[Gedanken]

Originally Posted by pinwit

As you have raised the fact that you are a moderator, are you telling me that this discussion forum is not open to free discussion?

As a moderator, I'm telling you to keep your hypocrisy off my forum. You've waded right into this without thinking through what you're writing, and yet you claim to want reasoned argument.

Originally Posted by pinwit

I don't see much point in a discussion forum if nobody should make a counter-argument.

Counterargument? What counterargument? All you've come up with are a whole lot of unsubstantiated pontifications and accusations.

Originally Posted by pinwit

I would take issue with idea that the general's offensive remark was in any way a serious attempt to compare prostitution with gun crime. It was surely a device aimed at evading the question.

Evading the question? Sorry, what thread did you read before making this post? I've already shown how the general's remark had logically addressed the question head-on. Assuming that people who know how to shoot are automatically violent killers is like assuming that women are automatically prostitutes. If you don't see how that addresses the plain stupidity of the track that the interviewer was going down, don't talk about argument because you lack even the most tenuous grasp of logic.

Originally Posted by pinwit

It takes some effort to argue that the female reproductive organs are "equipment" in the same way that a gun is.

No it doesn't. It's pretty straightforward and obvious.

Originally Posted by pinwit

Unfortunately an analogy often doesn't bear too much scrutiny and that is surely the case here.

Substantiate that. I've already demonstrated how the same inductive reasoning has been applied to show how equating knowledge of shooting with violent killers is precisely as flawed as equating women with prositutuion. Don't come in here claiming that it doesn't stand up to scrutiny and expect me to take your word for it - scutinise it and show how the comparison fails. If you can't substantiate it, you're the one who's not making a reasoned argument - after all, you haven't shown your reason.

Originally Posted by pinwit

My previous post raised the serious point that an offensive remark is no rebuttal of an argument

Again, substantiate that. I've already shown how it is a rebuttal - it's your turn to show how it isn't.

Originally Posted by pinwit

(and my post being invective, I respectfully suggest not).

Again, substantiate that. Thus far you've given me no reason to take your word for anything.

Originally Posted by pinwit

I think the real analysis would be better served by discussing the general's aim here. A difficult question - let's slap the women down perhaps? Let's face it, a general is both a military man and a something of a politician nowadays and as he was being interviewed, presumably has skills in this area. I find it difficult to believe that the general could not handle the question respectfully. He didn't and I simply don't find this in any way amusing.

I see no reason for the general to be respectful after the interviewer was offensive enough to charge that he was turning the scouts into violent killers - that's just outright rude. He made a very apt response in terms of reason and offensiveness, and it's damned funny how he shut that mindless, sanctimonious peahen up.

Originally Posted by pinwit

I'm sorry but I am of the generation that holds a door open for a lady and far too old for PC rhetoric.

Fine then, you're not PC. You just don't think deeply enough to understand how the reasoning behind the general's retort was valid and sound. Mind you, you're the one who made the call for reasoned argument, but when it's presented to you, you simply evade the issue by claiming without substantiation that analogies don't stand up to scrutiny. Yet you accuse the general of evading the question - that's outright hypocrisy.

Originally Posted by pinwit

I have never claimed to be anti-violence. I am however, decidedly free-speech.

Free speech is fine by me. The general was free to respond the way he did, and he made more sense than the interviewer.

Now if you're going to make claims, substantiate your conclusions with reason instead of hiding behind rhetoric.