Timeline for Why are some politicians saying the Iran Nuclear deal is bad?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 19, 2015 at 19:22 | comment | added | Relaxed | @ThePompitousofLove If by “what I and others have said” you mean the contents of your answer, then yes, I have heard some of it, I think it's interesting and, incidentally, I did not down-vote it. But I still think my answer makes an important and non-trivial point, which is the most important factor driving current reactions and the only answer to this particular question. And if you really think I know what constitutes a good answer, why would I just ignore all this now? So stop the hypocritical compliments and if you think I am a troll, just ignore me. | |
| Jul 19, 2015 at 19:11 | comment | added | The Pompitous of Love | In case there is any doubt. That is a complement. I ran out of space. | |
| Jul 19, 2015 at 19:10 | comment | added | The Pompitous of Love | I actually looked as some of your other answers and I am now sure you are trolling me. Your English is excellent, which is no mean accomplishment, and I do congratulate you on that, sincerely. However, whether or not you are actively misconstruing what I am saying to be offended or not by reading in meaning that is neither stated nor implied, or you are just acting like you are, your other answers show you already knew what I and others have said. Either way, troll score 10/10. You clearly already know what constitutes a good answer. Shame on me for getting drawn in. | |
| Jul 19, 2015 at 18:59 | comment | added | Relaxed | @ThePompitousofLove English is not my first nor even my second language but I believe I understand it well enough to determine that your last few comments were insufferably condescending, very much including that comparison with a teacher-student situation, “if” or no “if”. On the subject of trolling, you will find that I welcome meaningful comments and have in the past completely revised some of my answers based on them. But I am not particularly keen on unconvincing lectures. | |
| Jul 19, 2015 at 18:46 | comment | added | The Pompitous of Love | You don't, and I didn't and I didn't, and I was. That's what why I use words like "if" to introduce metaphorical examples for illustration and "I believe" to introduce opinions. If English is not your first language, then you deserve compliments for excellent composition, and I apologize for assuming otherwise in my responses. Otherwise, I am starting to believe that you are trolling me, so good luck on the next question. | |
| Jul 19, 2015 at 18:32 | comment | added | Relaxed | @ThePompitousofLove I am happy to get feedback but does that mean I have to agree with everything you write? And why do you think you are in a position to give me grades or lecture me on StackExchange or anything else rather than simply argue for your position? | |
| Jul 19, 2015 at 18:03 | comment | added | The Pompitous of Love | @Relaxed That's your prerogative, but if you didn't want feedback, why did you ask for it? Here's the bottom line. If you were taking a class with me, and the question was "Why are some people opposed to the Iran deal?" and you gave the answer you did, you would get an F on that question. Not a zero, because you did technically provide a non-false answer, but you add no information over what a casual observer could provide. I believe people come here for an answer that responds to substantive issues underlying problems. The votes show that I am not alone in that belief. | |
| Jul 19, 2015 at 17:32 | comment | added | Relaxed | @ThePompitousofLove I disagree. I think you are trying to steer this question towards the kind of open-ended debates that should be avoided on StackExchange, while I simply answered it. | |
| Jul 19, 2015 at 17:15 | comment | added | The Pompitous of Love | @relaxed It isn't that it isn't an answer per se, only that it is not the kind of answer one looks for on StackExchange. It is like the old joke about a helicopter pilot who gets lost in the fog around Redmond, WA, and holds up a sign to people in a building asking where he is. They respond with "in a helicopter," and he immediately knows that he is at the Microsoft building because it is a technically true answer, but utterly unhelpful. I have proposed major revisions which I feel would help actually answer the question as you read it. Take a look, if you'd like. | |
| Jul 19, 2015 at 17:12 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Jul 19, 2015 at 17:27 | |||||
| Jul 19, 2015 at 16:47 | comment | added | Relaxed | @ThePompitousofLove Maybe there would be more to say but still, how is that not an answer (or, in fact, the only rational answer)? And given that it's a fact scores of politicians reacted before they knew anything about the contents of the agreement and were going to be opposed to an agreement no matter what, how is trying to pretend that this or that detail makes a difference even relevant? You're free to elaborate on all this if you think you can but you first need to acknowledge the basic facts. | |
| Jul 19, 2015 at 16:37 | comment | added | The Pompitous of Love | @relaxed Even then you do not answer the question you purport to answer. Distilled to its component parts, your response is "Because they need to appear hawkish for party-internal or domestic reasons." That is only the start of an answer. What internal party politics reason? What domestic politics reason? Why is it good to appear hawkish, as opposed to dovish, or reflective? How are those dynamics crucial to the decision to oppose the treaty? The remainder of the response is, in essence, prevarication but adds nothing to answer itself. | |
| Jul 19, 2015 at 16:16 | comment | added | Relaxed | @ThePompitousofLove Well, the question was “why do politicians do it?” I think that my answer is the only one that addresses it and I don't think this is unknowable at all. It seems you very much wish to turn it into a debate about the content of the agreement (and perhaps the OP was interested in that too) but that's not what was asked. In a way, I find the latter question more subjective/open-ended and less appropriate for this site. | |
| Jul 17, 2015 at 14:20 | comment | added | The Pompitous of Love | This doesn't really answer the question while it tries to appear that it is. Rather than giving the rationalist explanations for criticism, which there are, it guesses at political motivations, which are unknowable. | |
| Jul 17, 2015 at 4:41 | comment | added | Relaxed | @user438 No need to plug your ear to reach that conclusion, see vox.com/2015/7/16/8978439/case-against-iran-nuclear-deal But that's not what I am saying in the answer, I even wrote exactly the opposite in the third paragraph. | |
| Jul 16, 2015 at 23:29 | comment | added | user438 | Because it amounts to plugging up your ears and going "La-la-la, I can't hear you!"...."See, no one has any rational arguments against it!" | |
| Jul 16, 2015 at 11:37 | comment | added | Relaxed | Funny how this was downvoted without anyone bothering to comment. What's untrue about it? It does not even contradict the other answers and actually addresses the question more directly than a detailed analysis of the contents of the treaty, as reactions started to pile on long before anybody had anything to say about that... | |
| Jul 15, 2015 at 15:26 | history | edited | Relaxed | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 278 characters in body
|
| Jul 15, 2015 at 14:52 | history | answered | Relaxed | CC BY-SA 3.0 |