I always loved this argument.....the site has an argument to make and it makes it. If you want to argue against it then do so. Just don't say it is not objective.Jaekus wrote:
Because that information is sooooooo objectively presented too.
Last edited by presidentsheep (2011-02-07 16:27:37)
It's not really argument, it's fact tbh.lowing wrote:
I always loved this argument.....the site has an argument to make and it makes it. If you want to argue against it then do so. Just don't say it is not objective.Jaekus wrote:
Because that information is sooooooo objectively presented too.
a pro life website doesn't argue for the benefits of abortion
really? got any anti Israel sites that give a balanced view?presidentsheep wrote:
Just looked through the site lowing posted and if you follow the guys links, a lot of them aren't about what he says they are, or are dead links.
He's used information very selectively from sources, cherry picking to support his views instead of giving a balanced view.
Plus his headline makes it fairly obvious the sites going to be biased.
tl;dr:
bad source.
Do you have any pro-Israel ones which do?lowing wrote:
really? got any anti Israel sites that give a balanced view?
if you are sourcing other information then you are "regurgitating" someone elses leg work.. stop trying to flatter yourself.Jaekus wrote:
It's not really argument, it's fact tbh.lowing wrote:
I always loved this argument.....the site has an argument to make and it makes it. If you want to argue against it then do so. Just don't say it is not objective.Jaekus wrote:
Because that information is sooooooo objectively presented too.
a pro life website doesn't argue for the benefits of abortion
And if I was going to argue for legal abortion, I wouldn't source my arguments from a pro-choice website, I'd choose proper scientific backed studies and government data to build my case.
You know, make my own argument, instead of regurgitating someone else's...
Because he can't find any.Dilbert_X wrote:
Do you have any pro-Israel ones which do?lowing wrote:
really? got any anti Israel sites that give a balanced view?
Why not use objective facts instead of single issue bloggers?
that blogger sourced his info you did the same with religion of peace, if you dont like the information you trash the site and will not touch the information presented....an easy attack on your part.Dilbert_X wrote:
Do you have any pro-Israel ones which do?lowing wrote:
really? got any anti Israel sites that give a balanced view?
Why not use objective facts instead of single issue bloggers?
You miss the point.lowing wrote:
if you are sourcing other information then you are "regurgitating" someone elses leg work.. stop trying to flatter yourself.Jaekus wrote:
It's not really argument, it's fact tbh.lowing wrote:
I always loved this argument.....the site has an argument to make and it makes it. If you want to argue against it then do so. Just don't say it is not objective.
a pro life website doesn't argue for the benefits of abortion
And if I was going to argue for legal abortion, I wouldn't source my arguments from a pro-choice website, I'd choose proper scientific backed studies and government data to build my case.
You know, make my own argument, instead of regurgitating someone else's...
Last edited by Jaekus (2011-02-07 16:38:05)
actually you didnt argue shit, you looked at it and dismissed it, that is not arguing against anythingpresidentsheep wrote:
I argued with the information... Most of it is cherry picked or dead links.
and if you dig up "govt research" to support your argument then you really are doing the same thing....I linked to a site that organized the argument and sourced the info, why should I reinvent the wheel when all the info is there...You guys try and pull the same shit on the religion of peace, you will not dare dispute the information you will only attack the presentation of it. and that is a weak ass position.Jaekus wrote:
You miss the point.lowing wrote:
if you are sourcing other information then you are "regurgitating" someone elses leg work.. stop trying to flatter yourself.Jaekus wrote:
It's not really argument, it's fact tbh.
And if I was going to argue for legal abortion, I wouldn't source my arguments from a pro-choice website, I'd choose proper scientific backed studies and government data to build my case.
You know, make my own argument, instead of regurgitating someone else's...
You're constructing your arguments from someone else's argument, and using that argument as a "source" for your argument (it literally is the source of your argument, but clearly not the objective facts as half the forum continues to point out to you since I can remember). Then when someone calls you out on it you seem to miss the point that taking objective facts from objective sources (ie. sites without an agenda) is a better way to present things, and have to be told again... and again... and again...
How about backing up your argument with sources that aren't political in nature (ie. right/left wing websites)? Something a lot more neutral and objective? People will be more receptive to your argument as a result.
Last edited by lowing (2011-02-07 17:05:56)
serious? Link?presidentsheep wrote:
Fuck, part of the site even uses borat as a source...
it isn't like there isn't an argument for Israel's position in all of this so gimme a breakpresidentsheep wrote:
Fuck, part of the site even uses borat as a source...
are you actually going to blame Israel for the rockets missing?AussieReaper wrote:
Compare what those rockets did in comparrison to what the Israeli bombs, tanks, shells, helicopters and aircraft did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_Gaza_War
A few school were closed in Israel.
No, and you're now attempting to create a straw man argument by saying so.lowing wrote:
are you actually going to blame Israel for the rockets missing?AussieReaper wrote:
Compare what those rockets did in comparrison to what the Israeli bombs, tanks, shells, helicopters and aircraft did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_Gaza_War
A few school were closed in Israel.
It is war.....you do not gauge your fight to compare to the attack against you..you fight it to win when you are attacked.AussieReaper wrote:
No, and you're now attempting to create a straw man argument by saying so.lowing wrote:
are you actually going to blame Israel for the rockets missing?AussieReaper wrote:
Compare what those rockets did in comparrison to what the Israeli bombs, tanks, shells, helicopters and aircraft did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_Gaza_War
A few school were closed in Israel.
Did you compare the destruction created by either side? Does one seem overhanded to you?
inaccurate based on your opinion or fact, if so link the inaccuracy to a fact.presidentsheep wrote:
http://markhumphrys.com/israel.html#indoctrination
About 3/4s down the page, it even gets it wrong borat isn't parodying the palestinians it was kazakstan.
Everything about that sites sources and information seems to be wrong or taken completely out of context from the article it was sourced from, seriously, just try random links on it and they're all inaccurate.
Calling it "war" doesn't justify anything. It's closer ethnic cleansing when you systematically destroy a country and decrease it's borders.lowing wrote:
It is war.....you do not gauge your fight to compare to the attack against you..you fight it to win when you are attacked.AussieReaper wrote:
No, and you're now attempting to create a straw man argument by saying so.lowing wrote:
are you actually going to blame Israel for the rockets missing?
Did you compare the destruction created by either side? Does one seem overhanded to you?
Then here is free advice stop attacking those that will kick your ass. It is a war started by the Arabs and Islamic nations stop blaming Israel for having the nerve to fight back and winAussieReaper wrote:
Calling it "war" doesn't justify anything. It's closer ethnic cleansing when you systematically destroy a country and decrease it's borders.lowing wrote:
It is war.....you do not gauge your fight to compare to the attack against you..you fight it to win when you are attacked.AussieReaper wrote:
No, and you're now attempting to create a straw man argument by saying so.
Did you compare the destruction created by either side? Does one seem overhanded to you?
Last edited by lowing (2011-02-07 17:03:16)
You're again creating a straw man argument. I do not support ethnic cleansing of Israel.lowing wrote:
Then here is free advice stop attacking those that will kick your ass. It is a war started by the Arabs and Islamic nations stop blaming Israel for having the nerve to fight back and winAussieReaper wrote:
Calling it "war" doesn't justify anything. It's closer ethnic cleansing when you systematically destroy a country and decrease it's borders.lowing wrote:
It is war.....you do not gauge your fight to compare to the attack against you..you fight it to win when you are attacked.
You are actually pissed that the ethnic cleansing of Israel isn't working. What makes your POV any better?
