1 billion $ spending cuts proposed for Canadian army

[Habbaku]

From appearances, he's not "accusing" CC of being dishonest.  CC is being dishonest.

I'm sure CC will come along any second now and show where Berkut claimed Canada was responsible for US overspending, though.

[Berkut]

Berkut - what purpose does accusing everyone of being "dishonest" serve in this particular conversation?  Do you think that it helps get the conversation going?  Or are you merely trying to provoke a reaction from CC or myself?

I think pointing out when people bald faced lie is purposeful regardless of the discussion. Certainly spouting crap like "Berkut blames Canada for US over-spending!" does not advance the discussion - lack of intellectual integrity never does.

What I wonder is what purpose you have in backing up someone you know is lying about what was said? I am surprised you find that kind of allegiance worth it. It is rather bizarre that you would ask me what purpose there is in calling out someone lying, while you do not comment at all on the dishonesty itself! You find me calling out his dishonesty more problematic than the dishonesty to begin with. I suppose it is the standard human failing that lying for YOUR cause is ok?

[Jacob]

That's not what happened Berkut. Don't lie.

[Berkut]

That's not what happened Berkut. Don't lie.

Good one.

[Barrister]

Berkut - what purpose does accusing everyone of being "dishonest" serve in this particular conversation?  Do you think that it helps get the conversation going?  Or are you merely trying to provoke a reaction from CC or myself?

I think pointing out when people bald faced lie is purposeful regardless of the discussion. Certainly spouting crap like "Berkut blames Canada for US over-spending!" does not advance the discussion - lack of intellectual integrity never does.

What I wonder is what purpose you have in backing up someone you know is lying about what was said? I am surprised you find that kind of allegiance worth it. It is rather bizarre that you would ask me what purpose there is in calling out someone lying, while you do not comment at all on the dishonesty itself! You find me calling out his dishonesty more problematic than the dishonesty to begin with. I suppose it is the standard human failing that lying for YOUR cause is ok?

You think its purposeful?  What purpose is that?

Being untruthful requires you to both know someone's mind, and an accusation of untruthfulness is generally found to be a very serious one.

I might humbly suggest that rather than accuse Crazy Canuck of being a liar, you just tone it down and say "I think you're mistaken - I didn't say any such thing".

It's the kind of tone that might allow the conversation to continue, rather than devolve into a series of personal attacks.

[HVC]

Where's the fun in that?

[crazy canuck]

I'm sure CC will come along any second now and show where Berkut claimed Canada was responsible for US overspending, though.

Since I was critical of both you and Berk for the same remarks this post is not entirely surprising.

[Berkut]

Berkut - what purpose does accusing everyone of being "dishonest" serve in this particular conversation?  Do you think that it helps get the conversation going?  Or are you merely trying to provoke a reaction from CC or myself?

I think pointing out when people bald faced lie is purposeful regardless of the discussion. Certainly spouting crap like "Berkut blames Canada for US over-spending!" does not advance the discussion - lack of intellectual integrity never does.

What I wonder is what purpose you have in backing up someone you know is lying about what was said? I am surprised you find that kind of allegiance worth it. It is rather bizarre that you would ask me what purpose there is in calling out someone lying, while you do not comment at all on the dishonesty itself! You find me calling out his dishonesty more problematic than the dishonesty to begin with. I suppose it is the standard human failing that lying for YOUR cause is ok?

You think its purposeful?  What purpose is that?

I don't know, that is why I asked you what the purpose was in ignoring CCs dishonesty while appearing to be concerned over me calling him on it. I can specualte, of course (and I have - standard human failing of excusing those who are perceived to be on your side), but I don't pretend to understand why really.

It seems rather counter to your apparent stated desire to keep the conversation at a constructive level.

Being untruthful requires you to both know someone's mind, and an accusation of untruthfulness is generally found to be a very serious one.

It is rather serious. I don't need to know CCs mind to know that I never made the claims he said I made though. If I am incorrect, and in fact he THOUGHT I said those things, he could clear that right up by simply saying that he somehow thought I had said such a thing. I've asked him rather clearly to show where I said it was Canada's fault that the US over-spends, and he elected to not take that opportunity to clear it up.

I might humbly suggest that rather than accuse Crazy Canuck of being a liar, you just tone it down and say "I think you're mistaken - I didn't say any such thing".

I might not so humbly suggest that if you really care about the tone of the discussion, you not back up people who are saying things that are clearly not true just because they happen to be on what you perceive as your side, and apply that humble advice to those who are willing to willfully distort what is being said.

It's the kind of tone that might allow the conversation to continue, rather than devolve into a series of personal attacks.

Actually, it is the tone of CCs that causes the conversation to devolve. You are looking to shoot the messenger. Read the thread BB, he is the one playing the personal bullshit game about my motives.

"Naw he has to blame US overspending on something - cant possibly be the US."
"I suppose if it makes you feel better to blame others for the shitty position your country is in you have to belief this sort of nonsense. "
"Habbuku and Berkut can stuff the self serving implication that somehow the US is doing us a favour."
"Habbs and Berkut can save their "we are there to protect you" bs. "

Note that at no time have Habs or Berkut claimed that the "US is there to protect you". That quote is completely made up.

And of course he completely ignores posts where I explictly state the exact opposite of what he claims I have said. Sorry, not willing to buy into the idea that it is a "mistake".

If you care about the tone of the debate, you are talking to the wrong person.

[Berkut]

I'm sure CC will come along any second now and show where Berkut claimed Canada was responsible for US overspending, though.

Since I was critical of both you and Berk for the same remarks this post is not entirely surprising.

Funny thing is that you are critical of us for remarks we never actually made.

Berkut: I claim A!
CC: ZOMG BERKUT SAYS B!
Berkut: I never said B, I said A.
CC: ZOMG BERKUT SAYS B HE IS SUCH A JERK!
Berkut: Not only did I not say B, I am saying right now that I do not agree with B.
CC: BERKUT SAYS B! LETS HATE HIM!
Malthus: Wow, I cannot believe Berkut says B. What an asshole.
Berkut: I never said B. I don't agree with B. B is stupid.
CC: BERKUT SAID B! HAHA HE TEH STOOPID!
Berkut: Now you are just lying.
BB: Oh dear, I don't think you should call people liars Berk. It lowers the level of the conversation!
Berkut: You can all die in a fire now.

[Barrister]

I suspected you wouldn't follow my advice, but I offered it all the same.

[crazy canuck]

Funny thing is that you are critical of us for remarks we never actually made.

I am not sure if you are being wilfilly blind because you are embarrassed - the best result.  Or if you are just unable to appreciate the implications of the ridiculous statements you made earlier in the thread - the worst result.

In any event I am done with you in this thread.

[frunk]

It's the kind of tone that might allow the conversation to continue, rather than devolve into a series of personal attacks.

The mistake here was that it had already devolved into a series of personal attacks.

[Habbaku]

Yes, beat a hasty retreat when you cannot prove your false claims.  Bravo.

[Berkut]

Yes, beat a hasty retreat when you cannot prove your false claims.  Bravo.

Its too bad it wasn't a bit hastier.

[Berkut]

I suspected you wouldn't follow my advice, but I offered it all the same.

I actually did not suspect that you would show this level of intellectual "flexibility" when it comes to recognizing when someone on your own side is acting so dishonestly. I can honestly say I would have expected more from you. CC is doing his full on Marty impression, and you are basically cheering him on.