Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cuddley_Battleship
A lot of us do understand your points and even agree with you, but the points only come up in threads like this one or in bash-fests, both of which are a bit of a turn-off.
|
let's just clarify your points, i need to make sure that they're clear in my mind.
So you're saying that criticising america is ok?
and that there are valid criticisms to be made?
but
what you don't like is the threads these criticisms appear in?
that's why you get angry and flame?
because of the 'threads' not because of the ideas?
now this thread was started, contains in it's first post and is titled as a criticism of america.
but that's not valid?
because you argue, it is wrong to tag criticism onto events?
but those events they are just evidence for the criticism aren't they? It's not really 'tagging on' is it; it's more taking an argument that exists in logic and then supporting that argument with a factual reality isn't it?
but even if you don't agree with that. you must accept that any criticism made about say 'america's environmental policy' that is made when there hasn't been a crisis will be met with the counter argument
nothing has gone wrong so we musy be doing alright
and you describe two types of thread you don't think are acceptable places to criticise america:
threads like this one or in bash-fests
1) 'threads like this one' must mean
threads started because an event (usually a crisis) has occured and that crisis is used as evidence to support criticism
2) 'bash-fests' must mean
threads started without an event having occured where the criticism is not supported by recent evidence
now if you're saying that both of those types of thread are unacceptable places to criticise america. you are basicly saying
there is no valid place to criticise america
and that. that seems a little bit silly, and i dare i say, a little draconian.