4 ms·

>>Your so called counter-argument, the one that you repeatingly kept asking a reply for is not a counter-argument at all. As I've written five++ times, it is n

by berntb 13y ago

>>Your so called counter-argument, the one that you repeatingly kept asking a reply for is not a counter-argument at all. As I've written five++ times, it is not only my motivation -- it is the Obama administration's motivation. So your long argument why you don't need to quote and answer that goes also for the main US motivation... THE thing to argue against, you refuse to touch! Which makes your well written text funny, in all its dishonesty. (That you call trivial game theory "illogical" makes it even better.) >>All that I said is that I'm skeptical about assessment made by HRW in this particular case You hint HRW is in the US pocket, without any support. Another thing you refuse to touch is when I repeatedly write: "So HRW, multiple intelligence organisations and EU are in a conspiracy -- and the Truth comes from you, Putin and Assad." I try to write little to dishonest people, so they can't easily avoid subjects. But even without input from me, you just write really long without touching what I write! For instance, my/Obama's motivation which you refuse to touch is relevant for the "catastrophe risk". And you also refuse to touch that the main humanitarian problem is the military. And... Enough. (I stop now, after noting some cases where you're just dishonest, so you have less chance to avoid the subjects you try to bury.)

berntb 13y ago
I only want to add one thing to my comment here. And that is that I'm an idiot for wasting my time. There are three possibilities when someone repeatedly refuse to answer the single, simple reason for my position (in this case, also the central point in the Obama motivation for bombing) -- and instead write lots of gigantic blocks of text. a). You're a troll. b). You're an idealist. They lack answers, but "know" they are correct so they ignore anything contradictory. c). You're a politician or some other kind of paid propagandist, which don't care if you argue honestly (or if what you write has anything to do with reality). I would be willing to bet money that you're a case of c). So I've wasted time trying to talk to you, since you're probably paid for every anti-bombing comment you post on HN. No matter that anyone reads this deep. (I just wonder about the souls of people who knowingly help the Assad juntas of this world with torturers, murderers and rapists. Most of you people are religious and believe in a judgement after death...)
- pipy 13y ago
  I sincerely don't understand what you're talking about. What "counter argument" I refuse to touch, in your opinion? Just state it in _one single sentence_. Do you really think that "Obama's motivation" is some kind of proven fact that is on your side? Is this it? Also, just for the sake of a joke, what if I was able to prove you wrong in your assumptions about me, in a skype call, let's say? :) At first I was really disappointed to have spent so much time in explaining the whole context of Syrian situation. Now I'm really amused, since 1) I believe in your sincerity 2) I find it really incredible that you haven't grasped my position in all it's honesty and being grounded in facts. I'm not a self-centered person (at least, I like to think so). And I'm really interested in understanding other people. To me your view of the situation is a big question mark that would be fun to resolve.
  - berntb 13y ago
    In this comment, pipy wrote: >> I sincerely don't understand what you're talking about. >>What "counter argument" I refuse to touch, in your opinion? pipy "sincerely" lie -- in his previous comment he was aware of the subject (and avoided it in another dishonest way): >> Your so called counter-argument, the one that you repeatingly kept asking a reply for is not a counter-argument at all. It is illogical of you to think of it as such. Here is what pipy refused to touch 6++ times (from "Some trivial points"): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6328506 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6328506 (The other example I selected is pipy's refusal to acknowledge that the main humanitarian problem in Syria is certainly the Syrian army.) I'll just quote my answer to his previous comment: As I've written five++ times, it is not only my motivation -- it is the Obama administration's motivation. So your long argument why you don't need to quote and answer [what I wrote] goes also for the main US motivation... THE thing to argue against, you refuse to touch! Which makes your well written text funny, in all its dishonesty. (That you call trivial game theory "illogical" makes it even better.) [And let me note -- shameless liars on the Internet that want to identify me makes me want to call the police.]
    - pipy 13y ago
      You see, all of the "trivial points" that you mention in the link above are all assumptions on your side, but not facts [1]. You keep calling me a liar, when all of my statements are supported by extensive footnotes with verifiable evidence. You keep calling me a Putin and Assad shill, when in fact none of the footnotes that I've provided point to pro-Russian, or pro-Assad sources. At this point discussion with you becomes pointless, since it is the basic logic itself that you don't follow. On the point of your note about calling the police: IMO, this is a hilarious, `fahrenheit-451-esque` statement. Or, I should say, it would be hilarious if it weren't so sad. [1] On Difference between facts and assumptions: http://infotrac.thomsonlearning.com/infowrite/wr_facts.html http://infotrac.thomsonlearning.com/infowrite/wr_facts.html

by berntb 13y ago

berntb 13y ago

I only want to add one thing to my comment here. And that is that I'm an idiot for wasting my time. There are three possibilities when someone repeatedly refuse to answer the single, simple reason for my position (in this case, also the central point in the Obama motivation for bombing) -- and instead write lots of gigantic blocks of text. a). You're a troll. b). You're an idealist. They lack answers, but "know" they are correct so they ignore anything contradictory. c). You're a politician or some other kind of paid propagandist, which don't care if you argue honestly (or if what you write has anything to do with reality). I would be willing to bet money that you're a case of c). So I've wasted time trying to talk to you, since you're probably paid for every anti-bombing comment you post on HN. No matter that anyone reads this deep. (I just wonder about the souls of people who knowingly help the Assad juntas of this world with torturers, murderers and rapists. Most of you people are religious and believe in a judgement after death...)

pipy 13y ago
I sincerely don't understand what you're talking about. What "counter argument" I refuse to touch, in your opinion? Just state it in _one single sentence_. Do you really think that "Obama's motivation" is some kind of proven fact that is on your side? Is this it? Also, just for the sake of a joke, what if I was able to prove you wrong in your assumptions about me, in a skype call, let's say? :) At first I was really disappointed to have spent so much time in explaining the whole context of Syrian situation. Now I'm really amused, since 1) I believe in your sincerity 2) I find it really incredible that you haven't grasped my position in all it's honesty and being grounded in facts. I'm not a self-centered person (at least, I like to think so). And I'm really interested in understanding other people. To me your view of the situation is a big question mark that would be fun to resolve.
- berntb 13y ago
  In this comment, pipy wrote: >> I sincerely don't understand what you're talking about. >>What "counter argument" I refuse to touch, in your opinion? pipy "sincerely" lie -- in his previous comment he was aware of the subject (and avoided it in another dishonest way): >> Your so called counter-argument, the one that you repeatingly kept asking a reply for is not a counter-argument at all. It is illogical of you to think of it as such. Here is what pipy refused to touch 6++ times (from "Some trivial points"): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6328506 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6328506 (The other example I selected is pipy's refusal to acknowledge that the main humanitarian problem in Syria is certainly the Syrian army.) I'll just quote my answer to his previous comment: As I've written five++ times, it is not only my motivation -- it is the Obama administration's motivation. So your long argument why you don't need to quote and answer [what I wrote] goes also for the main US motivation... THE thing to argue against, you refuse to touch! Which makes your well written text funny, in all its dishonesty. (That you call trivial game theory "illogical" makes it even better.) [And let me note -- shameless liars on the Internet that want to identify me makes me want to call the police.]
  - pipy 13y ago
    You see, all of the "trivial points" that you mention in the link above are all assumptions on your side, but not facts [1]. You keep calling me a liar, when all of my statements are supported by extensive footnotes with verifiable evidence. You keep calling me a Putin and Assad shill, when in fact none of the footnotes that I've provided point to pro-Russian, or pro-Assad sources. At this point discussion with you becomes pointless, since it is the basic logic itself that you don't follow. On the point of your note about calling the police: IMO, this is a hilarious, `fahrenheit-451-esque` statement. Or, I should say, it would be hilarious if it weren't so sad. [1] On Difference between facts and assumptions: http://infotrac.thomsonlearning.com/infowrite/wr_facts.html http://infotrac.thomsonlearning.com/infowrite/wr_facts.html