect whenever you are shown wanting.

Quote:
I don't believe you, bullshit


You like to put yourself out on a limb, then saw it off, don't you John? Do you recall responding to a thread I recently started by saying how surprised you are and how you had misjudged me?


I don't need to freediver, and neither is it relevant.  This is my position:

Quote:
If I am going to impose my belief on any State, I cannot effectively do so without breaching its soveregnty.

I can hold my breath, go blue in the face, make railing speeches at the UN, even get a UN resolution (what chance is there of that if say, China is the relevant State) to send in the troops if that State does not bow to my will, (i.e.......I have to impose it) but....to act physically, i.e. militarily to do so is a breach of the State's sovereignty.


Butt your head against that brick wall as much as you like.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 
Send Topic Print