Peru: Battles over exploitation of indigenous lands

The Black Flag Cafe is the place travelers come to share stories and advice. Moderated by Robert Young Pelton the author of The World's Most Dangerous Places.

Moderator: coldharvest

Re: Peru: Battles over exploitation of indigenous lands

Postby Penta » Mon Jun 15, 2009 7:22 am

You might like to look up definitions for the following red herrings:
appeal to spite
appeal to motive
wishful thinking

Plus:
scrape the bottom of the barrel
lack a leg to stand on

and

pompous arse.
Shes never interfered with me. I have no complaints about her.
Same here.
Mega ditto.
I met her once and I found her to be a nice lady. Not kookey in any way.
Penta has always been gracious, kind and very sane in all my interactions with her.
User avatar
Penta
Ruby Tuesday
 
Posts: 15585
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 4:32 pm
Location: UK, Spain

Re: Peru: Battles over exploitation of indigenous lands

Postby flipflop » Mon Jun 15, 2009 9:21 am

You got them facts yet Donny? Want some advice (you can take it or leave it)? When starting a thread on any divisive topic, try to remain impartial in your title, unless you are certain the facts line up behind you, or that your title isn't ambiguous. I'll leave the charge of wishful thinking on my part out there for somebody else to think about. But, with your record of knee-jerk slobbering on most topics, you probably won't have many backers.

I'll be doing this philosophy/logic gig for at least another three years yet, until I get my masters degree; which means I should be getting better and better at it - you'll know anyway, so standby for more of the same, the force is strong with this one.

If you had tried "Peru: Battles over exploitation of resources in indigenous lands" then the logic police wouldn't have tooled up to frag your stupid ass

Cheers
Patriots always talk of dying for their country, and never of killing for their country - Bertrand Russell
User avatar
flipflop
Cuntus Maximus
 
Posts: 8382
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2004 11:11 am
Location: Arse Full Of Chips

Re: Peru: Battles over exploitation of indigenous lands

Postby Penta » Mon Jun 15, 2009 10:37 am

flipflop wrote:Donny

Who s/he?

got them facts yet


I can tell you that the Asociación Nacional de Periodistas (ANP) [National Journalists' Association] and the Confederación General de Trabajadores de Perú (CGTP) [General Workers' Confederation of Peru, i.e. TUC] have both condemned the closure. That the CGTP Secretary General, Mario Huamán, described the closure as "yet another sign of the authoritarianism of this regime" that is using pretexts to try to silence opposition media. That the local branch of the ANP says the closure should be reversed as a restriction on freedom of speech. That the lawyer for the Coordinadora Nacional de Derechos Humanos [National Co-ordinator for Human Rights], Víctor Álvarez, who has been on a fact-finding trip to the area, says he has received reports that journalists were threatened to prevent them broadcasting versions of events different from the government's official line.

That the station's licence was awarded for 10 years from 2007, that it was revoked supposedly for failure to have its equipment ready for inspection and that its owners and its director have denied that charge. In addition, the director, Carlos Flores, said that was false because the station installed all the right equipment, asked the ministry for the relevant inspection, the ministry fixed the date and then didn't turn up. He also said that the licence withdrawal was a government manoeuvre to silence the station which had been reporting widely and objectively on the protests.

That the PM, Yehude Simón, assured the foreign press that the government respects the communications media and freedom of the press, even though he and other ministers "gave a tongue-lashing" [fustigaron] to jungle radio stations, which they accused of lying.

And finally, I can report that the reason the government is so annoyed is reported to be because the stations (plural) reported numerous deaths of indigenous people last week, while the government is sticking to its original figures of 24 police and only 9 civilians. Meanwhile, at least 30 indigenous people are said to have been killed, and 61 more have been listed by name by Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos (Aprodeh) [Pro-Human Rights Association] as still missing. They have also said 133 people have been detained without charge and 189 injured. There have been unconfirmed eyewitness reports of the army and/or police dropping bodies from helicopters into rivers and burning bodies (on the ground, obviously).

That's all from Spanish-language reports. Meanwhile, you might like to look at Channel 4 News's report last night:

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/w ... ru/3211457
Shes never interfered with me. I have no complaints about her.
Same here.
Mega ditto.
I met her once and I found her to be a nice lady. Not kookey in any way.
Penta has always been gracious, kind and very sane in all my interactions with her.
User avatar
Penta
Ruby Tuesday
 
Posts: 15585
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 4:32 pm
Location: UK, Spain

Re: Peru: Battles over exploitation of indigenous lands

Postby Penta » Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:12 am

And I can now add a very interesting detail.

It turns out that the ministry used a document dated 31 December 2008, saying that the radio station concerned had failed a technical inspection on 23 November. But it also listed a certificate dated 25 February 2009, in which it confirmed that the station had by then complied with all legal and technical requirements.

So as the Coordinadora Nacional de Radio points out with some bemusement and amusement on its website, the ministry has got itself in a bit of a muddle here. A case of one bureaucratic hand not knowing what another bureaucratic hand is doing, which can be no surprise to anyone. But I expect the government will produce a fine explanation which will make its action tickety-boo and legal again.
Shes never interfered with me. I have no complaints about her.
Same here.
Mega ditto.
I met her once and I found her to be a nice lady. Not kookey in any way.
Penta has always been gracious, kind and very sane in all my interactions with her.
User avatar
Penta
Ruby Tuesday
 
Posts: 15585
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 4:32 pm
Location: UK, Spain

Re: Peru: Battles over exploitation of indigenous lands

Postby flipflop » Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:19 am

Penta wrote:
got them facts yet


I can tell you that the Asociación Nacional de Periodistas (ANP) [National Journalists' Association] and the Confederación General de Trabajadores de Perú (CGTP) [General Workers' Confederation of Peru, i.e. TUC] have both condemned the closure. That the CGTP Secretary General, Mario Huamán, described the closure as "yet another sign of the authoritarianism of this regime" that is using pretexts to try to silence opposition media. That the local branch of the ANP says the closure should be reversed as a restriction on freedom of speech. That the lawyer for the Coordinadora Nacional de Derechos Humanos [National Co-ordinator for Human Rights], Víctor Álvarez, who has been on a fact-finding trip to the area, says he has received reports that journalists were threatened to prevent them broadcasting versions of events different from the government's official line.


They would say that but wouldn't they. How about the other side?

That the station's licence was awarded for 10 years from 2007, that it was revoked supposedly for failure to have its equipment ready for inspection


And this scenario can't possibly be true in your world? If not, why not?

and that its owners and its director have denied that charge.


They would say that wouldn't they?

In addition, the director, Carlos Flores, said that was false because the station installed all the right equipment, asked the ministry for the relevant inspection, the ministry fixed the date and then didn't turn up. He also said that the licence withdrawal was a government manoeuvre to silence the station which had been reporting widely and objectively on the protests.


He would say that wouldn't he? What did the other side say?

That the PM, Yehude Simón, assured the foreign press that the government respects the communications media and freedom of the press, even though he and other ministers "gave a tongue-lashing" [fustigaron] to jungle radio stations, which they accused of lying.


Maybe he does respect the communications media and freedom of the press, the governemnt said they closed it down because of failure to comply to inspection. Is that possible in your world? Giving someone a tongue-lashing is different than deliberately closing down a radio station you don't agree with. Chavez gave plenty of sinister public warnings before he axed one of his stations, but you say he was just carrying out the letter of the law - does this not apply to right-wing administrations? Only left-wing ones you like?

And finally, I can report that the reason the government is so annoyed is reported to be because the stations (plural) reported numerous deaths of indigenous people last week, while the government is sticking to its original figures of 24 police and only 9 civilians.


Show me where they are "annoyed" and how can YOU report? From where? Show me or shut fucking up - I want evidence, not more fucking rhetoric, Jesus! Also, being annoyed is not the same as actively silencing something/someone. That's a big leap which the facts don't support - go and find them.

Meanwhile, at least 30 indigenous people are said to have been killed, and 61 more have been listed by name by Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos (Aprodeh) [Pro-Human Rights Association] as still missing. They have also said 133 people have been detained without charge and 189 injured. There have been unconfirmed eyewitness reports of the army and/or police dropping bodies from helicopters into rivers and burning bodies (on the ground, obviously).


And this is different from hacking cops to death with machetes how? " are said" "Unconfirmed reports" - might as well wipe your arse with them, go and get them confirmed.

That's all from Spanish-language reports. Meanwhile, you might like to look at Channel 4 News's report last night:

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/w ... ru/3211457


I might, but I don't need to to rubbish your bullshit. You can't see what I'm driving at at all, can you?

You won't be able to find conclusive or even convincing evidence, there's always going to be two sides, you might even have found some reports supporting the government in all your furious googling, but I'm sure you're guilty of stacking the deck (look that one up), as no story can be so one-sided.

You're incapable of impartiality, as most left-wing drones are. Most people don't bother with your schtick, but I enjoy ragging the fuck out of you, and you never let me down. Keep fighting the good fight comrade, it gives me a laugh anyhoo

Cheers
Patriots always talk of dying for their country, and never of killing for their country - Bertrand Russell
User avatar
flipflop
Cuntus Maximus
 
Posts: 8382
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2004 11:11 am
Location: Arse Full Of Chips

Re: Peru: Battles over exploitation of indigenous lands

Postby Penta » Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:27 am

And to get back to the original reason for the protests, there seems to be a fast-swelling tide of constitutional lawyers agreeing that the decrees García passed to comply with his commitments in the FTA to open up the Peruvian Amazon regions to exploitation by foreign firms are unconstitutional, as the protesters have been saying all along. He has some tricky waters to navigate if he's going to continue on this course.

And that's enough fact-gathering on Peru for today.
Shes never interfered with me. I have no complaints about her.
Same here.
Mega ditto.
I met her once and I found her to be a nice lady. Not kookey in any way.
Penta has always been gracious, kind and very sane in all my interactions with her.
User avatar
Penta
Ruby Tuesday
 
Posts: 15585
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 4:32 pm
Location: UK, Spain

Re: Peru: Battles over exploitation of indigenous lands

Postby Penta » Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:36 am

flipflop wrote:What did the other side say?


That's the thing: I did a search on Google Spanish noticias for the closure of the radio station, read all the first few news (not blog-site) pages that came up, and related to you every single fact I could find in the reports. It seems the government hasn't got much to say for itself, apart from the initial announcement about the station's failure to pass a technical inspection, and subsequently how much it values freedom of expression, which I also reported faithfully.
Shes never interfered with me. I have no complaints about her.
Same here.
Mega ditto.
I met her once and I found her to be a nice lady. Not kookey in any way.
Penta has always been gracious, kind and very sane in all my interactions with her.
User avatar
Penta
Ruby Tuesday
 
Posts: 15585
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 4:32 pm
Location: UK, Spain

Re: Peru: Battles over exploitation of indigenous lands

Postby flipflop » Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:14 pm

So, would you say that the silence of the government is proof of their guilt? Would the onus of proof not be with the radio station who made the accusations of unfair treatment? Why should the government have to answer allegations after it stated its case already?

I can't read Spanish, so I won't comment on their alleged silence, or the possible reasons for it. But, about your "faithful reporting" from Spanish google. Keeping in mind you have never to my mind posted evidence on a thread you yourself started that was contrary to your opinion - ever - that suggests three things to me, either:

1) You are infallible and there exists no evidence to possibly contradict any argument you submit to the BFC

2) You are myopic, or at least don't check out any sites that would perhaps have contrary evidence to that which you have posited after furious bouts of googling

3) You stack the deck and wilfully ignore contrary evidence, as every issue in the world will have least two contrasting views

And that's enough fact-gathering on Peru for today.


This would suggest to me you believe the first scenario, and that is comedy gold. If I was a betting man, who is fully aware of your disingenuous nature and win-at-all-costs attitude to every word you post here, I'd probably bang a few grand on the third.

Cheers
Patriots always talk of dying for their country, and never of killing for their country - Bertrand Russell
User avatar
flipflop
Cuntus Maximus
 
Posts: 8382
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2004 11:11 am
Location: Arse Full Of Chips

Re: Peru: Battles over exploitation of indigenous lands

Postby Penta » Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Or
4) I am being scrupulously careful, because for once I know I've got you bang to rights. ;)
and
5) The government will come out fighting again today, and tomorrow's papers will be full of their comments and explanations.
Shes never interfered with me. I have no complaints about her.
Same here.
Mega ditto.
I met her once and I found her to be a nice lady. Not kookey in any way.
Penta has always been gracious, kind and very sane in all my interactions with her.
User avatar
Penta
Ruby Tuesday
 
Posts: 15585
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 4:32 pm
Location: UK, Spain

Re: Peru: Battles over exploitation of indigenous lands

Postby flipflop » Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:53 pm

Penta wrote:Or
4) I am being scrupulously careful, because for once I know I've got you bang to rights. ;)
and
5) The government will come out fighting again today, and tomorrow's papers will be full of their comments and explanations.


Saying you have me bang to rights has no relation to it actually existing in reality. You like using this tactic, asserting that you're right, when you have offered absolutely no substantial evidence that would support it. Remember, once again my opinion has not been offered, just as you have thrown up lop-sided hearsay and opinion, rhetorical red herrings:

a fast-swelling tide of constitutional lawyers agreeing that the decrees García passed to comply with his commitments in the FTA to open up the Peruvian Amazon regions to exploitation by foreign firms are unconstitutional, as the protesters have been saying all along


Which has nothing to do with the reasons why the governement closed the radio station. Yeah, bang to rights.

I look forward to your impartial and disinterested reporting of the government side in this most contentious issue tomorrow

Cheers
Patriots always talk of dying for their country, and never of killing for their country - Bertrand Russell
User avatar
flipflop
Cuntus Maximus
 
Posts: 8382
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2004 11:11 am
Location: Arse Full Of Chips

Re: Peru: Battles over exploitation of indigenous lands

Postby Penta » Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:38 pm

flipflop wrote:
Or
4) I am being scrupulously careful, because for once I know I've got you bang to rights. ;)


Saying you have me bang to rights has no relation to it actually existing in reality.


What happened to your sense of humour? Bypassed again?

I was referring to your accusations that I commented about the radio station closure and that I was begging the question with the title.

You asked me for facts about the closure, and I provided all the facts I could find, with very careful even-handedness. Can't ask more than that, mate.

And here:
a fast-swelling tide of constitutional lawyers agreeing that the decrees García passed to comply with his commitments in the FTA to open up the Peruvian Amazon regions to exploitation by foreign firms are unconstitutional, as the protesters have been saying all along


Which has nothing to do with the reasons why the governement closed the radio station.

Of course it hasn't. I put it in a separate post and even prefaced it with
to get back to the original reason for the protests

which was going above the call of duty to clarity, one might think. Not clear enough for you though, evidently.
Am I somehow forbidden from returning to the initial story in a thread I started? Is that a logical flaw?

Remember, once again my opinion has not been offered

Perhaps you'd like to grace us with it. Do you think a government is justified in selling off rights to the subsoil of people's land without consulting them properly? I'll tell you my view quite happily now: I don't. I expect you guessed. ;)
Shes never interfered with me. I have no complaints about her.
Same here.
Mega ditto.
I met her once and I found her to be a nice lady. Not kookey in any way.
Penta has always been gracious, kind and very sane in all my interactions with her.
User avatar
Penta
Ruby Tuesday
 
Posts: 15585
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 4:32 pm
Location: UK, Spain

Re: Peru: Battles over exploitation of indigenous lands

Postby flipflop » Tue Jun 16, 2009 3:20 am

Penta wrote:
What happened to your sense of humour? Bypassed again?


Irrelevant. Smokescreen.

I was referring to your accusations that I commented about the radio station closure and that I was begging the question with the title.


You did and you were, then you were guilty of equivocation

You asked me for facts about the closure, and I provided all the facts I could find, with very careful even-handedness.


If you think I'm going to take your word on any of this you're sorely mistaken. Come on, you and "careful even-handedness"? Don't insult my intelligence. As for facts, let's review your "facts":

Víctor Álvarez, who has been on a fact-finding trip to the area, says he has received reports that journalists were threatened to prevent them broadcasting versions of events different from the government's official line.


Victor "says", it must be a "fact" if Victor says it.

Carlos Flores, said that was false....He also said that the licence withdrawal was a government manoeuvre to silence the station which had been reporting widely and objectively on the protests.


Carlos "said", it must be a "fact" if Carlos said it

And finally, I can report that the reason the government is so annoyed is reported to be because the stations (plural) reported numerous deaths of indigenous people last week, while the government is sticking to its original figures of 24 police and only 9 civilians.


Penta "can report", it must be a "fact" if Penta reports it

Meanwhile, at least 30 indigenous people are said to have been killed, and 61 more have been listed by name by Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos (Aprodeh) [Pro-Human Rights Association] as still missing. They have also said 133 people have been detained without charge and 189 injured.


Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos (Aprodeh) "said", it must be a "fact" if Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos (Aprodeh) "said" it.

So, all you have given us here is the "fact" that these people said things (or put another way - the facts are these people said some things), not that the things they said are "facts" - you're equivocating.

Can't ask more than that, mate.


I did, and you didn't provide a satisfactory answer, mate.

I asked you for "facts", this requires a dictionary definition of "fact". Before you bring up the problem of dictionary definitions, and using the dictionary as the final arbiter on some questions, think about this: "What is a fact?" is not the same as asking "What is art?" or "What is justice?", there's no impropriety in asking the dictionary what a "fact" is, it is a simple noun with no vague interpretations, unlike "justice" which can cover myriad views of what "justice" is. It is like asking the dictionary "What is a duck?" - the answer will be "a wild or domesticated web-footed swimming bird, characterized by a broad, flat bill, short legs, and depressed body", or something similar. So, the dictionary will suffice here:

fact  /fækt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [fakt]

–noun
1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.


A bit more, "fact" regarding philosophy:

A fact is a pragmatic truth, a statement that can, at least in theory, be checked and either confirmed or denied. Facts are often contrasted with opinions and beliefs, statements which are held to be true, but are not amenable to pragmatic confirmation or denial


You haven't confirmed anything, you're not dealing in "facts" you're peddling "opinion". Do you see now how hard it is to maintain such a black/white (unpragmatic) view of the world? This is the fundamental level where all your threads/posts fall down. Facts, real facts, are elusive things at best, especially so when you look at divisive topics like this one. Scientific facts are easy (but not certain, one contrary experiment can kill a long held theory in an instant, and whole careers along with it), but in the whole range of human interaction facts are fuzzy at best, objectivity is a great goal, but falters at the human level.


Remember, once again my opinion has not been offered

Perhaps you'd like to grace us with it. Do you think a government is justified in selling off rights to the subsoil of people's land without consulting them properly? I'll tell you my view quite happily now: I don't. I expect you guessed. ;)


Loaded/complex question:
A question with a false, disputed, or question-begging presupposition. In this case it's question-begging "Do you think a government is justified in selling off rights to the subsoil of people's land without consulting them properly?" Begs the question "Did the government sell off the rights to the subsoil without consulting the people properly?" How do you define this? Did they not consult them at all? Did they try negotiating with "the people"? What people? All or some of the people? Did all the people disagree? "Properly"? what do you mean by properly? qualify your interpretation of "properly"

Another example of a loaded question:
"Have you stopped beating your wife?" presupposes that you have beaten your wife prior to its asking, as well as that you have a wife. If you are unmarried, or have never beaten your wife, then the question is loaded.


As for my opinion? My opinion is as useful as yours - like a chocolate fireguard - totally fucking useless. I want to know the facts, opinions aren't worth a fuck, that's why I don't offer mine. Opinions won't get me closer to the truth. Your opinion clouds your logic and critical thinking.

Cheers
Patriots always talk of dying for their country, and never of killing for their country - Bertrand Russell
User avatar
flipflop
Cuntus Maximus
 
Posts: 8382
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2004 11:11 am
Location: Arse Full Of Chips

Re: Peru: Battles over exploitation of indigenous lands

Postby Penta » Tue Jun 16, 2009 7:15 am

flipflop wrote:You did and you were, then you were guilty of equivocation

Just because you say so? You think I used "exploitation" emotively. I know I used it neutrally. How can you find me guilty?
You think you can get inside my mind. I know you'd find you were wrong if you could.
You're accusing me of lying. Ad hominem.

If you think I'm going to take your word on any of this you're sorely mistaken.

There you go again. This is just a personal attack, not logic.

And this: I'm - almost ;) - lost for words at your density:
Victor "says", it must be a "fact" if Victor says it.
Carlos "said", it must be a "fact" if Carlos said it

Jesus. You really do think I'm some sort of moron, don't you?

I did try to find out more, but pretty much the only "facts" I could find were that people were quoted - or reported - as saying things (some of them weren't even direct quotes). In all the articles I read, there were hardly any hard facts, just he said, she said. That was the point. I would have thought that was perfectly obvious to anyone with any sense of humour, any appreciation for the absurd, from how I described it:
That's all from Spanish-language reports. Meanwhile, you might like to look at Channel 4 News's report last night

And I can now add a very interesting detail [in a separate post, followed by the closest thing to a real fact]

that's enough fact-gathering on Peru for today

What did the other side say?

That's the thing: I did a search on Google Spanish noticias for the closure of the radio station, read all the first few news (not blog-site) pages that came up, and related to you every single fact I could find in the reports. It seems the government hasn't got much to say for itself, apart from the initial announcement about the station's failure to pass a technical inspection, and subsequently how much it values freedom of expression, which I also reported faithfully.

5) The government will come out fighting again today, and tomorrow's papers will be full of their comments and explanations.

You asked me for facts about the closure, and I provided all the facts I could find, with very careful even-handedness.

I even topped it all with this:
What happened to your sense of humour? Bypassed again?

How much more clearly did I need to spell it out for you?

I was taking the piss, flipflop.

So, all you have given us here is the "fact" that these people said things (or put another way - the facts are these people said some things), not that the things they said are "facts"

Oh, well done. Gold star.

you're equivocating.

Again, eh?

As for the rest of your lesson for idiots, dictionary definition, disquisition on dictionary definitions and all. Gosh, how illuminating:

I asked you for "facts", this requires a dictionary definition of "fact". Before you bring up the problem of dictionary definitions, and using the dictionary as the final arbiter on some questions, think about this: "What is a fact?" is not the same as asking "What is art?" or "What is justice?", there's no impropriety in asking the dictionary what a "fact" is, it is a simple noun with no vague interpretations, unlike "justice" which can cover myriad views of what "justice" is. It is like asking the dictionary "What is a duck?" - the answer will be "a wild or domesticated web-footed swimming bird, characterized by a broad, flat bill, short legs, and depressed body", or something similar. So, the dictionary will suffice here:

fact  /fækt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [fakt]

–noun
1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.


A bit more, "fact" regarding philosophy:

A fact is a pragmatic truth, a statement that can, at least in theory, be checked and either confirmed or denied. Facts are often contrasted with opinions and beliefs, statements which are held to be true, but are not amenable to pragmatic confirmation or denial


You haven't confirmed anything, you're not dealing in "facts" you're peddling "opinion". Do you see now how hard it is to maintain such a black/white (unpragmatic) view of the world? This is the fundamental level where all your threads/posts fall down. Facts, real facts, are elusive things at best, especially so when you look at divisive topics like this one. Scientific facts are easy (but not certain, one contrary experiment can kill a long held theory in an instant, and whole careers along with it), but in the whole range of human interaction facts are fuzzy at best, objectivity is a great goal, but falters at the human level.


See what happens when you're so far up your own arse you can't see anything beyond your own bowels? Bang to rights, mate, bang to rights.
Shes never interfered with me. I have no complaints about her.
Same here.
Mega ditto.
I met her once and I found her to be a nice lady. Not kookey in any way.
Penta has always been gracious, kind and very sane in all my interactions with her.
User avatar
Penta
Ruby Tuesday
 
Posts: 15585
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 4:32 pm
Location: UK, Spain

Re: Peru: Battles over exploitation of indigenous lands

Postby Penta » Tue Jun 16, 2009 9:07 am

I forgot this:
flipflop wrote:Loaded/complex question:
A question with a false, disputed, or question-begging presupposition. In this case it's question-begging "Do you think a government is justified in selling off rights to the subsoil of people's land without consulting them properly?" Begs the question "Did the government sell off the rights to the subsoil without consulting the people properly?" How do you define this? Did they not consult them at all? Did they try negotiating with "the people"? What people? All or some of the people? Did all the people disagree? "Properly"? what do you mean by properly? qualify your interpretation of "properly"


You failed to notice either that this was carefully phrased as a hypothetical: "a government", not "the government" or "the Peruvian government" or even "the shit-stain"; "people's", not "these people's", not "indigenous people's", not sweet unspoilt Amazonian Indians in a romantic state of nature with their cool headgear and spears.

Really, what is the point of my following every fucking rule of logic and proper argument - to satisfy your nitpicking excesses - if you can't even see it, refuse to read what I've written rather than what you think the moron must have written, and carry on nitpicking regardless, when I've given you nothing to hang it on? You're supposed to be grateful, gloating even, that I've followed your advice.

Come on, flipflop. Sharpen up. You're letting me down here.
Shes never interfered with me. I have no complaints about her.
Same here.
Mega ditto.
I met her once and I found her to be a nice lady. Not kookey in any way.
Penta has always been gracious, kind and very sane in all my interactions with her.
User avatar
Penta
Ruby Tuesday
 
Posts: 15585
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 4:32 pm
Location: UK, Spain

Re: Peru: Battles over exploitation of indigenous lands

Postby coldharvest » Tue Jun 16, 2009 9:49 am

The important thing to remember in this thread is that greedy new-world spics want to fuck over forest niggers who are
fighting for the lungs of the world not to be destroyed by horrible fucks.
The horrible fucks are wrong and the bone in the nose crowd is right.
I know the law. And I have spent my entire life in its flagrant disregard.
User avatar
coldharvest
Abdul Rahman
 
Posts: 25677
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 2:36 am
Location: Island of Misfit Toys

PreviousNext

Return to Black Flag Cafe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests