Jump to content

Even MORE Interesting...


Recommended Posts

Knock yourself out Mike, be as harsh as you like, but exactly how is being harsh making your point any more valid?

Nothing you can say will change the basic premise that regardless of the content of the issue, this is about free speech and freedom of the press which can only be resolved in a court of law.

I've said my piece and likely won't respond, so you'll be talking to a wall. If however, you feel the need to vindicate yourself and prove how clueless I am, be my guest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by Grizzle:

Knock yourself out Mike, be as harsh as you like, but exactly how is being harsh making your point any more valid?

Nothing you can say will change the basic premise that regardless of the content of the issue, this is about free speech and freedom of the press which can only be resolved in a court of law.

I've said my piece and likely won't respond, so you'll be talking to a wall. If however, you feel the need to vindicate yourself and prove how clueless I am, be my guest.


LOL!

OK, dude, I'm seriously full of sarcasm. Please don't take my rhetoric so seriously...

That aside, I think I've CLEARLY illustrated the implications of the NY Times story and why it's so controversial. And I've pointed out that those "compulsory subpeonas" are nothing more than what could be called a "stern" request. I can go into why financial clearinghouses are not legally obligated to do ANYTHING, but I think we BOTH know that you were somewhat trying to cover for certain errors.

To whit:

quote:


"Besides, who didn't already know the government was tracking financial transactions in an effort to hunt down terrorists?"

You made this statement implying that there was no real damage because, heck, everyone already KNEW! Then you started arguing how, although no one knew the specifics, it doesn't really hurt that they are now publically available. So, by first indicating that, essentially the story was OK to publish because it is nothing new and then following up with DEFENDING the NEW information released, you default the first argument, therefore falling into the category of "winging it". I have a pretty long memory - as a result of that I don't let people easily change the scope of their arguement lest I be distracted from mine.

If you want to make the debate about the press and freedom thereof, feel free to start another thread. I'll GLADLY engage in that, considering that you've implied that any restrictions on our press would make us into a state such as North Korea or China. I DID, however, point out that the UK has some restrictions on their press and that they are HARDLY considered repressionist states such as NK or China. That was an argument which you summarily IGNORED.

Frankly, you've IGNORED EVERYTHING which doesn't support your assertions, and I usually find that to be an indication of how weak said assertions are.

In fact, about ALL you've said that I agree with is this:

quote:


I'm not saying people don't have reason to be angry at the NYT and I'm not saying their decision was necessarily the right one.

...and "agreement" is a term I'm using fairly loosely. This is another example of an argument defaulting: you've defending the NY Times story as doing no harm than you try to say that maybe people are right to be upset over it. If it does no harm, than why would anyone to be correct in being angry?

Here's the bottom line: You KNOW as well as *I* do that the NY Times screwed up. You SHOULD know (after I explained it to you) that financial clearinghouses aren't as simple as you first attempted to make them out to be.

I agree with you that press freedom is ESSENTIAL to our republic. The difference between you and I is simple: YOU are cynical regarding the government's motivations and *I* am cynical regarding the motivations of the press. I don't give the press a free pass simply because they are exercising first ammendment rights. Heck, so are the KKK, Neo-Nazis, NAMBLA, and plenty of other undesirable organizations. Furthermore, as YOU pointed out ... the GOVERNMENT is by the PEOPLE. The press are private and NOT elected or accountable to the people. Please think about that.

As for the other thing: seriously, take my rhetoric with a grain-of-salt. I've been debating on here for YEARS and that's my style. You may find me a difficult opponent and I pride myself on NOT taking a side of an issue until I have THOROUGHLY researched and understand it.

But, when I'm not in this forum, I don't think about said rivalries nor do I discuss them. The opinions and assertions stand their own merits and I let THEM, not the person, speak. Meaning: when I'm a smart-ass, don't take it personally. Just think of it as an opportunity to either learn something or further your research and knowledge of something. Remember, I try not to say much without looking it up first.

Word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I HAVE to respond to this separately, though (sorry)

quote:


Knock yourself out Mike, be as harsh as you like, but exactly how is being harsh making your point any more valid?

By being "harsh" I meant pointing out more contradictory flaws in your arguments than I already have, and moreso showing that your "understanding" of the NY Times story seemed to change AFTER you stated that you already understood it.

Seriously, if I go point-by-point, it ain't gonna be pretty because a lot of things you previously said were at odds at things you said in your most recent post. I've pointed out SOME of the contradictions in my last post, but I assure you there are more. I was simply hoping that you would FINALLY seemy point as to the harm of the NY Times story and not continue to defend it using false logic and suppositions.

In other words, what I meant by "harsh" was, please fill all the holes in your argument and THEN tell me what you think. You seem to be a fairly smart guy; no reason to let a premature judgement blind your sensibilities and make you say things that don't demonstrate the brains you so clearly have (not sarcasm, by the way). I know people sometimes get too invested in their ideologies to think anything else, but sometimes you have to get past that. Heck, in another thread, someone implied that smoking was safe! (To be TOTALLY fair he later clarified what he meant.)

In any case, you don't need to argue to me that press freedom is integral to our way of life. But I think I CAN successfully argue to you that there needs to be SOME restrictions on the freedom of press.

But, dude, by "harsh" I don't mean flaming you or anything. This is 3000ad.com, man. I've been here for years and while I go as far as one can possibly go in being unpleasant, I don't cross the line. Hell, I've BANNED people for crossing the line (which, by the way, you're doing a good job of remaining VERY civil).

So, again, don't take it so personally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's all good Mike.

I don't take your style personally. I've just been engaged in enough intractable arguments on this board to have learned that they quickly degrade into completely irrelevant shouting matches.

When the form of debate becomes the topic and assumptions are made as to what one is thinking it's time to close the book and agree to disagree.

It's apparent you and I operate on completely different wavelengths, but I'm sure we'll have plenty of opportunity to butt heads on other topics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...