Angry Iraqi throws shoes at Bush

[NBVegita]

I am changing his position to make his main statement easier to attack

 

Lol, this is supposed to be a debate not politics.

 

By changing his position you're not attacking his position, you're attacking a position he didn't take.

 

That sure does make an argument easier to win...

[aquarius]

Invade my homeland, aim bombs at civilian housing complexes where my family lives, let your soldiers rape my sisters / mother, destroy our well preserved, sacred grounds of Babylon and then call me a child for throwing a shoe? Fuck off.

 

Sure, there are adult ways to handle that, it's called war, but America has a billion kids growing up on first person shooters ready to fight, and the American government (realizing the need for population control) has no problem shipping them all over to Iraq.

 

So throwing a shoe isn't childish, it's symbolic. They can't do anything to stop the invasion.

[Hakaku]

By changing his position you're not attacking his position, you're attacking a position he didn't take.

Here, let me break it down for you. Here's where I changed his position:

I suppose you still believe that Native Americans are souless savages too? And that everyone should be converted to Christianity through all repressive means possible? ... and if you'd have to have a go at it again, you'd still ridicule yourself by going back and fight in 'Nam.

The relationship between these questions and statement doesn't depend on whether Bak answers yes or no, rather I'm telling him that his argument is antiquated and dates back to times of colonialism. Both the belief that Native Americans are savages that need to be converted, and the attack on Vietnam are directly linked to colonialism. If you haven't understood from the three preceding posts, that's the gyst of my argument. And while Natives and Vietnam aren't a position he took (or could have taken considering that the latter was ~40 years ago), I'm attacking his colonialistic perspective that all Arabs are more uncivilized than Westerners.

[NBVegita]

What you are arguing has no relevance to what he stated.

 

The problem I see is when a majority of Arabs asked about it say his actions were acceptable and right. It pretty much reinforces a stereotype that Arabs are less civilized than westerners and ultimately hurts their image.

 

Is COMPLETELY different from

 

Arabs are less civilized than westerners

 

You are attacking the middle piece of a sentence disregarding not only the entirety of the sentence but also the supporting sentences.

 

I'm attacking his colonialist perspective that all Arabs are more uncivilized than Westerners.

 

He is not stating a perspective that all Arabs are less civilized, he is stating that Arabs who endorse throwing your shoe at the president of another country are fueling the stereotype that Arabs are less civilized. (No where does he imply that he agrees nor disagrees with the stereotype)

 

So by you simply attacking the statement: "Arabs are less civilized than westerners" you are really not attacking anything but your own made up argument.

 

Again he never has taken the position "that all Arabs are more uncivilized than Westerners"

 

Now he has stated that throwing your shoe at the President of another country and the act of supporting such a person is childish.

[Sketter]

So throwing a shoe isn't childish, it's symbolic. They can't do anything to stop the invasion.

 

 

That's exactly the point.

 

Just showing the sole of the shoe to another person shows a lack of respect.

To have them be thrown, well.. statement loud and clear.

 

I don't know why, maybe TV down there didn't explain this, but our news reporters explained why he throw the shoe and what it meant, in that culture.

 

What happened was very symbolic, and to call it childish before understanding the meaning is ignorant.

 

As for calling him a hero, well, I can understand that. And this is hard to explain that I don't really want to get into.

[Bak]

What happened was very symbolic, and to call it childish before understanding the meaning is ignorant.

I understand the meaning and still think it's childish. Just because something is a symbol doesn't mean it won't hurt your image with the rest of the world. Human sacrifice was largely symbolic too, but I wouldn't hesitate at labeling societies that actively practice it as less civilized.

[aquarius]

Just because something is a symbol doesn't mean it won't hurt your image with the rest of the world.

 

This man doesn't care what the world thinks about him, these people want the violence to end...

[rootbear75]

i wonder what would of happened if bush had been hit with the shoe... Edited December 17, 2008 by rootbear75

[FMBI]

I'm just glad Dana Perino got a black eye. When I see her on C-SPAN, I start foaming at the mouth. What a fucking bitch.

[Aceflyer]

i wonder what would of happened if bush had been hit with the shoe...

 

The shoe-thrower is probably quite lucky he didn't manage to actually hit the President with either shoe.

[Sketter]

What happened was very symbolic, and to call it childish before understanding the meaning is ignorant.

I understand the meaning and still think it's childish. Just because something is a symbol doesn't mean it won't hurt your image with the rest of the world. Human sacrifice was largely symbolic too, but I wouldn't hesitate at labeling societies that actively practice it as less civilized.

 

 

You're focusing on the aspect of the most least important part, and diverting all the attention away for what really matters. You might as well talk about the type of shoe he was throwing, how poor the quality it was, and that he should have thrown something with a harder sole.

 

And then wounder why the rest of the world call the Westerns bullies and stupid.

 

Care about something important! If you really care about shoe being thrown to impact image, then you enforce their stereotype on you.

 

Sketter