Eff's Rambles (Archive)

8/04/2004

Excuses and fallacies

Well, I just read this article (http://msn.match.com/msn/article.aspx?articleid=1889&TrackingID=516165&BannerID=541888) and for the 5th time in a week or so I've seen yet another bunch of bull; nonsense; pitiful excuses.

To those men whom cheat, If she isn't enough for you, leave her. Do not rationalize betraying her, it shall never be convincing. Neither the pain brought by her, nor the pain you might have caused her excuses adultry. If you know she values manogomy, value it as well or find a woman more suitable to your needs. Yes, by leaving her there is still betrayal, but better to end the deception, even if you never reveal with full honesty why you have left her. Your only justification is if the relationship was multi partnered. And you should not hide other partners.

The second and third load of hooey comes from the US Presidential Nominee of the Democratic Party. No, by the way, I'm not settled on which one between the Democratic and Republican nominees I shall vote for, so this commentry is not meant to advocate for G. W. Bush. If it does so in effect, oh well. Now, then, Mr. Kerry seems to believe that if you imply a negative, that of implying a policy was pursued in an "unethical" manner, you are no longer being negative if you propose an alternative policy to amend the supposed failure of the other policy. No, Mr. Kerry, that only works if you presented the policy which you are contesting and proposing an alternative thereto in an objective manner, or a subjective one using facts. What you did was negative; which would be much less bothersome if you had not tried to play a language spin game.

Third: Dear Kerry, please do not commit another red herring when you are asked about why you voted against the $87 thousand-million for Iraq war military funding. I have not come to any conclusion on your negative vote, and perhaps I'll search out other answers you've provided, but to answer why by citing other votes with unspecified dates, changing the focus to contesting the image some have of you as being weak on national defense, is inappropriate. The question, and at least at some time the pertinent issue, was about that specific funding matter, not your other votes.

Fourth: I saw Ben Affleck on O'Reilly's show recently. I found him to be charming, well spoken and fair, though a bit on the populistic empathic side, which did annoy me a bit. So, later I hear he broke up with his last, or whichever she was, girlfriend because of tabloid hounding. I am tired of analysts speaking of the "public will." Ladies and gentlemen, if you purchase salacious mediums primarily because of their intrusive stories into the sexual lives of celebrities, you are supporting an evil business and are thus a jerk until you cease supporting that trash. I do hope you understand.

Fifth: Dear Janeane Garofalo, I shall give you the benefit of the doubt, bearing in mind that seeming a fallacy of source does not disprove a claim, but I advice you to be careful when arguing in front of the public at large and not just to academics. Whatever the truth is, if you believe a few books by investigative journalists, or purported ones, stands as equal to or superior to an investigation by a panel with greater access to documents and the people involved in the matter under review, while the other presumably consists of no oath sworn statements and hidden sources, which makes substantiating harder, you are mistaken.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home


 

Online dictionary at www.Answers.com

Concise information in one click