Word from Spiritual Philosophy of moral foreign policy (split from Iraq thread)

[Joe Sperling]

..Split off from "Spiritual Philosophy of Moral Foreign Policy" Thread which was split off from "Iraq a Good Idea?" Thread so as not to disturb the flow of the present conversation there:

Chuck quoting Tom, who was trying to make a point:
YOU WROTE:  3. What you offer in support of your position is a series of questions.  How convincing is this: Is not Mark Campbell capable of shoplifting?  Does he not regularly enter stores?  Does he not have many of the things found in those stores in his possession?

Chuck's reply:
This is, of course, absurd.  No one would accept this as any indication of Mark's purported guilt at all. What would be necessary is positive evidence that he had actually stolen something.

Comment: On April 19th I followed Mr. Campbell, without his knowledge, into a "SAVON DRUG STORE". Approximately 30 minutes later he exited the store after purchasing a large bottle of soda,
and a bag of Doritos. Mr. Campbell had visited several aisles during his time there, but I was unable to watch everything he did. Later that evening I returned to the store and asked if they were missing anything from their inventory. The only thing missing was a red "yo-yo", and one of the workers felt strongly a man had taken it, and after giving a description, there was quite strong evidence this person may be Mr. Campbell. I observed Mr. Campbell playing with a red "yo-yo" in the parking lot shortly after his exit from the store, attempting to do the "around the world" yo-yo trick, and smashing his windshield in the process.

So far there is no "positive evidence" that Mr. Campbell removed said evidence from the store without paying for it, but we will continue our surveillance and investigation until we can prove otherwise.

Thank you.

[Chuck Miller]

Joe,

You got it wrong.

TOM WROTE:  3. What you offer in support of your position is a series of questions.  How convincing is this: Is not Mark Campbell capable of shoplifting?  Does he not regularly enter stores?  Does he not have many of the things found in those stores in his possession?
This is, of course, absurd.  No one would accept this as any indication of Mark's purported guilt at all. What would be necessary is positive evidence that he had actually stolen something.

I RESPONDED:  Since you admit that your analogy is absurd, I don’t think it warrants any further comment

Chuck

[Oscar]

Joe,

You got it wrong.

TOM WROTE:  3. What you offer in support of your position is a series of questions.  How convincing is this: Is not Mark Campbell capable of shoplifting?  Does he not regularly enter stores?  Does he not have many of the things found in those stores in his possession?
This is, of course, absurd.  No one would accept this as any indication of Mark's purported guilt at all. What would be necessary is positive evidence that he had actually stolen something.

I RESPONDED:  Since you admit that your analogy is absurd, I don’t think it warrants any further comment

Chuck

Chuck,

The point of my example was that to list a series of questions, and then to draw a conclusion from the questions as if you had established a factual basis is absurd.

I was pointing out that you were "reasoning" in this manner.  "Could not God..."

Tom Maddux

[Joe Sperling]

Chuck--you said:

Joe,

You got it wrong

You're right. It was  green yo-yo, not a red one.    Just kidding.  Actually, the post had nothing
to do with anything at all. I simply lifted the quoted area, used it out of context to try to derive
a bit of humor, and that was all.

[Oscar]

Folks,

Here is a link to an article about the USA's past dealing with arrogant Muslim powers.  Notice the argument the Muslim ambassador used in justifying their acts of piracy. 

Sound familiar?

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ChristopherHitchens/2007/04/26/jefferson_versus_the_muslim_pirates

Tom Maddux