Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Picking my teeth with Pudge's straw men 25 Comments More | Login | Reply /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • I found it rather offensive. I also loved how he defined a "just war" as one where you "really believe" the made-up facts against Iraq (and then goes on a rant about violating sanctions, yet these were UN sanctions and the UN did not authorise this war). Presumably made up facts about Iran will also be justification for an invasion.

    Yeah that makes a whole lot of sense now - GWB really believed all those "facts", so it MUST be Just.
    • I also loved how he defined a "just war" as one where you "really believe" the made-up facts against Iraq

      You love how I did something that I didn't do?

      Try listening again. What I said was that you can define it either way. If going into Iraq is to stop Hussein from doing something terrible, that is Just, according to the Just War Theory. This is a given. And I said the war is NOT a Just War if you think the motives were otherwise, such as for oil.

      and then goes on a rant about violating sanctions, yet th
      • Try listening again. What I said was that you can define it either way. If going into Iraq is to stop Hussein from doing something terrible, that is Just, according to the Just War Theory. This is a given. And I said the war is NOT a Just War if you think the motives were otherwise, such as for oil.

        You're very careful to not say whether or not you think it is or isn't a Just war. If you believe that it wasn't Just based on your reasoning then please feel free to respond to this comment indicating so. Otherw
        • You're very careful to not say whether or not you think it is or isn't a Just war.

          Correct. The reason is simple: because I am not entirely sure, and even to the extent I think it is, I wouldn't try to convince anyone else.

          Just because I am opinionated doesn't mean I have come to a conclusion about everything, or that I would attempt to convince others of all my opinions.

          If you believe that it wasn't Just based on your reasoning then please feel free to respond to this comment indicating so.

          There is no "fac
          • You can't even comment on your misrepresentation about what I actually said? Oh, come on ...

            I don't believe I did that, so what can I say? I'm sorry you think so, but that's one of those back-handed apologies that isn't worth much. Regarding your lack of criticism of the Bush administration - perhaps I've been reading the wrong blog and if so I can apologise for my lack of knowledge on that. Certainly I can't recall any such criticisms on use.perl though maybe my memory is faulty.

            Your reasoning for believin
            • I don't believe I did that, so what can I say?

              So you still think I defined a "just war" as one where you "really believe" the made-up facts against Iraq. Except, I didn't. I said that that reasoning could be one justification for saying the war was Just. But I added quickly that there was no obligation to believe those things, and that if you didn't, well, then probably, to you it wasn't Just. I did not define what a Just War was, I simply gave one way in which you could reasonably call the war Just, an
              • ... To that I merely say, I think the costs are too high to take that chance. Maybe I'm wrong. I dunno.

                The other common criticism of my view is that it didn't work: it just made things worse. To that I say two things: a. we do not know things are actually worse, especially for the long run; b. just because I favored going in doesn't mean I favor how the whole enterprise has been handled.

                Right now the only thing we do know is that a) things are actually worse and b) the costs have been enormous.

                When does it
                • Right now the only thing we do know is that a) things are actually worse and b) the costs have been enormous.

                  We do know b. As to a. ... worse than what? Worse than they would have been otherwise? We do not know that. It's perfectly reasonable to suppose, for example, that terrorism would be even worse had we not gone in.

                  For example, after the USS Cole attack, when the U.S. did not respond, that actually encouraged terrorists; if we backed down to Hussein, would that have encouraged terrorists too? Obvi
                  • There are definitely too many issues with the concept of "terrorist attacks". For example does the recent alleged plan to attack airplanes in the UK constitute an attack?

                    The problem with the cost aspect is it has the potential to throw the entire world into another depression, because the US is relying solely on debt to fund this war, and debt can only go so far - what is the plan to repay that debt? I don't believe there is one.

                    So despite Australia getting off lightly on the current cost of the war, there

              • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

                by jdavidb (1361)

                I found much more reasoned and dispassionate and interesting discussion on my Slashdot journal.

                Man, that's pathetic. Who runs this place, anyway?

                :P

                --
                J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers

  • You're clearly not putting that into the larger context of everything pudge has to say. I think it's clear pudge doesn't sit around dismissing liberals because "it's just wishful thinking" or "they think we can all have a Star Trek like existence." However, these are specific things that have been brought up to him. The Star Trek question was brought up two or three episodes ago.

    And all of this was in the context of, "Do you think conservatives are motivated by fear? And do you think liberals are just

    --
    J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers

    • Pudge deliberately chose a very narrow description of liberals -- and not one that I know of any liberal subscribing to -- and then used that to contrast against conservatives who reject that thinking. That's about as unfair a comparison as one can get and it definitely meets the criteria of straw man [wikipedia.org].

      • Pudge deliberately chose a very narrow description of liberals

        OK, now you are just lying about me. Please stop. You posted this AFTER you admitted I didn't say what you said I said. And now you continue to claim I did say it. Why are you lying about me?

        • Sigh. I am not lying, Pudge. I very specifically apologized to you for saying that you accused "all liberals" of the idiocy you described. That was clearly a mistake on my part and I am genuinely sorry for that mischaracterization.

          But as anyone who wants to read my comments in context [perl.org] can see, I take exception to your choosing to present a minority view (a minority so small I've never met anyone who subscribes to it) of Democrats, described them as "many Democrats", and deliberately used that as a cont

          • Sigh. I am not lying, Pudge. I very specifically apologized to you for saying that you accused "all liberals" of the idiocy you described. That was clearly a mistake on my part and I am genuinely sorry for that mischaracterization.

            And then you keep making that mischaracterization.

            But as anyone who wants to read my comments in context can see, I take exception to your choosing to present a minority view (a minority so small I've never met anyone who subscribes to it) of Democrats, described them as "many Dem

            • I should have said "liberals" instead of "democrats". I just woke up and replied too quickly.

              Has it occured to you that instead of being a liar, I might genuinely have a difference of opinion? I am not lying. I've linked to the context so that people can see for themselves. They might disagree with my conclusions, but that does not make me a liar.

              • Has it occured to you that instead of being a liar, I might genuinely have a difference of opinion?

                That is not possible. You keep repeating something (that I said this is the viewpoint of liberals) that you admitted I did not do.

                You're lying.
              • I know Ovid said he was only talking about SOME Christians [perl.org]. But I feel he really does mean all Christians. And I know he didn't say they are evil, but I feel that's what he really meant. And even though he denies it, I am not lying, because it is my opinion.

                So, Ovid is a bigot against Christians. And he also hates blacks. You can totally infer that from what he said.
  • His last podcast, as of this writing, makes it clear why it's not worth listening to.

    And your false statements about what I said show why your opinion on that is not worth paying attention to.

    He claims that liberals are driven by "wishful thinking" and and "the notion that we can make life on Earth perfect" and "[maybe] we can all have a Star Trek like existence".

    That's false. You admitted you were wrong. [perl.org] Don't you think that you should retract this?

    Yup. That's his view on liberals.

    To anyone who listens t

    • This is getting old and I won't keep retyping this. For anyone who wants to see my rebuttal (again), read this [perl.org].

      • This is getting old and I won't keep retyping this.

        Yes, your lies are getting old.

        You keep saying I 'claim that liberals are driven by "wishful thinking"' and so on. You insist on making this clearly and obviously false claim that you admitted was false.

        You are lying.

        For anyone who wants to see my rebuttal (again), read this.

        And for a rebuttal of your rebuttal: there's not one damned thing wrong with contrasting a viewpoint to my own. I don't know what bizarroworld you live in where this is wrong or "dis
  • There's a much better reason to not pay any attention to pudge. That is that he's boring and shrill. He repeats the same arguments over and over again, presumably in the mistaken belief that spouting the same tired verbiage over and over again will make people believe him. That might work for the idiot masses, but it doesn't work for an intelligent audience. I expect that he knows this and he just wants attention.

    My mother told me that ignoring such people would make them give up and go away. Online

    • Well, it's not too different over in the US. The country's been dragged so far to the right that the Democrats are a right wing party and the Republicans somewhat further to the right. There are a lot of commentators out there who refer to prominent Democrats as being left-wing radicals and people with no passports, who've never been to another country and who's views on world politics are carefully formed by Fox News nod their heads in agreement. The US and both major potical parties are so far to the r

      • No, the Democrats are not at all on the right. In fact, it's the Republicans who have been dragged far to the left, violating the Constitution to give pay for public schools and medicine and so on; using the language of progressivism ("it's good for society!") to support things like cutting the inheritance tax (which needs no such justification); and so on.

        This country has never been as far to the left as it is right now.
Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.