Originally posted by shavixmir
Yeah. The US should have wiped those bloody Injuns out when they had the chance!

God damn socialist morality creeping in the backdoor!

But I thought you were beginning to turn on Big Brother? Was it not you complaining of all the cameras watching you and the thought police monitoring your every move? Or did you somehow come to the conclusion that the problem lies with capitalism and Christians? I'm sure you can somehow make the connection. In fact, I have faith in ya Shav!!

Now Big Brother is going to tell us how to right the wrongs in our past. In fact, I have a list of my own I would like for them to "fix".

Originally posted by sh76
I'm sure some people would call for the confiscation of my house and its re-distribution to people who are homeless under the banner of equality and social rights.

What is achieved by using such an extreme example?

Sounds like a poisoning-the-well exercise.

And yet I notice that you support the historical and ongoing confiscation of Palestinian land under a banner and its re-distribution to other people who have designated themselves as "homeless".

Originally posted by FMF
What is achieved by using such an extreme example?

Sounds like a poisoning-the-well exercise.

And yet I notice that you support the historical and ongoing confiscation of Palestinian land under a banner and its re-distribution to other people who have designated themselves as "homeless".

Sheesh. Next he'll be saying Goldmann Sachs did nothing wrong.

Originally posted by FMF
What is achieved by using such an extreme example?

Sounds like a poisoning-the-well exercise.

The purpose is to show that there's no point in judging a statement, document or agreement without knowing what's in it... to show that the same term can mean different things to different people... to show that the support of and idea without limitations can often lead to extreme and undesirable results.

I wasn't referring specifically to this agreement, as I do not know what's in it. I don't see how that's "poisoning the well." I find that using the extreme example is sometimes an excellent device with which to work on proper phrasing and to necessarily narrow the scope of a vague term.




As we have said, we cannot trace the effect of an act to the end, if end there is. Again, however, we may trace it part of the way. A murder at Serajevo may be the necessary antecedent to an assassination in London twenty years hence. An overturned lantern may burn all Chicago. We may follow the fire from the shed to the last building. We rightly say the fire started by the lantern caused its destruction.

- New York State Court of Appeals Judge Andrews, dissent in the landmark case Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., 162 N.E. 99 (N.Y. 1928), using the device of the extreme example to help limit the definition of "causation."

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Sheesh. Next he'll be saying Goldmann Sachs did nothing wrong.

Yeah, probably.

Nice contribution again, by the way. You're getting better at this.

At this rate, within a few years, you'll have something substantive to say.