egafd.com

[quote]More rather meaningless pedantry from you, which totally avoids the question being discussed.[/quote]

Please show where my pedantry is meaningless. You have a habit of constructing sentences that you think sound good, but have no real worth. I'm guessing you're talking about you mistakenly taking my question (Q1 in my last post) wrongly, and me pointing it out. I find there is meaning in pointing out the difference in asking you what you think, and what you know about something. They are quite different and essential to the question I asked. Not meaningless pedantry at all.

And as for the 'question being discussed'. I think that was MY question to YOU.

Now answer it please. I've asked you more than three times already.

[quote]Unlike yourself, I do not know/think etc etc. whether more or less than 15 million people would have been killed if the Allies had not won the 1st World War. I do not have the Sam Slater crystal ball which provides such certainty in predicting what would have happened in totally different circumstances..[/quote]

Lol. Still clinging on to the crystal ball quip to humour your way out of the hole you're in? I'm sure I've explained twice you don't need a crystal ball to tell me what you 'think' would have happened had we appeased the 2nd Reich and Ottoman empires. Your unwillingness to divulge your thoughts on the matter speaks volumes to me - that an honest answer hands me victory and a dishonest one would be obvious and laughable. I understand why you're so resolute in denying me an answer, but I find it unreasonable.

[quote]What I think is gobsmacking is that you find it very straightforward to post what would have happened if an event i.e. Allies winning the 1st world war had not happened. "I can't believe Johnson that you dont believe my crystal ball gazing which tells me that many more than 15 million people would have been killed in something that didnt happen, did happen".[/quote]

I gave you a very detailed explanation on why I think the way I do. The easiest thing in the world is to ask questions and criticise the answers. Any dunderhead can do that. Stop playing the coward and lay out your opinions in detail, the way I have done. Afraid they won't stand up to scrutiny?

[quote]On the other hand, if I ask you a question dependent on events that HAVE happened in the last 10 years of the Afghan war, costing over 35,000 lives, half a trillion dollars of expenditure and a deteriorating security situation viz a viz the Taliban, re. your all encompassing statement on Afghanistan

"Sadly freedom, justice, equality and tolerance has always come at a very heavy price."[/quote]

So? Was my answer wrong? If so, how so? For the record I was, of course, generalising. I'm pretty sure if one looked hard enough one could find some some country that evolved from barbarianism to blissful modernity without so much as a crossed word spoken. Sadly a lot of blood has been spilt in the name of freedom, justice, equality and tolerance. That's all I was saying. Hardly controversial.

[quote]You flounder around like a fish out of water[/quote]

Nothing wrong with endless struggle, David. Trotsky would have approved. Keeping on the animal themed jibes, then, I see as more of a hedgehog. A few questions from me and you curl up into a ball and play dead.

[quote]So how has 10 years of fighting for freedom, justice, equality and tolerance affected the 28 million other Afghanis who are not girls in school? Many of whom continue to be in fear of their lives with the Taliban, warlords etc etc?[/quote]

So another question? Hell, you haven't even had the decency of answering #1 on my list yet! Go get some manners and answer mine first!

[quote]Your argument is typical Slaterism. A mixture of pedantry and verbosity based on crystal ball gazing, with an almost total lack of understanding of the facts related to what you choose to pontificate on.[/quote]

Lack of understanding? You've not gotten round to the fact that one doesn't need a crystal ball to convey one's opinions and thoughts on something, yet.

Uncurl yourself, show your vulnerable underbelly and answer my question, David. There's a good hedgehog tongueincheek

Title of your post: "A Comeback for you, Samuel."

[quote]Your "thoughts", predictions or whatever you want to call them, didn't work very well in terms of your expectations/predictions for Nick Clegg pre-election , did they?[/quote]

That isn't a comeback but a 'I have no comeback about thoughts/expectations playing a part in my decision about voting Labour, or backing Ed Milliband so here's an attempt at a humorous jibe which will hopefully hide the fact that I have no comeback'.

[quote]And yet you feel free to pontificate with apparent certainty about how things would have panned out with regard to completely different scenarios affecting three entire empires, Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman and German affecting most of the world and how it would have be worse than the 15 million deaths that actually happened in the First World War[/quote]

'Apparent certainty' isn't strictly true, is it, David? And anyway, it's not as if anyone (I'm looking at you here) has any good points which highlights the flaws in my idea. Jesus, I've been crying out for you to give me at least a few good points which would make me question my own opinions. I'm open to having my mind changed, unlikely as you may think. You see, David, unlike you I'm not so stubborn as to hold an opinion in the face of contradictory evidence, or even a better-thought, more logical idea.

Alas, a lot of your debates stop being about the debates. We both know what this is really about. I suppose I should be flattered.

More tedious, pedantic diarrhoea.

You got a pasting over Cleggie and disappeared from the forum for a month or two. As far as I can recall you have never mentioned Cleggie since.

You got a pasting over your lack of understanding of the advantages of AV.

You have no understanding of the effects of 10 years of war in Afghanistan.

You appear terrified of defending your own argument in "Sadly, freedom, justice, equality and tolerance has always come at a very heavy price" by explaining how Afghanis, other than young girls, have been given justice, equality and tolerance by the war.

You, Sam Slater are the Black Knight of the BGAFD.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eMkth8FWno

You appear in the fight with King Arthur about half way through.

"Alright we'll call it a draw"

!grin!

Cheers
D

[quote]More tedious, pedantic diarrhoea.[/quote]

Answer my question you coward!

[quote]You got a pasting over Cleggie and disappeared from the forum for a month or two. As far as I can recall you have never mentioned Cleggie since.[/quote]

Let's change the subject because I can't win the argument.

[quote]You got a pasting over your lack of understanding of the advantages of AV.[/quote]

In your dreams, maybe.

[quote]You have no understanding of the effects of 10 years of war in Afghanistan.[/quote]

You have no understanding of the effects of appeasing fascist, racist, sexist regimes.

[quote]You appear terrified of defending your own argument in "Sadly, freedom, justice, equality and tolerance has always come at a very heavy price" by explaining how Afghanis, other than young girls, have been given justice, equality and tolerance by the war.[/quote]

Hilarious! You don't even attempt to put forth your argument. Let's sum up this thread, shall we?

-------------------------------------

Sam: I think 'a'.

David: That's stupid. Why?

Sam: Because of 'b' and 'c'.

David: That's stupid. What about 'd'?

Sam: Well, I think that 'e' negates 'd'.

David: That's stupid. You think 'a'? How daft is that?

Sam: I already said, because of 'b' and 'c'.

David: That's stupid. And don't even mention 'e' because it doesn't negate 'd' at all!

Sam: Why doesn't it negate 'd'?

David: That's stupid. You still haven't told me why you think 'a'.

Sam: I've given good reasons for 'a'. Why doesn't 'e' negate 'd'?

David: That's stupid. You think 'a' because 'e' negates 'd'? You don't know nothing about it!

Sam: Yes. So why don't you think 'e' negates 'd'?

David: So how can you say 'e' negates 'd'? Sounds like you've not thought it through.

Sam: Because of 'f'. Why don't you want to answer my question about why you don't think 'e' negates 'd'?

David: Because of 'f'?! Oh my lord, how stupid! You know nothing.

Sam: Well answer my question if you disagree.

David: Unlike you, I haven't got a crystal ball to see if 'e' negates 'd'. What are you, like 16 or something? Hahaha!

Sam: You could at least tell me why you don't think 'e' negates 'd' before we can move on.

David: Pointing out I won't answer your questions is pedantic tripe!

Sam: Well, it's only fair.

David: More pedantry, Slater! You're so stupid and you voted for Cleggie which makes you even stooooopiderrrr!!!

Sam: Just give me reasons why you think 'e' doesn't negate 'd'. That's all I want.

David: Cleggie lover, cleggie lover, cleggie lover....hahaha! You're so stoopid! Probably about 14 or something. Hahaha. Is it time for your bed, yet, Slater? You're so stooopid! Hahahaha-gulp-eeeuuuwwwwIthinkIswallowedafly!


-------------------------------------

Did I miss anything out?

Zorro
"So should we be there, yes, as a cizilized nation/people we have a duty to uphold people less fortunate than us? basic human rights. If the Taliban return when we go, should we return? I would say yes. We have to see the job through to the end, even if it takes a quarter of a century.

Sam Slater
"Good post, Zorro. Sadly, freedom, justice, equality and tolerance has always come at a very heavy price. "

David Johnson to Sam Slater
""What level of freedom, justice, equality and tolerance has over 10 years of warfare, half a trillion dollars of expenditure and 140,000 troops brought to the Afghani people?"

DJ asks Sam Slater the same question about 5 times and Slater slithers and slides to avoid answering the question and all he can come up with is an improvement for 2million of a 30 million population. An improvement that is deteriorating rapidly as the security situation deteriorates.

Eventually Sam Slater states "So? Was my answer wrong? If so, how so? For the record I was, of course, generalising."

Slater Rule No. 1
If at first you can't defend your comment and someone keeps asking, refer to it as a generalisation i.e. I was talking out my arse and I am much more comfortable making silly, juvenile cliches rather than taking into account what is actually happening.

!grin! !grin! !grin! !grin!

You are a laughing stock.

D

[quote] DJ asks Sam Slater the same question about 5 times and Slater slithers and slides to avoid answering the question and all he can come up with is an improvement for 2million of a 30 million population. [/quote]

Slithers and slides about 5 times, yet I answered your question twice and gave a 100+ word reply going into detail why. Compare that to David Johnson who's failed to answer a single question from me. Like I said, 'playing dead'.

[quote] Eventually Sam Slater states "So? Was my answer wrong? If so, how so? For the record I was, of course, generalising."[/quote]

Desperate selective quoting. Put the rest in if you have a point to make.

[quote] Slater Rule No. 1
If at first you can't defend your comment and someone keeps asking, refer to it as a generalisation i.e. I was talking out my arse and I am much more comfortable making silly, juvenile cliches rather than taking into account what is actually happening. [/quote]

David Johnson Rules 1-6
Never enter a real exchange of views and your reasoning because that leaves you open to attack. Much easier to disagree and ask questions. You can then ridicule their answers and ask more questions in the hope that they tire and give up. That way you can delude yourself into thinking you've won out and can claim victory.

David's notes for when rules 1-6 appear not to work:

Call their clearly explained answers tedious or pedantic if you have no comeback. Refer to previous debates where they have grown bored of constant questioning if it helps camouflage the fact you're still unwilling, or unable, to answer their questions.

My reply: stop trolling. I've been decent enough to tell you my thoughts and reasoning during this debate and in return I've again put up with sarcastic comments and petty attempts at undermining my intelligence. Your overall behavior has definitely been discourteous. I find it preposterous and ludicrous that after some of the stuff you've said in this thread you have the effrontery to call me juvenile!

Looking at all your posts as a whole, and your unwillingness to have a proper exchange, I can only presume you don't want to because you're unable to without losing, or that it doesn't interest you because ridiculing me is the main objective (or most fun, if you prefer).

I've said it numerous times already: you're the one avoiding the debate. Once you get out of this mindset where you're opponent is forever the defendant and you the all-encompassing accuser, cross-examiner, judge and jury, then the more respect you will garner. I suyou

You may not believe this, Sam but I do agree with the great majority of your posts on this forum.

On this one, as with AV and the Blessed Cleggster, I personally see little point in doing anything other than agreeing to differ. On reflection, probably best that this was done awhile ago on this thread!

CHeers
D

No chance of answering my one question as a gesture of good will?.....................nah, now I am being foolish! tongueincheek

Ok then.