[quote=mranonymous2u] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

You could have chosen Reagan and Carter, but you didn't. You could have chosen Lincoln and Jackson, but you didn't.[/quote]

I wonder if you think quoting me proving you wrong is somehow evidence in support of your incorrect assertion? I didn’t chose Reagan/Carter because the two are too recent an example and I felt they would inspire an off-topic discussion of the policies of each.

BTW, perhaps this went unmentioned at your community college, but Lincoln and Jackson were on opposite sides of the Civil War…

[quote=mranonymous2u] You could have chosen Arafat and Sharon, but you didn't. [/quote]

Actually, those two wouldn’t fit, as they were not two leaders from the same country who took opposing views of what “peace” means, as can be said of Reagan/Carter and Churchill/Chamberlain. The fact that you don’t understand this goes far in explaining just how you ended up on the cul-de-sac of logic you’re currently parked in.

[quote=mranonymous2u]

You chose who you chose because of what they are most associated with (dealing with Hitler and the Nazis). [/quote]

Wrong, as expected. I chose those two because they’re a high profile example of two leaders from the same nation that dealt in vastly different manners to achieve what each called “peace” when faced with the same scenario. That’s why the Reagan/Carter analogy fit. It didn’t matter who or what they faced, it’s that they differed on the methodology and definition of “peace” while representing the interests of the same nation. IOW, and I can’t make it much plainer for you, Hitler and Nazis weren’t germane to my point.

 [quote=mranonymous2u]

It's a tenuous connection, for sure, but it is close enough to qualify you for LOSER! If you had chosen only Churchill and matched him with some different second person, Ghandi for example then the connection could not have been made. Too bad.

Mr. A

[/quote]

Still, you don’t get it, Churchill/Gandhi is a poor analogy for the reasons stated above, they didn’t face the same situation and they weren’t leaders of the same nation. You simply inferred something I never suggested, and then ran like the wind with it. That’s a familiar pattern of yours.

Here’s a bit of advice I’m sure someone’s given you before, but you decided not to heed. “Put down the shovel”….

"... when faced with the same scenario..." and what scenario was THAT Mike?

"BTW, perhaps this went unmentioned at your community college, but Lincoln and Jackson were on opposite sides of the Civil War…"

But they were both Americans weren't they? And they disagreed too, didn't they?

You could have chosen Sharon/Arafat. You didn't.  Why you didn't is a different issue. You could have chosen any two people in the world, but you didn't. You could have chosen Kane and Abel or any other two fictional characters, but you did not. You chose who you chose and you are stuck with what your choice implies to all reasonable peoples who know the history of these two.

" IOW, and I can’t make it much plainer for you, Hitler and Nazis weren’t germane to my point."

Nor were they germane to the thread, that's why Godwin's Law is accepted by Internet Flame Warriors, because losers love to deflect the argument away from the point of the thread and towards something that is AXIOMATICALLY agreed to (that Nazism was bad).

" You simply inferred something I never suggested.."

This is the problem you run into when you run off your pie hole without knowing what you're talking about. You wind up using words in the wrong context and then trying to explain why you didn't mean what you said.

Its your choice again Mikebutler222, are you stupid, or are you a liar, or are you both?

Mr. A

[quote=mranonymous2u] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

"... when faced with the same scenario..." and what scenario was THAT Mike? [/quote]

An outside enemy, A. Wasn’t that clear enough for you?  C/C had one, R/C another. It's already been explained to you that WHO that enemy was is immaterial to the point that they (C/C and R/C) disagreed about what "peace" means.

[quote=mranonymous2u]"BTW, perhaps this went unmentioned at your community college, but Lincoln and Jackson were on opposite sides of the Civil War…"

But they were both Americans weren't they? And they disagreed too, didn't they?[/quote]

Wow... uh, again,no. They may has failed to mention this at your local CC, but <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Jackson didn't consider himself an American citizen after he took the office of the president of a nation at war with the US.  Even if you weren’t aware of that, at least the fact that L/J didn’t hold the same office at different times and face a common enemy as C/C and R/C had should have been clear to you…

It would seem the reason you ran so far off the tracks here is, as you continue to demonstrate, you simply didn’t understand the analogy from jump street….As an RI once said, “Like a hog looking at a Timex”….

[quote=mranonymous2u]

You could have chosen Sharon/Arafat. You didn't. [/quote]

No, I couldn’t have, not and have been making the same point I was making. That being the point that continues (intentionally I have to assume) escape you. As with L/J, your latest two submissions were on OPPOSITE sides of a conflict, not two people who had held the same office and faced the same danger, responding in differing manners to achieve a different definition of “peace”….

[quote=mranonymous2u]

 Why you didn't is a different issue. [/quote]

Huh? Clearly this is beyond you, but the point I was making to bondtrader is that if two British PMs (and as mentioned later, two American presidents) can face the same situation and define “peace” differently, it shouldn’t be a mystery that people here with far less in common ALSO define it differently.

You continue to insist, in the absence of all evidence, that somehow the point involved Hitler and/or Nazis. There’s not much help I can give your there, but I hope you’ve budgeted for more than one shovle, because you seem intent on wearing this one and several more digging yourself deeper into this hole of your own creation…

[quote=mranonymous2u]

Its your choice again Mikebutler222, are you stupid, or are you a liar, or are you both?

 [/quote]

Getting even shriller in your laughable defense of your obviously mistaken assertion isn’t going to pull your chestnuts out of the fire, A. OTOH, I do want to thank you for the display. Impressive, I must say….

R/C? C/C?

"Wasn’t that clear enough for you?  C/C had one, R/C another. It's already been explained to you that WHO that enemy was is immaterial to the point that they (C/C and R/C) disagreed about what "peace" means."

Who are R/C and C/C?

Are we supposed to think you didn't mean Winston and Neville?

Mr. A

"An outside enemy..."

Who was that outside enemy?

Hmmm?

"It's already been explained to you that WHO that enemy was is immaterial to the point that they (C/C and R/C) disagreed about what "peace" means."

Meanwhile, Peace is Peace what WC and NC disagreed about was how to maintain/achieve it.

I understood your explication the first time.  You're not that difficult to follow (with the exception of the R/C, C/C thing). Following you is not the problem, pinning you down is the problem.

There is nothing that you have said that would be "beyond" any reasonable, sufficently educated person. Nor do I believe that you do not understand the weaknesses in your argument. This is why I prefer to think of you as Intellectually Dishonest. Your insistance that I don't understand your positions when I reduce them to the piffle that they were before you bloviated them full of your wasted breath is merely your Ad Hominem offense/defense. You know I understand what you are saying.

I would not be reasonable to expect that you can not grasp the fact that you had the universe of choices that you could have made for this comparison, you had the choice of infinite variables but you chose these people with these variables. Result, as stated, you are stuck with what these symbols represent.

Let's say you are painting a bridge. You are going to call it The Golden Gate Bridge and you are going to paint the bridge Red. International RED. You have many good reasons for calling it the Golden Gate Bridge, and you have every good reason for painting it Red. But when you grab the brush by the wet bristles and dip the handle into the paint can, you are still stained with the International Red because you used the brush wrong. 

It doesn't matter which variables you want to count and which ones you don't. All that matters is what you wound up with.

You invoke Churchill AND Chamberlin you have invoked the symbolism of WWII. That is a "comparison involving Hitler and the Nazis". You are comparing how NC tried to achieve peace with the Nazis to how WC did it (eventually).Now let's not forget that just a few hours earlier, you had posted a picture of Musolini's body. So WWII must have been close to your mind (relatively speaking in all things) at the time.

BTW, you didn't have to have intentionally Godwinned yourself. You may have inadvertantly stepped on the land mine. It doesn't matter, you still lose there Bill Buckner.

Having seen your style, though, I don't think that it was an accident that you brought this issue to the thread when "siding" with Bondguy's questioning of Aziz's definition of peace. It is very Mikebutler222like of you to use the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inference_objection Un-stated co-premise device (See Ad Hominem as Logical fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) to discredit Aziz.

A slick device that gives you plausible deniability. I'd be impressed with your talent if it had a shred of honesty about it.

Mr. A

I don’t regret throwing a grenade and watching a game of hot potato.

Eventually, its going to explode and someone will be destroyed. Thanks guys

for your tenacity, I always learn something new.



BTW, Mr.A’s writing style reminds me of “Dude”.

[quote=skeedaddy2] I don’t regret throwing a grenade and watching a

game of hot potato.

Eventually, its going to explode and someone will be destroyed. Thanks guys

for your tenacity, I always learn something new.



BTW, Mr.A’s writing style reminds me of “Dude”. [/quote]



C’mon, Skee! Dude was never THAT wrong THAT much!

I think both of you have waaaay too much time on your hands!!!

[quote=mranonymous2u]

R/C? C/C? [/quote]

Reagan/Carter, Churchill/Chamberlain, the names had already been used together numerous times in the conversation. The resulting shorthand should have been clear, even to someone who thought the president of the CSA considered himself a citizen of the USA in the middle of the Civil War.

Look if you couldn't understand the simple original analogy without twisting it down some silly self-serving path, and you can't keep up with resulting discussion there's even less reason to continue with you.

Make sure you have plenty of new shovels on hand and keep digging...

[quote=mranonymous2u]

Meanwhile, Peace is Peace what WC and NC disagreed about was how to maintain/achieve it. [/quote]

No, "peace" is clearly not “peace“, that‘s the essence of the lesson here. C/C and even R/C didn't simply differ on how to achieve it, they differed on what it means. Churchill made it clear there was no "peace" in allowing a wolf to sleep at your door. A wolf is a wolf and you can’t hold his nature against him. Chamberlain was certain (as was Carter) that the wolf could be tamed and the result would be “peace”.

If you can't grasp that, there's no hope for you.

[quote=mranonymous2u]I understood your explication the first time.[/quote]

Clearly you didn't, as you thought WHO the enemy was was important. Any possibility that you did understand was obviously erased when you began your foolish “you could have named anyone” tirade. Inserting Lincoln and Jackson, Sharon and Arafat? Clearly you didn’t follow.

[quote=mranonymous2u]You invoke Churchill AND Chamberlin you have invoked the symbolism of WWII. [/quote]

Obviously you still don’t get it, and you‘re a pathetic mind reader. It had nothing to do with WHO THE ENEMY WAS. If who the enemy was was critical the R/C comparison wouldn’t fit. The fact that you’ve inserted something I didn’t and persisted now for an enormous amount of bandwidth with your error says so very much about you, A. You could have simply admitted your error and moved along.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to research where I want to invest to get a part of the soon-to-be rocking shovel sales business…..

Jackson wasn’t the President of the Confederacy…Jeff Davis was.

[quote=Philo Kvetch]Jackson wasn't the President of the Confederacy...Jeff Davis was.[/quote]

Ouch, you're right. Thanks.

[quote=mranonymous2u]

....... I don't think that it was an accident that you brought this issue to the thread when "siding" with Bondguy's questioning of Aziz's definition of peace. [/quote]

Wow, it's amazing how you can get things twisted. I didn't "side" with Bondguy, my point was that the defintion of "peace" isn't universal.

[quote=mranonymous2u]

... to discredit Aziz. [/quote]

Again, you're waaayyyyyyy out there in left field. I wasn't discrediting Aziz, if anything I agree with his suggestion that you can wish peace to all AND note that some people are a threat to world peace and have to be dealt with, not ignored. Dealing with the wolf, as opposed to ignoring him or pretending he isn't really a wolf IS making strides for real peace.

[quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=Philo Kvetch]Jackson wasn’t the President of the Confederacy…Jeff Davis was.[/quote]

Ouch, you're right. Thanks.

"C/C had one, R/C another."

Okay, fair enough, I didn't pick up on it, even though I knew something was amiss because I didn't understand why you would have used a slash.

The other reason being that I never bought into your Reagan Carter line either in that I wasn't sure WHICH enemy you referred to. Iran or USSR. That's why I used Reagan Carter to show how the use of them eliminated other conflicts as opposed to the other examples I gave which related to a specific conflict.

As to Stonewall, BEFORE the Civil War, was he Estonian? Was he Mexican? Was he French? Or was he an American? Therefore this "even to someone who thought the president of the CSA considered himself a citizen of the USA in the middle of the Civil War." is another example of your intellectual dishonesty. Dishonest also in that your time line is self serving (and erroneous) in that if you are going to follow your own logic the two would not have been president of their respective countries at the same time (surely NC and WC were not the leader of England at the same time) so how is it honest to twist my statement from a prewar stance to a mid war observation?

" silly self-serving path" Self serving? How does your error serve me? I don't give a tinker's damn. You keep making those strawmen, that's what you're good at.

"No, "peace" is clearly not "peace", that‘s the essence of the lesson here."

Yes, that is the essence of the lesson here. Mikebutler222 insists that all things have a relativistic definition, and that these definitions are determined by whatever suits Mikebutler222's whim at the moment.

On the other hand, we have Mr Anonymous 2 U who is much more of an absolutist. He believes that words and symbols and phrases have meaning. Meaning that can be defined and have been agreed upon by society and cultures over the millennia. Peace is peace, we know what peace is. We know what "peace itself" is. All rational men desire peace most of the time. NC and WC both wanted the same thing. They both wanted not to be at war. Even during the war (or maybe even mostly during the war) they wanted to be at peace again.

"Churchill made it clear there was no "peace" in allowing a wolf to sleep at your door. A wolf is a wolf and you can’t hold his nature against him. Chamberlain was certain (as was Carter) that the wolf could be tamed and the result would be "peace"."

Aside from the fact that this is overly simplistic, it means nothing, it's more of your puffed up piffle. It says more to prove that peace in NC's mind is the same peace that is WC's ultimate goal than it does to justify your "position" that "... 'peace' is clearly not 'peace'." Relativism is only valid if you are internally consistent within the same line of reasoning, otherwise it's what's known as gibberish. "'A' can mean 'B' in situation '1' and it ('A') can mean 'W' in situation '2'." That's Relativism. But if 'A' means 'B' and or 'W' and or 'X' (where 'X' = an infinite number of variables) in situation '1' that's not Relativism.

"If you can't grasp that..."

"Clearly you didn't, "

"... as you thought WHO the enemy was was important. "

"Clearly you didn’t follow."

What you are confused by is the concept of "Can't vs. Won't" just as you are confused by the difference between "Grasp vs. accept as valid."

I won't follow you down your illogical ratholes and won't accede points where your only evidence is your ad hominem attack.

""Any possibility that you did understand was obviously erased when you began your foolish "you could have named anyone" tirade. Inserting Lincoln and Jackson, Sharon and Arafat? "

This is your intellectual dishonesty again. You understand what I meant and how it relates to your posit and yet you will obfuscate the logical conclusion of the exercise. You could have chosen anytwo, you chose these two.

mranonymous2u wrote:

You invoke Churchill AND Chamberlin you have invoked the symbolism of WWII.

Obviously you still don’t get it, and you‘re a pathetic mind reader. It had nothing to do with WHO THE ENEMY WAS. If who the enemy was was critical the R/C comparison wouldn’t fit.

It's YOU who don’t get it. You did what you did regardless if that was your intent or not. When you compare Neville Chamberlain and Winston Churchill you are talking about their interaction with Hitler UNLESS YOU SPECIFY OTHERWISE which you did NOT in the original post.

The Comparison with Reagan Carter does not work, it never worked! It was a blind alley bait that I didn't want to go down with you! Furthermore, Reagan/Carter didn't show up until AFTER you had Godwined yourself so it is STILL a blind alley regardless of your insistence to the contrary.

"my point was that the defintion [sic]of "peace" isn't universal."

Well you're WRONG. And that doesn't even matter. This is a discussion (now) about whether you Godwinned yourself or not, that's all.

You Godwinned yourself, for sure. You tripped over it and did a faceplant into A Cream of Godwin pie. Happens to the best of us sometimes. C'est la Guerre, yes no?

I'm happy that you are a tireless rebutter and I thank you for the exchange, it was most enjoyable. I learned a few things (more from what I wrote than from what you wrote, but you showed me a thing or two too) so it's all good.

Mr. A

For a listing of the various Netizen flame warriors, follows this link which defines the Tireless Rebutter.

I know I am at least severalteen of these characters. How many are you? (by you I don't mean just Mikebutler222, I mean also you, gentle reader)

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/tirelessrebutte r.htm

Mr.A

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=mranonymous2u]

....... I don't think that it was an accident that you brought this issue to the thread when "siding" with Bondguy's questioning of Aziz's definition of peace. [/quote]

Wow, it's amazing how you can get things twisted. I didn't "side" with Bondguy, my point was that the defintion of "peace" isn't universal.

[quote=mranonymous2u]

Damn, Mikebutler doesn't agree with me...again!

For the record, my complete back and forth with zaid on this thread and the other thread where we went a couple rounds, i was just screwing around. Surprised that anyone took this so seriously.

That said, I disagree, there is only one peace,

That said, I disagree, there is only one peace,

That's not true.  There are nuances to peace and prices to pay and trade offs for having peace.

It may be a peaceful society where women are forbidden to walk the streets without the escort of a male relative and are forbidden from wearing anything that exposes a square inch of skin.  That is a peace that I wouldn't be very happy with.

You could claim it is peaceful because all of the undesireable people have been removed from society.

It was very peaceful on the mental ward after Randle McMurphy was lobotomized.

Saying there is only one peace is like saying there is only one kind of ice cream.    We know that to be false.

"For the record, my complete back and forth with zaid on this thread and the other thread where we went a couple rounds, i was just screwing around. Surprised that anyone took this so seriously. "

As I mentioned in a PM to BondGuy...I didn't take our jousting very seriously either. I doubt our views are that far apart.

Bab,

Peace itself is peace itself. There are varying degrees of non-peace.

Right within your explicaion shows that the acceptance of the idea of the ideal.

We can all disagree over how best to acheive peace, what peace is worth and so on, but peace is peace.

It's not like ice cream, it's like Black, or White. Black is the absence of all color. White is the absolute harmony of all colors. Between them are infinite shades of gray. But that doesn't mean that there is no such thing as Black or such a thing as White.

Mr. A