http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/23/world/am...nted=1&_r=1

Discuss

90% of murders go unsolved? That's unbelievable.

Edited August 28, 201015 yr by Serrano

No surprise considering how badly Chavez is ****ing over the country.

How the heck is Chavez still in power? Oh, I know how. He opposes the US, and blames them for his country's problems, and the voters eat it up.

 

Man. Venezuela really needs to shape up if they have a much higher murder rate than a country (Iraq) that is still undergoing growing pains due toa full scale war and all the chnages that come from that. WOW.

NYT is engaging in imperialist agitprop against Venezuela... again.

 

With yesterday's resignation of President Hugo Ch

Chavez fanboy? Chavez fanboy.

Let us simply acknowledge lordoflies is a miserable Chavez apologist and move on.

Chavez fanboy? Chavez fanboy.

Let us simply acknowledge lordoflies is a miserable Chavez apologist and move on.

Nice counterpoint. Wait, that's not a counterpoint at all, just a bland dismissal of my argument! Perhaps because you can't come up with a counterpoint??

I think it's more that there's no point in bothering.

I think it's more that there's no point in bothering.

Still not an argument. Wowzers!

 

There's always a point in arguing. Even if you cannot convince your opponent, you may be able to convince onlookers, or at least improve your debating tactics.

 

FACT: Colombia's government is not run by Chavez, yet the murder rate is much higher. Many other Latin American states have very high murder rates.

 

FACT: Iraq Body Count is based upon any death reported by two, independent news sources. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that this will always be an underestimate. What if only one news source reports a body? What if no news source reports one? Does that mean nobody died? Of course not, that's absurd. At the same time, it is highly unlikely that you could get two independent news sources to put out the same body. So the IBC's number is a bare minimum which is definitely significantly less than the factual number.

 

FACT: New York Times has a huge anti-Venezuela bias so bad they stated their support for a military coup d'etat.

 

FACT: The number of people killed in Iraq in 2009 as compared to other years is quite low.

 

Conclusion: NYT is purposefully distorting facts to cast Venezuela in a negative light.

There's always a point in arguing.

 

No there isn't.

There's always a point in arguing.

 

No there isn't.

So long as your opponent is making actual points? Yes there is.

There's only a point in arguing if you're actually interested in discussing something with the person you're discussing with.

 

Lord of Flies destroyed that long ago (as have other people on this board).

 

People aren't going to bother because people like LoF only serve to frustrate and often obfuscate the point.

 

Even if your opponent is making actual points is not a guarantee that there is a point in arguing with someone. Especially if that person has destroyed their own credibility through their own arguments such as LoF. He's made some good points, but there's no point in filtering through the lies, propaganda, and blatant misunderstanding (or misrepresentation) of topics to bother. More than likely it only serves to obfuscate the issue for onlookers because he can actually be pretty well written in what he writes. Even if it doesn't contain an iota of actual fact in it. Unfortunately, people such as himself (as well as other such as writers and passers of chain letters, or just blatant trolls throughout history) rationalize their actions as saying "Hey I'm just asking questions and trying to get people to think."

 

They think they're doing Devil's Advocacy, when really they've just become Glenn Beck.

Edited August 28, 201015 yr by Thorton_AP

He's made some good points, but there's no point in filtering through the lies, propaganda, and blatant misunderstanding (or misrepresentation) of topics to bother.

When has LOF ever lied? Serious question.

All the time. he claims Chavez is good for the country which he is clearly not. As ppiinted out, the country's problems have WORSENED since got into power.

 

 

"FACT: The number of people killed in Iraq in 2009 as compared to other years is quite low."

 

What's your point? They're comapring 2009 because that's the eyar that just ended. The fact that iraq a coutnry that is still going through post war problems had a lesser death rate than a supposedly 'stable' country shows that coutnry has major problems. And, that usually starts at the top.

 

Bottom line is Chavez does a huge diserrvice to hsi country as its rule and slamming the US does nothing to improve it. He waste too much time bashing the US and not fixing his own country which is what he should be focused on.

 

The fact that Columbia's detahr ate is evenw orse doesn't somehow magically make Venezuela an awesome palce to live, does it? That's silly talk. It's smoke and mirrors: hey, look guys, the guys over there have it worse so we're awesome lolololol!

All the time. he claims Chavez is good for the country which he is clearly not. As ppiinted out, the country's problems have WORSENED since got into power.

 

 

"FACT: The number of people killed in Iraq in 2009 as compared to other years is quite low."

 

What's your point? They're comapring 2009 because that's the eyar that just ended. The fact that iraq a coutnry that is still going through post war problems had a lesser death rate than a supposedly 'stable' country shows that coutnry has major problems. And, that usually starts at the top.

 

Bottom line is Chavez does a huge diserrvice to hsi country as its rule and slamming the US does nothing to improve it. He waste too much time bashing the US and not fixing his own country which is what he should be focused on.

 

The fact that Columbia's detahr ate is evenw orse doesn't somehow magically make Venezuela an awesome palce to live, does it? That's silly talk. It's smoke and mirrors: hey, look guys, the guys over there have it worse so we're awesome lolololol!

 

Being mistaken and lying are too different things. Point to a time LoF has intentionally posted false information.

 

It's rather discouraging to see how people can be so convinced that someone is wrong and yet simultaneously incapable of refuting any of his points with actual evidence.

 

Personally, I really don't know enough about the Chavez issue to have an educated opinion on the matter, but suffice to say that to a neutral onlooker LoF looks a whole lot more convincing than anyone else in this thread.

All the time. he claims Chavez is good for the country which he is clearly not. As ppiinted out, the country's problems have WORSENED since got into power.

 

 

"FACT: The number of people killed in Iraq in 2009 as compared to other years is quite low."

 

What's your point? They're comapring 2009 because that's the eyar that just ended. The fact that iraq a coutnry that is still going through post war problems had a lesser death rate than a supposedly 'stable' country shows that coutnry has major problems. And, that usually starts at the top.

 

Bottom line is Chavez does a huge diserrvice to hsi country as its rule and slamming the US does nothing to improve it. He waste too much time bashing the US and not fixing his own country which is what he should be focused on.

 

The fact that Columbia's detahr ate is evenw orse doesn't somehow magically make Venezuela an awesome palce to live, does it? That's silly talk. It's smoke and mirrors: hey, look guys, the guys over there have it worse so we're awesome lolololol!

Dude, are you okay?

All the time. he claims Chavez is good for the country which he is clearly not. As ppiinted out, the country's problems have WORSENED since got into power.

I guess I just imagined the guarantee to universal health care that Chavez's presidency has ushered in. The huge numbers of new doctors it's training. The reduction in infant mortality and under-5 mortality. I guess all the people who keep voting for him have just been mind controlled or something?

What's your point? They're comapring 2009 because that's the eyar that just ended. The fact that iraq a coutnry that is still going through post war problems had a lesser death rate than a supposedly 'stable' country shows that coutnry has major problems. And, that usually starts at the top.

Assuming that it does in fact have a lesser death rate, which is very much a question. As I pointed out, IBC's number is not based upon a statistical data set. For a lowball survey-based number, take a look at this study (spoken of positively by IBC), which estimates 151,000 for the war through June 2006; IBC's number for that period is 48,681. Some put the total for the whole war at this point (2010) at upwards of one million or so (IBC puts it currently at ~100,000). Ergo, it is practically certain that the 4,644 number cited in the article is a lowball, and it is quite likely that an accurate comparison would put the homicide rate in Venezuela below the homicide rate in Iraq.

Bottom line is Chavez does a huge diserrvice to hsi country as its rule and slamming the US does nothing to improve it. He waste too much time bashing the US and not fixing his own country which is what he should be focused on.

He gives some firebrand speeches that play to the crowd. I guess every US President does nothing too? Part of being a leader in a democracy is giving speeches which play to the public's desires and hopes.

The fact that Columbia's detahr ate is evenw orse doesn't somehow magically make Venezuela an awesome palce to live, does it? That's silly talk. It's smoke and mirrors: hey, look guys, the guys over there have it worse so we're awesome lolololol!

You're right. However, it points out that maybe there is some common characteristic in both Venezuela and Colombia that is causing this death toll. Being that Chavez is only the President is one of those countries, he can't be ruining both.

Here's an article which goes into more detail on the subject of this ****ty NYT article than I'd ever care to.

Completely unrelated, but: Oh yay! I was able to block LoF's sig animation. No offense, of course, but that thing made me ****ing dizzy.

There's only a point in arguing if you're actually interested in discussing something with the person you're discussing with.

 

Lord of Flies destroyed that long ago (as have other people on this board).

 

People aren't going to bother because people like LoF only serve to frustrate and often obfuscate the point.

 

Even if your opponent is making actual points is not a guarantee that there is a point in arguing with someone. Especially if that person has destroyed their own credibility through their own arguments such as LoF. He's made some good points, but there's no point in filtering through the lies, propaganda, and blatant misunderstanding (or misrepresentation) of topics to bother. More than likely it only serves to obfuscate the issue for onlookers because he can actually be pretty well written in what he writes. Even if it doesn't contain an iota of actual fact in it. Unfortunately, people such as himself (as well as other such as writers and passers of chain letters, or just blatant trolls throughout history) rationalize their actions as saying "Hey I'm just asking questions and trying to get people to think."

 

They think they're doing Devil's Advocacy, when really they've just become Glenn Beck.

 

This is a sentiment I share - and alluded to earlier this week.

 

Not so much re: LoF, though.

Edited August 28, 201015 yr by Nepenthe

I think the appropriate response is probably: If there's no point bothering why post in the thread in the first place?

 

(Though that's more aimed at run and hide "lol u r rong" posts rather than having already posted previously in the thread and not wanting to go off on tangents like "Why do Finns <3 Nazis- discuss!!!"

 

In any case, LoF is right this time. That NYT article is garbage.)

Edited August 28, 201015 yr by Zoraptor

Completely unrelated, but: Oh yay! I was able to block LoF's sig animation. No offense, of course, but that thing made me ****ing dizzy.

 

You can't block his sig, you fool. If you do then there's nothing whatever about him that has anything to do with games, Obsidian, or anything other than communist spam posting.

Completely unrelated, but: Oh yay! I was able to block LoF's sig animation. No offense, of course, but that thing made me ****ing dizzy.

 

You can't block his sig, you fool. If you do then there's nothing whatever about him that has anything to do with games, Obsidian, or anything other than communist spam posting.

Cry some more.

Completely unrelated, but: Oh yay! I was able to block LoF's sig animation. No offense, of course, but that thing made me ****ing dizzy.

Now you've got the fuzz is bothering me. Good job.

There's always a point in arguing.

 

First time in the history of the internet that the "Arguing on the Internet" picture is actually useful seems to simultaneously be the first time in the history of the internet that no one posts it.