Welcome to NATO

Remove all ads!

Turandil must have skipped Tal's post where he refutes everything that he says. If it was too long, in short, remaining neutral isn't an option except for the rich and privileged like yourself Turandil (did that on purpose I admit.)

 

No I read it, but that doesn't mean that I agree.

But we all are rich and privileged, if we compare to the mayority of the world, and thats sad. For a swede iam pretty poor realy. But I don't feel sad, I feel lucky, I aford a brand new computer, got nice house and stuff like that, so I shouldnt complain....
Well now Iam OT, but my opinions are; **** war!

 

Okay, I once posted a thread about how there are a number of younger members on the board and that when they post nonsensically I don't get upset because they're young and I essentially can just shrugh my shoulders and pass it off to being naive. A number of responses said that we should call anyone out regardless of age and tell them when what they say makes no sense in hopes that they may, and I shudder to speak this pretentiously, learn something. In that spirit, here I go.

Turandil, your posts are awful because you don't know how to make a reasonable argument. In this example, Tal has posted a long thoughtful post about how neutrality is unachievable for most and that Sweden has only achieved it because it is rich.

Your response is: "I disagree." You then go on talking as if nothing was ever said.

You started a post on communism, said you'd answer criticisms, and then never did. Yet you go on to ridicule others and their political systems. These are just two examples.

In order to argue something, you have to do more than cut and paste or spout rhetoric. You need an argument. You'll need a couple of premises, then you will need a conclusion that logically follows. Your arguments always lack a conclusion which follows from your premises and actually you usually lack premises.

Also, in order to argue you need to be willing to listen to others and respond to their arguments. "I disagree" is not the most compelling of arguments.

 

Tal talket about that Switzerland could be neutral because that was in everyones intrest, cause they got money and stuff there. Thats true.
But, I didn't see an argument why anyone else couldn't stay neutral to. (maybe he wrote one but my english arent currently the best) So I didn't have any reason to answer his post.
I agree that my I dissagree was pretty pathetic, but that was an answer to you, not Tal, ok that was a dumb answer, I appology...

I wasn't active during that time, and when I returned the topic was kinda full of text. I haven't all the time in the world, but I tried to answer some of them....

I dont't know what premises mean, but I think Iam pretty good argumenting, atlest at swedish forums, its much more easy to argument on your own language, I promise.... Not a good answer maybe but its true....

 

Imagine a math equation. 2+2=4. In the analogy, 2 is a premise, + is a logical device, and 4 is a conclusion.

Syllogisms are a common form of argumet. You have two premises, and from that a conclusion.

Example:

If it rains it is cloudy. (premise)
It is raining (premise)
Therefore, it is cloudy (conclusion)

To deny this argument you either need to show that one of the premises is not true (it can rain on a sunshiny day) or that the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

An example where the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises:

If it rains it is cloudy
It is cloudy
Therefore it is raining.

In this example you affirm the consequent. Just becaus it is cloudy it doesn't mean it has to rain. And the premises above never say this, it says if it is raining it is cloudy, not the other way around.

When you argue on these boards you typically just cut and paste a bunch of facts. There is no logical connection between them and from the facts there is no conclusion that can be reached because there are no logical connectors in your arguments.

It isn't simply a language thing. If mathematics is the international language so is logic. I can't accept that as an excuse. It would be diffferent if you couldn't find the word or couldn't spell it. That's not the problem.

Here is a great sight of logical fallacies:

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm

More disturbing than the logical problems though is that you appear to ignore arguments that you don't like and keep on going as if they didn't occur.

[ November 22, 2002, 18:16: Message edited by: Laches ]

 

Ok, thanks for the info...We are OT now but, what the hack. But if Iam remebering right your answer to my post was more pointing out some flaws in communicm, not answering my text, and you disn't state why capitalism should be the bether alternativ. But it was a long time ago, I might remeber wrong.

I think I explained in that post why I thought capitalism lead to misery...I have only posted facts to times if iam correct, and the other time those maybe weren't completly relevant to that topic but facts is mostly good imho, facts is facts....

 

Laches, did you make the classical mistake of mistaking Sweden for Switserland? If that is the case it is understandable as it is quite common.
Sweden managed to stay neutral in both the WW's, in the first because it never really reached us and no one threathened us. In WW2 we werent truly neutral, more like we sucked up to everyone else. But remember that Holland, Denmark and Norway was neutral as well, they all fell before the nazi's, the only reason we managed to stay out of it was to comply with all sides. The only real effort we did was to encourage 'volunteers' to go to Finland to fight the russians. I think this is a good thing, war is always bad and Sweden had nothing to gain and everything to lose by antagonizing any of the sides in the war. Sweden were also caught with their pants down and had more or less no military force to speak of so we hadnt been able to to put up a fight even if we wanted to. We remedied that after the war. We have managed to stay neutral in most conflict and been respected by all sides since after the Cold War, basicly because we have realised that war is bad and that even if it did come we wouldnt be able to do much about it, offensively. What Sweden did do was to build a huge defensive war machine designed to discourage anyone that had any plans on our tiny little country. We built and developed our own weapons just because we didnt want to be dependant on someone else, we even started to build nuclear weapons but stopped when we had gotten far enough to see that we could do it but didnt want to take the risk of actually building one as it might offend other states and do more bad than good not to mention that it is a horrible weapon. Sweden created a defence force that was designed to make it so costly for any other nation or alliance to take us that it just wouldnt be worth, not within a longshot. It was mostly designed to beat of the russians, of course as they were on our doorstep and werent part of the warsaw pact. One of my officers when I was in the army had once asked a high american officer during a common exchange of ideas what the americans would do if they wanted to take Sweden, the answer he got was that no matter how badly they wanted it they just wouldnt do it as it would bog down huge amounts of men and ecquipment.
Since the fall of the Soviet Union Sweden has dismantled its warmachine and it is a shadow of what it was but we dont really aim for neutrality any more. We may not be a part of NATO but as Taluntain said it is more of a buddies club than a military alliance and even so Sweden has always shied away from that but we are part of the EU and that is the end of the neutrality politics in my eyes. Another reason that we managed to stay neutral has been pointed out by Turandil, all sides in all conflicts wants if not someone from their side atleast someone that isnt from their opponents side, enter the swedes. Swedish citizens is very overrepresentated among diplomats and officals around the world that negotiates treaties and the like. The last two heads for the weaponinspections in Iraq has been swedes. This generates immense amounts of goodwill and gives sides in a conflict a way to find a more or less neutral go between, I say more or less because Sweden is a part of the west and we have a western culture but we are atleast offically alliance free.
So it isnt only to have loads of foreign money in the nation that enables you to be neutral there are plenty of other reasons as well.

 

hmm,,,I`m from Slovenia too and yes NATO is the right way to go...

but with this I don`t agree:

since when is a citizen with his own opinion a moron ? many of this yakking has some weight, but there a more pros. as contras

 

Sir Belisarius wrote

WW2
I strongly disagree! How can you possibly say that with the Soviet Union on the allied side?
Even UK/USA would be considered evil by todays standard. The mass bombing of civilian targets by the western allies were true war atrocities.

There are a few important facts which make Swedens WW2 neutrality look better:
- England and France planned to invade northern Sweden (and Norway) in 1940. Had the Germans not invaded Norway when they did Sweden would likely have faced war with England and France.
- Finland fought a defensive war against the Soviet Union in 1939. The war started again in 1941 when Germany attacked Russia.

Consider this and it would not have been far fetched to think that Sweden could have joined Finland and thus Germany.

Post WW2
I do not agree with Swedens policy of neutrality in the event of war.
The Soviets did not consider Sweden neutral and had very good reason for not doing so, as has been clearly shown after the end of the Cold War. Sweden was planning for NATO assistance. Not being part of NATO in those times was hitching a ride without paying. In Swedens defense it should be said that we had to take Finland in consideration. Finland constantly had to live under the threat of Soviet invasion and had Sweden joined NATO the threat to Finland would have increased. Also remember that Finland were forbidden to join NATO so they had no option.

Turandil and I appear to have completely different views on current politics (I support the EMU and membership in NATO), so as always don't think that one person speaks for all the rest of that nation.

 

yes ,the philosophy students in Lj. are trouble, (strange freaks they are )

but the real morons are those from CNN :
"seven ex- Soviet states"

I`m working for Delo (not the newspaper, another magazine) and I have never hierd such a pice o s**t.