<p>"Simply pointing it right back at them. The last six years have been a study in it. "Bush lied", "Bush is Hitler", "Blood for Oil", etc., all bandied about with reckless abandon and a complete lack of facts."</p>
<p>So doing the same thing helps your argument how?</p>
<p>
[quote]
So doing the same thing helps your argument how?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>a) It drives the other side nuts.</p>
<p>b) It's fun. See a)</p>
<p>c) Once the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the other side has been exposed, see b).</p>
<p>So let's socialize healthcare. At least the lawyers will stop making money suing everyone in sight. Hell, for that reason alone it will never pass. Who will want to sue a government-paid doctor who makes $50K a year for $250 million? Hell, who will want to study for 10 years to become a doctor and get paid only $50K a year?</p>
<p>By removing the profit motive, innovation and ambition die because, despite the fact it looks wonderful on paper, socialism DOESN'T WORK. No one is going to work for nothing. This isn't Star Trek.</p>
<p>BTW, is the site running S-L-O-W for everyone else? DOS attack? :confused:</p>
<p>"Once the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the other side has been exposed"</p>
<p>Dicto simpliciter (spoken simply, i.e., sweeping generalization). This is the fallacy of making a sweeping statement and expecting it to be true of every specific case -- in other words, stereotyping. Example: "Women are on average not as strong as men and less able to carry a gun. Therefore women can't pull their weight in a military unit." The problem is that the sweeping statement may be true (on average, women are indeed weaker than men), but it is not necessarily true for every member of the group in question (there are some women who are much stronger than the average).</p>
<p>As the example indicates, dicto simpliciter is fairly common in debate rounds. Most of the time, it is not necessary to call an opposing debater down for making this fallacy -- it is enough to point out why the sweeping generalization they have made fails to prove their point.</p>
<p>But I fear I may be missing the point. We're not really engaged in serious debate here are we? It's more of a light contact sport done for amusement.</p>
<p>
[quote]
We're not really engaged in serious debate here are we? It's more of a light contact sport done for amusement.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Precisely. There is no point arguing with those who have already lost and are flailing desperately, more for attention than for effect. There comes a point where just spinning them up becomes pure fun. </p>
<p>As an example of the "logic" that we must contend with here, I am basically told above that I can look forward to being raped in prison for the dastardly crime of refusing to answer a judge's question in a case where I do not wish to testify. The threat of having a crime of violence committed against me has been proposed as a method to get me to talk against my will.</p>
<p>I would be willing to bet that the same person who made this proposition howled in protest when some misguided soldiers put underwear on the head of a TERRORIST, or held a dog a few inches away. They also probably have demanded the impeachment of the President for using "torture" (i.e. - standing up too long, sleep deprivation, etc., NOT RAPE) to get TERRORISTS to talk against their will and expose other TERRORISTS who are out there trying to KILL people.</p>
<p>In the meantime, if someone witnesses a capital murder on the streets of suburban America and refuses to testify out of fear of reprisal by the murderer, they will most likely be allowed to walk away, along with the murderer. No threats will be made against THEM, now will there?</p>
<p>That's liberal "logic" in action....</p>
<p>What's the Latin term for that, please? In English it's called a "double-standard" or a "logical fallacy".</p>
<p>Oh, and as for "dicto simpliciter", if the shoe fits, THEY CAN WEAR IT.</p>
<p>The following Washington Compost article describes the assault that those on the left are making against Robert Iger, chief executive of Walt Disney Co., the parent company of ABC:</p>
<p>Oh my God!</p>
<p>In the 1970's we just had to "buck it up as" far as sexual harrasment was concerned... there was'nt even a term for it at that time! At my first job, I was chased around a kitchen by my manager at a restaurant, and as a retail manger after college, I was sexually assaulted by my boss and I could not report it to HIS boss, because he used to come into my store and tell me I made him hot.</p>
<p>Well, it made me hot, as in angry, but I just told them I would'nt play their game and I moved on and moved past them! We did'nt have sexual harassment lawsuits back then or I would be living in a mansion right now!</p>
<p>Now, I have a daughter, also, and I am thankful that she will not have to (hopefully) go through some of the things that I once did. and I am very thankful that people, especially teachers, are being held accountable for their words and their actions. But it will happen until the world ends! Men and women are different, PERIOD! Sometimes I find it a problem,(especially communicating with my hisband) but I know how strong I am and I can take it... probably because of some of the things that have happened to me in my past!</p>
<p>Women are the stronger sex... ( sorry Zaphod!) let's show it... without lawyers!</p>
<p>Do you think any of this would have changed . . . w/out lawyers? The fear of lawsuits caused many companies to re-think their sexual harrasment policies.</p>
<p>McDonalds received several hundred complaints that its coffee was too hot for years before being sued; it wasn't until they were sued that they agreed to lower the temperature.</p>
<p>Firestone knew that its tires were blowing up in other parts of the world for several years before it was sued; it wasn't untl they were sued that they agreed to recall tires here in the U.S.</p>
<p>Lawsuits are the way many things have changed for the better in this country. Good or bad, that's the way it is unless you would have a government agency telling--really telling--companies to recall and fix their problems.</p>
<p>LOGICAL thinkers on these forums, however, sometimes refuse to acknowledge facts--or laws--contrary to their proposition but would, rather, just make blanket statements that sound good on the internet.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Women are the stronger sex... ( sorry Zaphod!)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why apologize for speaking the truth? ;)</p>
<p>I've seen the process of childbirth (without the epidural having worked) up close and personal. You ladies win! :eek:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Lawsuits are the way many things have changed for the better in this country.
[/quote]
For every one "legitimate" lawsuit you can cite, we can cite 50 or more that should have been thrown out of court and had the lawyer put in jail for wasting the court's time. The result is that we now have warnings on packets of peanuts that say "Warning! Contains nuts!" We can't open a pill container without going into contortions or signing a whole bunch of extra forms at the pharmacy (all because some people didn't find "Keep out of reach of children" enough warning. We get enough labels on a ladder to wallpaper a small room. Brail on a drive-through ATM, safety bars in a "public shower" (which was actually a piece of scenery at a strip club), etc. </p>
<p>And I'm wondering what "too hot" means? Different people have different standards. What may be scalding to you may be tepid to me. Why does it all have to go to the lowest common denominator (in this case, a woman too stupid to know that hot coffee is......well, HOT!) Are they supposed to serve it piping cold?</p>
<p>Doctors have done far more good for our society than lawyers ever have, and yet YOU want to socialize their industry for it. Good or bad, that's the way it is: They study hard for YEARS and have a relatively rare and valuable skill; that means they can CHARGE for it. The devices and medicines they use as tools are cutting-edge and take YEARS of R&D to bring to market, oftentimes longer than the patent protection lasts; that means they CHARGE for it. Horror of horrors, I know, in a capitalist society.</p>
<p>Tell you what, I'll accept lawyers making decisions about the medical industry (or any other idustry, for that matter) when lawyers let doctors (or the poor citizens who have to then live with the decisions but not the big settlements) make decisions about the legal industry.</p>
<p>If anyone is interested in getting back to the topic...</p>
<p>Here is an opinion piece that takes a strong stand.</p>
<p>"LOGICAL thinkers on these forums, however, sometimes refuse to acknowledge facts--or laws--contrary to their proposition but would, rather, just make blanket statements that sound good on the internet."</p>
<p>Do you mean in contrast to non-logical non-thinkers?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Gloss over the fact that most female personnel in attendance were repeat attendees who knew exactly what was coming. Ignore the libidinous ladies who lined up to engage in activities like pleasuring the rhino. Pretend that the gals didnt engage in their own high-flying debauchery, including package checks of male genitalia and topless bartending.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I actually read the official Tailhook report. The mainstream media neglected to report the fact that the women who attended Tailhook knew exactly what they were getting into. They also failed to report the fact that numerous males were assaulted by females.</p>
<p>The female Lieutenat who reported the Tailhook incident actually participated in some of the tawdry activities herself. Somewhere along the line she decided that the "boys" had crossed the line. When her Admiral, Commander of Naval Air Test Center, Patuxent River, responded that "Boys will be boys" she decided to jump the chain of command and ruined numerous careers and the Navy's reputation.</p>
<p>
[quote]
One of the most common types of harassment, though, consisted of comments that the presence of women had lowered military standards. </p>
<p>Thats right, men, stop griping because women cant drag a firehose across the flight deck or give the heave-ho to a 100-pound anchor. Dont you realize that such remarks are creating a hostile environment?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>By definition the standards have benn lowered. No apologies are needed because it is a known fact that men and women are physiologically different. That doesn't mean that they are inferior.</p>
<p>
[quote]
In May the Naval Academy Board of Trustees was informed that among 40 cases of alleged sexual harassment, 72% were found to be unsubstantiated or invalid.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The sky is falling! The sky is falling! What happens when there is a valid claim of rape?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Last year Joseph Schmitz, Inspector General of the Department of Defense, released a report on sexual harassment at the service academies. This survey featured a new twist -- it also asked about false allegations. Among men, 72% reported that fraudulent allegations are a problem. Likewise 73% of women said false claims were cause for concern. The gals realized that frivolous allegations do nothing to enhance their standing and respect among their male peers.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually false allegations only make the environment more hostile between men and women.</p>
<p>These issues are rarely about facts and laws. They are more often about politics and greasing noisy wheels.</p>
<p>change is difficult.
and necessary.
and equal rights are just that: equal.</p>
<p>Like everything in life, before things can find their natural balance the pendulum often, if not always, swings from one extreme to another. Total acceptance to zero tolerance. With time the balance is found, at least that is the hope. The pendulum has to swing back to neutral- it will; give it time.</p>
<p>I, for one, do not want to return to the days when bosses chased, and often caught, young female workers and forced unwanted attention, if not worse, on them. BTDT. No thank you. My daughter will know better. If it took legal action to get there, so be it. Like I said, change is difficult.</p>
<p>At the same time, I do not want to see unwarrented charges of rape and harrassement brought on the innocent. But I want to see them brought down on the guilty. Regardless of gender. False charges should be dealt with just as harshly. </p>
<p>When you try and educate the masses, and despite the education to enlighen they continue to hold onto outdated modes of thought and behavior, there comes a time when someone has to step up to the plate and say "no more." It's time. It's past time.</p>
<p>Tailgate happened....how long ago?
Females were integrated into the service...how long ago?
And into the academies...how many decades ago?
And still they struggle.
Some traditions die a hard death. And while I recognize and understand that, the one constant that remains is change.</p>
<p>The bottom line is that things are not going to go back to the "good ole days" .... not by a longshot. So don't you think it is time to drop the nonsense and get with the program?</p>
<p>I have a son at the academy. I am very, very proud of him. I also have a daughter that I am equally proud of- her route was a civilian college. Had she, however, demonstrated and interest in serving our country and attend an academy, I would like to believe that opportunity would be open to her. And that she would be respected, supported and encouraged for that choice, just as my son is. </p>
<p>So to Great American and the list of articles that come as "recommended reading" ...are they being offered to enlighten us to a balanced arguement on the topic, or are they geared towards promoting outdated ideas and traditions of those that would hold to the "good ole days" mentality?</p>
<p>You know- I was fortuntate enough to attend the Navy football game last weekend. I saw mids getting along. I did not see a great divide between male and female. I have hope. </p>
<p>I also saw 2 blue angels fly overhead. They looked great. Turns out one was piloted by 2 men, the other had a crew of 2 women. In the air it didn't matter, so why does it matter so much when they step off the plane? </p>
<p>If you really want to get back to the "issue"....</p>
<p>a teacher spoke out of line. male, female, who cares. It was inappropiate. It was crude. Do you want this teacher in the front of your kid's classroom? I don't.</p>
<p>Navy2010:
[quote]
So to Great American and the list of articles that come as "recommended reading" ...are they being offered to enlighten us to a balanced arguement on the topic, or are they geared towards promoting outdated ideas and traditions of those that would hold to the "good ole days" mentality?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>We're just trying to be fair and balanced. There are two sides to every story.</p>
<p>
[quote]
a teacher spoke out of line. male, female, who cares. It was inappropiate. It was crude. Do you want this teacher in the front of your kid's classroom? I don't.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Absolutely NOT!</p>
<p>The Navy has been conducting sexual harassment traing for both civilian and military personnel since the 1982-83 time frame. Obviously some people don't get the message -- both male and female.</p>
<p>Baltimore Sun:
[quote]
According to investigative documents, Black, while leading a training cruise to Norfolk, Va., made a reference to male arousal to describe his admiration for battleships while walking with several Mids past a ship.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The only battleship in Norfolk is the USS Wisconsin at the Naval Museum which is downtown at the Waterside across from Senator Warner's office. It appears that LT Black was on liberty call with his students which is totally inappropriate. This also appears to be a case of fraternization which should be against the rules at USNA.</p>
<p>
[quote]
We're just trying to be fair and balanced. There are two sides to every story.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes- you are absolutely correct. And to be fair, I will read one of them.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Absolutely NOT!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>wheeew.... for a minute there you had me wondering! ;)</p>
<p>
[quote]
for a minute there you had me wondering!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm seeing a trend! ;) :D</p>
<p>Hyperbole, the unfortunate language of preference for many on the internet, is too frequently understood by others as having some basis in fact.</p>
<p>Z....lol!!! Found!!! </p>
<p>Wondering...worrying....ah, a whole world of difference! ;)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Hyperbole, the unfortunate language of preference for many on the internet, is too frequently understood by others as having some basis in fact.
[/quote]
So is pontification.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Wondering...worrying....ah, a whole world of difference!
[/quote]
Aw, hell. If spell-check doesn't catch it, it's not important. ;)</p>
<p>^^^^ LOL!!! </p>
<p>Hey- what ever happened to the spell check anyway? CC had it for a day?? then disappeared! Along with all those cute little smiley faces! :)</p>