150 rockets fired at Israel after IDF assassinates Gaza terror leader

[ChristineM]

Why would it show? You are not in my classroom.

Peanut butter.

Are you asking what a fallacy is, or what the relevant fallacy is in this case? I believe I stated that you set up a straw man by imputing a position to me in your question that is easy to rebut even though that isn't my position. This site may help you. What Is a Straw Man Argument? If you need a larger explanation of what a fallacy is, please let me know. A straw man can be set up by a question. For example, "Are you saying that all right handed people worship the devil?"

Once the question is labeled a straw man, expecting an answer to it simply shows a lack of understanding that the question is a fallacy.

Of course not,do you think i would tolerance such abuse in the classroom?

So still no explanation?

You stated i set up a straw man without explanation
Then that it was a fallacy without explanation

My question/statement was neither. But feel free to make up nonsence if it excuses you from answering the question

 

[Stevicus]

Yes, true, as the League of Nations was.

The UN is a complex body with many moving parts. Many of these parts serve honorable purposes. Some do not. The question is one of cost/benefit and that's a computation I am in no ways equipped to make. I can see the warts and the positives but my own bias might cloud any decision I made. Fortunately, these decisions are not up to me.

Very true. I am reminded of the quote from Churchill, "Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." I find that true about many institutions.

One difference with the League of Nations was that the US refused to join that organization. Some have argued that the absence of the US weakened that body, although considering that the US had also reduced the size of its military forces, it's difficult to say just how much extra strength they could have provided at that time. Even when the nations of the world got together to sign the Kellogg-Briand Treaty, which outlawed aggressive warfare, the US position was that we would not provide any military forces to oppose any aggressive wars. Though we were still against it, in theory.

The UN is a bit different, although they're still hampered due to the 5 permanent members on the Security Council having veto authority.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

As I stated, I made a single sentence statement. Only when that was challenged was there any response; only then did I respond. If you see my defending my original statement as bullying then that's fine. I can't help that. But I stand by my singular statement in 341. I stand by my explanation that writing in English (which the other person claimed to be doing) requires more than just using English words. When I am accused, I will defend myself. An explanation comes in response, not in a vacuum.

Are you going to stop using ad hoc rationalizations for your bullying posts and just acknowledge that you were bullying yet?

 

[rosends]

Of course not,do you think i would tolerance such abuse in the classroom?

So still no explanation?

You stated i set up a straw man without explanation
Then that it was a fallacy without explanation

My question/statement was neither. But feel free to make up nonsence if it excuses you from answering the question

To sum up -- you asked about my view of dyslexia. As I said nothing about dyslexia, what you try to impute to me in your statement starting with "so you think" is a straw man.

 

[rosends]

One difference with the League of Nations was that the US refused to join that organization. Some have argued that the absence of the US weakened that body, although considering that the US had also reduced the size of its military forces, it's difficult to say just how much extra strength they could have provided at that time. Even when the nations of the world got together to sign the Kellogg-Briand Treaty, which outlawed aggressive warfare, the US position was that we would not provide any military forces to oppose any aggressive wars. Though we were still against it, in theory.

The UN is a bit different, although they're still hampered due to the 5 permanent members on the Security Council having veto authority.

Veto authority balances out the notion that in the general assembly, block voting and economic pressure can sway the supposedly objective body's positions.

 

[rosends]

Are you going to stop using ad hoc rationalizations for your bullying posts and just acknowledge that you were bullying yet?

Only after I start.

 

[ChristineM]

To sum up -- you asked about my view of dyslexia. As I said nothing about dyslexia, what you try to impute to me in your statement starting with "so you think" is a straw man.

Why is it always about you? I am dyslexic.

And it was a question just like the questions you used when abusing me. Dont like turnaround, tough.

 

[ChristineM]

@rosends

I think we best call this a day, it has escalated beyond RF guidelines long ago. It seems you think of me as a thicko and i think of you as a condicending bully.

I am happy to put you on my ignore list is you will agree to the same.

 

[rosends]

Why is it always about you? I am dyslexic.

And it was a question just like the questions you used when abusing me. Dont like turnaround, tough.

Why is it about me? You asked about me! How else can anyone answer?

 

[rosends]

@rosends

I think we best call this a day, it has escalated beyond RF guidelines long ago. It seems you think of me as a thicko and i think of you as a condicending bully.

I am happy to put you on my ignore list is you will agree to the same.

I am happy to be ignored. I do not ignore, though. It gives people the sense of free reign to say things, unchallenged.

 

[Stevicus]

Veto authority balances out the notion that in the general assembly, block voting and economic pressure can sway the supposedly objective body's positions.

Sure, but the UN can't really do anything substantial unless the 5 permanent members of the Security Council agree on it.

 

[rosends]

Sure, but the UN can't really do anything substantial unless the 5 permanent members of the Security Council agree on it.

That does lead to another question -- what can the UN do? Resolutions, even "binding" ones are not really binding by any force of international law. The question is what the scope of the UN and its role should be and I really don't know. Even in the areas of humanitarian aid, the UN has had problems. Maybe the problem is that any ideal institution has to be staffed by non-ideal people. Don't know.

 

[Stevicus]

That does lead to another question -- what can the UN do? Resolutions, even "binding" ones are not really binding by any force of international law. The question is what the scope of the UN and its role should be and I really don't know. Even in the areas of humanitarian aid, the UN has had problems. Maybe the problem is that any ideal institution has to be staffed by non-ideal people. Don't know.

In the end, I think the UN is basically just a collection of ambassadors - and more of a diplomatic institution than anything else. Sometimes diplomacy works, and sometimes it doesn't. It's the same thing with things like "international law" and the "world court." It's only as strong as the nations willing to support it.

 

[ChristineM]

Why is it about me? You asked about me! How else can anyone answer?

I asked you a question in the same manner you do, yes i asked your view and you ignored answering the questions but instead went on about how YOU didn't mention dyslexia.

It is not about what you mentioned but about what i asked

 

[ChristineM]

I am happy to be ignored. I do not ignore, though. It gives people the sense of free reign to say things, unchallenged.

Your choice, i have offered the olive branch, you refused it

 

[columbus]

In the end, I think the UN is basically just a collection of ambassadors - and more of a diplomatic institution than anything else. Sometimes diplomacy works, and sometimes it doesn't. It's the same thing with things like "international law" and the "world court." It's only as strong as the nations willing to support it.

I wish the U.N. would stick to the diplomatic angle.
There's too many agencies rife with fraud, biases, and agendas. And their "peacekeepers" are worse than a joke.
Tom

 

[rosends]

In the end, I think the UN is basically just a collection of ambassadors - and more of a diplomatic institution than anything else. Sometimes diplomacy works, and sometimes it doesn't. It's the same thing with things like "international law" and the "world court." It's only as strong as the nations willing to support it.

I think that this is a wise statement, but I fear that sometimes it is perceived as stronger because of some cachet and the reputation leads the reality instead of vice versa.

 

[rosends]

I asked you a question in the same manner you do, yes i asked your view and you ignored answering the questions but instead went on about how YOU didn't mention dyslexia.

It is not about what you mentioned but about what i asked

OK. What you asked was baseless. What you implied was unfounded. Is that enough about you?

 

[rosends]

Your choice, i have offered the olive branch, you refused it

Does that mean you won't ignore me?

 

[ChristineM]

OK. What you asked was baseless. What you implied was unfounded. Is that enough about you?

Considering your tirade of abuse for the last few days it is !or certainly not baseless and founded in copious evidence