Quote:
Originally Posted by BinaryLife
(Post 479305)
Genghis, sometimes when you have a point you drown out your own thoughts with nonsense. It makes it difficult to follow, and causes a lot of confusion. You then get annoyed when other people find you difficult to converse with and you get even more confusing. You need to keep your responses as narrow as the conversation.
|
I disagree. People sometimes make extraneous things about themselves known by how they act, and other queues. Someone like Innoc fits a popular profile shared by a lot of people, and it's easy to extrapolate that by queues he gives off in his posts and otherwise. I realize that judging a persons character isn't a valid argument, but my attempt is not to always make a valid argument, but rather, persuade someone. I'm a polemicist, I'm good at making my case and getting people to think like me. Part of getting people to agree with me, is to criticize by trying to show them the flaws in their own thinking. If I wanted to keep everything strictly fact-based and keep the debate as narrow as possible, it would be awful boring, and I'd basically just be regurgitating Wikipedia, negating the need for actual debate. Debating is a binary thing, and I agree you should avoid logical fallacies, I don't think extraneous arguments like the ones you and Innoc are criticizing me for are off-limits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BinaryLife
(Post 479305)
If I say, I think Assange is and idiot. And you want to argue that, then focus your responses on why he is intelligent, and why I'm wrong to think he's an idiot. You shouldn't go on tirades about my resulting, inferred political beliefs and further confuse the discussion because then people stop caring.
|
Again, I respectfully disagree. There's reasons why people believe certain things, and unless you attack the reasons why people believe (wrongly) in certain ideologies, you'll never convince them that your position is better. Despite what most people think, the vast, vast, vast majority of people never challenge their own views, and this is why my style of debate is necessary. My goal is to find the ultimate truth, and the way to find the ultimate truth is to debate on the battlefield of ideas, and to also show people how I'm right. That is the zenith of debate, everyone thinks they're right, and they want to convince other people to agree with them. As I pointed out, people will believe in certain things for reasons other than pure logic and reason, and this is why keeping the debate as narrow as possible is dull and nothing more than a nicety, and not an actual rule of debating.
Also, don't confuse my style of polemicism with ad hominems, since people always bring this up. People will often accuse me (wrongly) of using an ad hominem when I go on extraneous rants. An ad hominem is when you attack someone personally INSTEAD of debating their argument. When I debate, I sometimes 'attack' people, but it's not
in place of an argument, it IS an argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BinaryLife
(Post 479305)
Now, the problem with Assange, is that much of what is leaked is irrelevant, but since he wants views and attention he hypes up things that would otherwise be overlooked.
|
Conjecture. Assange certainly isn't one to look for attention or to overblow things. If you have ever followed any of his earlier philosophical rants from his earlier years, you'd see he's entirely sincere in his goal. I also disagree what he's leaking is irrelevant, ESPECIALLY considering the most recent leak showed us that there's widespread corruption in Afghanistan, and is so bad our own diplomats don't even have any faith in it. You really think that's irrelevant? Don't you think Americans would like to know they're spending TRILLIONS of dollars in Iraq/Afghanistan, all to find out that it's pretty much a waste because drug runners have effectively shut down the Government are using it for their own benefit? It seems pretty clear to me that you haven't even followed the leaks and are just relying on what you heard on TV. There's PLENTY of relevant things we're learning from WikiLeaks. Some of the lessons are existential in nature, for instance, the recent leaks are basically confirming for us that the Emperor has no clothes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BinaryLife
(Post 479305)
create less of a hero mentality.
|
This is your own (flawed) extrapolation of what Wikipedia/Assange stand for. Wikileaks has really only had any notoriety in the media since the 'collateral murder' video was released earlier this year. It's been less than a year, and you're already convinced he has a 'hero mentality' despite the fact that he's been largely marginalized and unheard of in the short 4 years he and WikiLeaks have been around?
[quote=BinaryLife;479305]I like that there is someone to show us what our government is doing. But I also don't care what a political official mumbles to his friends when he's walking through the walls of the white house.
Do you care that our Secretary of State is concerning herself and her staff with essentially stealing the identities of foreign leaders and diplomats? While you're right that a majority of the recent cable leaks are mundane and boring (About 150,000 cables are barely secret, non-classified information), it's still nice to actually have SOME transparency.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BinaryLife
(Post 479305)
I assume you'll over exaggerate my view points though. Take my advice too personally, or do something to imply I believe something I don't. Just be nice.
|
http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/6...9205916447.gif