Philosophy Now Forum

bobevenson wrote:

rantal wrote:I am teaching you that there is more to philosophy than just spouting unsupported and uninformed opinion Bob

all the best, rantal

My friend, I don't think you're in the position to be teaching anybody anything.

That is a failing ion your perception

all the best, rantal

If you've got anything to say on the U.S. trade embargo against Cuba, I look forward to your comments.

rantal wrote:You need to look back in the posts, near the beginning

all the best, rantal

Then let me put it this way, if you have anything more to say on the issue, I will be happy to further address your comments.

bobevenson wrote:

rantal wrote:You need to look back in the posts, near the beginning

all the best, rantal

Then let me put it this way, if you have anything more to say on the issue, I will be happy to further address your comments.

Incorrect, I only started on this tack because you posted your tendentious and unsupported opinion and refused yo back it up when challenged

all the best, rantal

rantal wrote:

bobevenson wrote:

rantal wrote:You need to look back in the posts, near the beginning

all the best, rantal

Then let me put it this way, if you have anything more to say on the issue, I will be happy to further address your comments.

Incorrect, I only started on this tack because you posted your tendentious and unsupported opinion and refused yo back it up when challenged

all the best, rantal

I trust you have nothing more to say about embargoes.

Well, let's see, you agree that the U.S. trade embargo against Cuba is wrong, but you don't think embargoes in general are crimes against humanity. Apparently, you don't think human suffering brought on by embargoes is a crime. I guess that's a philosophical position that one can take without explanation.

rantal wrote:What of the embargo against the evil appareled regime in South Africa? Your statement is too general

all the best, rantal

First of all, embargoes rarely, if ever, accomplish their objectives (viz. U.S. 40 year embargo of Cuba), and in all cases harm innocent civilians, so my statement that embargoes are crimes against humanity stands for always and forever.

bobevenson wrote:

rantal wrote:What of the embargo against the evil appareled regime in South Africa? Your statement is too general

all the best, rantal

First of all, embargoes rarely, if ever, accomplish their objectives (viz. U.S. 40 year embargo of Cuba), and in all cases harm innocent civilians, so my statement that embargoes are crimes against humanity stands for always and forever.

Saying the rarely succed is to ignore that they worked in South Africa, therefore your claim is false

all the best, rantal

rantal wrote:

bobevenson wrote:

rantal wrote:What of the embargo against the evil appareled regime in South Africa? Your statement is too general

all the best, rantal

First of all, embargoes rarely, if ever, accomplish their objectives (viz. U.S. 40 year embargo of Cuba), and in all cases harm innocent civilians, so my statement that embargoes are crimes against humanity stands for always and forever.

Saying the rarely succed is to ignore that they worked in South Africa, therefore your claim is false

all the best, rantal

Rarely is not the same as never, fool, and innocent people are always harmed!

rantal wrote:That is exactly my point, you would need to show that it was 'always' and without that you are just plain wrong

all the best, rantal

How about that's the exception that proves the rule, punk!