 sj |
||
|
||
BS: It has been over 24 hrs. and.....
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: It has been over 24 hrs. and..... From: Stilly River Sage Date: 27 May 04 - 01:22 PM It appears that Beardedbruce simply can't see why his approach to syllogism is not what passes for critical thinking. He's aiming at deductive reasoning but landing firmly on specious argument. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It has been over 24 hrs. and..... From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 27 May 04 - 11:30 AM "WHY were we supporting him? Could our loss to the NV have had anything to do with it?" Now that is a very interesting sort of logic. I wouldn't try it in court. "When Mr Brown was killing his family, Mr Jones tried to stop him doing it - and you attempted to prevent Mr Jones doing so. Why was that?" "Well Mr Jones had previously chased me off his premises, when I was attempting to steal his house, so I was angry with him. So it's all his fault." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It has been over 24 hrs. and..... From: GUEST,TIA Date: 27 May 04 - 07:32 AM dianavan - BB will want you to prove that wild statment. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It has been over 24 hrs. and..... From: dianavan Date: 27 May 04 - 01:18 AM correlation does not prove cause. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It has been over 24 hrs. and..... From: GUEST,lurker Date: 26 May 04 - 04:50 PM Can the responsibility be divided, or is it cumulative? Say, can 20,000 anti-war protestors take responsibility for the death of 100 Cambodians each? Or are they all responsible for 2,000,000 deaths, leading to a grand total of 40,000,000,000 Cambodians' deaths that they are responsible for? How logical... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It has been over 24 hrs. and..... From: GUEST,TIA Date: 26 May 04 - 03:43 PM As an anti-war protestor, I apologize for having caused the deaths of 2,000,000 Cambodians. There. Now, what's our next topic? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It has been over 24 hrs. and..... From: Amos Date: 26 May 04 - 03:36 PM To beat this argument any further is silly. Bush's contribution in activating the Army's role in Iraq was both necessary and sufficient, given the nature of military command channels. Not clear what your confusion is. But you're ending up in an odd sort of place. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It has been over 24 hrs. and..... From: Jim McCallan Date: 26 May 04 - 03:33 PM "And WHY were we supporting him?" You don't want me to accuse you of not being able to read, as well, do you? Jim |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It has been over 24 hrs. and..... From: beardedbruce Date: 26 May 04 - 03:30 PM Then show how it is invalid. The statement "your logic is invalid" is not valid without some supporting statement. "The US could not have gone in and stopped it, beardedbruce, because they were supporting them" And WHY were we supporting him? Could our loss to the NV have had anything to do with it? Then you give further weight to my statements. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It has been over 24 hrs. and..... From: Jim McCallan Date: 26 May 04 - 03:25 PM "But given the political climate in this country, due to the anti-war spirit at the time, the US COULD NOT have gone in to stop it" The US could not have gone in and stopped it, beardedbruce, because they were supporting them "But please stop saying that my logic is invalid because you do not like the conclusion." Well, I'm not saying that. I (and I can only speak for myself) am saying that your logic is invalid...., because your logic is invalid, really. Jim |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It has been over 24 hrs. and..... From: beardedbruce Date: 26 May 04 - 03:18 PM "This means that although a syllogism such as you describe above seems correct on paper, it does not necessarily merit consideration in the real workings of the world. Example: Mother is responsible for James, who is six. James, who is six, is responsible for the death of Muffins, a cat. Therefore Mother killed Muffins." Further example, then: BY YOUR LOGIC Example: Bush is responsible for the US military. The US military is responsible for the death of Iraqis. YOU seem to claim that the statement that Bush killed Iraqis is FALSE. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It has been over 24 hrs. and..... From: Amos Date: 26 May 04 - 03:15 PM Oh, sweet Jesus, you being simpleminded on purpose or is it genetic? Bush premeditatedly unleashed a large blunt weapon against the people of Iraq -- the leader in particular -- with malice aforethought. If you are going to try to parse the events of real life by some kind of logic, BB, you're gonna have to find some logic that cleaves to ground truth, not the logic of rhetoric. They are different grammars. Reality is not two-valued. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It has been over 24 hrs. and..... From: beardedbruce Date: 26 May 04 - 03:11 PM McGrath of Harlow: "We SHOULD have gone in when he started to gas the Kurds" - but the US was already supporting Saddam to the hilt at the time he did that. And within a few months after that it was stepping up assistance to his regime. " I AGREE, and I think, IMO, that the US was WRONG. Where have I indicated otherwise???????????? But please blame the administration in power at the time, NOT ME, for this failure to act ............................. "Blaming opponents of the war for Pol Pot is rich. In effect it was the US government who were responsible for him coming to power - and it did its best to keep him in power too when the Vietnamese invaded to stop the killing, for which they were roundly punished by crippling sanctions. And I think the US was WRONG. But given the political climate in this country, due to the anti-war spirit at the time, the US COULD NOT have gone in to stop it, or done any intervention in the region. If we had stayed in SE asia, there would (probably) been no such mass slaughter. Or are you all arguing that , if the US had still been in SE Asia, we would have alloweed it? THAT might be a valid point. But please stop saying that my logic is invalid because you do not like the conclusion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It has been over 24 hrs. and..... From: Jim McCallan Date: 26 May 04 - 03:03 PM Thank you for validating my argument, bruce Jim |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It has been over 24 hrs. and..... From: beardedbruce Date: 26 May 04 - 03:01 PM Amos: "This means that although a syllogism such as you describe above seems correct on paper, it does not necessarily merit consideration in the real workings of the world. Example: Mother is responsible for James, who is six. James, who is six, is responsible for the death of Muffins, a cat. Therefore Mother killed Muffins." I would claim that the mother bears some responsibility, for not being more careful about the actions allowed to James. "Responsibility is not uniquely linear, for one thing. Real world events are not billiard balls. This means that although a syllogism such as you describe above seems correct on paper, it does not necessarily merit consideration in the real workings of the world." "By YOUR logic, since Bush is Responsible for invading Iraq, and the invasion of Iraq is responsible for killing all those Iraqis, Bush IS NOT responsible for killing any Iraqis. " So you will get off Bush as being responsible for Iraq????????? Jim: My failure to show you the elements of logic is my fault: You lack of understanding is yours. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It has been over 24 hrs. and..... From: Jim McCallan Date: 26 May 04 - 02:55 PM "The reduction to attacking me rather than my arguement is defacto recognition that the arguement is valid" Which is exactly what you did to me, wasn't it? ("limited comprehension") Using the same logic, that is... Jim |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It has been over 24 hrs. and..... From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 26 May 04 - 02:50 PM "We SHOULD have gone in when he started to gas the Kurds" - but the US was already supporting Saddam to the hilt at the time he did that. And within a few months after that it was stepping up assistance to his regime. ............................. Blaming opponents of the war for Pol Pot is rich. In effect it was the US government who were responsible for him coming to power - and it did its best to keep him in power too when the Vietnamese invaded to stop the killing, for which they were roundly punished by crippling sanctions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It has been over 24 hrs. and..... From: Amos Date: 26 May 04 - 02:48 PM Responsibility is not uniquely linear, for one thing. Real world events are not billiard balls. This means that although a syllogism such as you describe above seems correct on paper, it does not necessarily merit consideration in the real workings of the world. Example: Mother is responsible for James, who is six. James, who is six, is responsible for the death of Muffins, a cat. Therefore Mother killed Muffins. Holes big enough to drive a truck through -- for one thing, the word "responsible" has multiple meanings within the single syllogism. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It has been over 24 hrs. and..... From: beardedbruce Date: 26 May 04 - 02:47 PM Jim, You seem to miss the POINT. I think that the US SHOULD have interferred in Rwanda, and would like to know why we did not. The reduction to attacking me rather than my arguement is defacto recognition that the arguement is valid. Thank you for the url. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It has been over 24 hrs. and..... From: Jim McCallan Date: 26 May 04 - 02:47 PM Probably somewhere in the fact that the US administration supported Pol Pot, and probably overlooked his little indiscretions with his own people. Hardly anything to do with the 'anti-war folks' at all Jim |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It has been over 24 hrs. and..... From: beardedbruce Date: 26 May 04 - 02:43 PM Guest Tia, PLEASE note what I said: IF A is responsible for B, and B is responsible for C, THEN A is responsible for C. Where is my post hoc fallacy? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It has been over 24 hrs. and..... From: Jim McCallan Date: 26 May 04 - 02:40 PM "In other words, you concede that my logic is correct" Wrong again, beardedbruce. I think it means that your logic is incorrect As for Rwanda.... The US and the Genocide in Rwanda 1994 - Evidence of Inaction Happy reading.... there's a lot there Jim |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It has been over 24 hrs. and..... From: Amos Date: 26 May 04 - 02:35 PM Wish we could call in an adult to smooth things out sometimes... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It has been over 24 hrs. and..... From: GUEST,TIA Date: 26 May 04 - 02:34 PM Wow, never have I apparently said so much when saying so little. I'll try again. If event B occurs after event A, this does not necessarily imply that event A caused event B. To assert that coincidence does imply cause is to fall prey to the post hoc fallacy. Now, on another subject - this morning, after I brushed by teeth, I looked out the window, and my dog was chasing a duck down the creek. Amazing what can be accomplished with a toothbrush! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It has been over 24 hrs. and..... From: beardedbruce Date: 26 May 04 - 02:30 PM SRS, In other words, you concede that my logic is correct. Thank you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It has been over 24 hrs. and..... From: Stilly River Sage Date: 26 May 04 - 02:26 PM BB, your argument is so ass-backwards that no one in their right mind is going to bother to try to argue it with you or take the parts you consider "evidence" and rearrange them. And at this point, I wash my hands of trying to introduce you to the idea of critical thinking skills and logical discourse. You just don't have it in you. Next! SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It has been over 24 hrs. and..... From: Amos Date: 26 May 04 - 02:25 PM I suspect Guest Tia is actually a regular TIA and male... A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It has been over 24 hrs. and..... From: beardedbruce Date: 26 May 04 - 02:21 PM SRS: "Tia made no claims of any sort. You're putting your garbled words in her mouth. She posted a lucid description of how rhetoric works and the fallacy of your argument. " She said "BB's item 4 is an example of the Post Hoc Fallacy " I quoted the definition of same. IF she claims my statement as being that fallacy, then the PROOF ststed in HER link applies: "Proof: Show that the correlation is coincidental by showing that: (i) the effect would have occurred even if the cause did not occur, or (ii) that the effect was caused by something other than the suggested cause." THUS, my statement: "So, GUEST Tia, you claim that (i)the US would have withdrawn even without the anti-war protests? seems like they all wasted a lot of time and energy, then. Or is it (ii) Th US withdrew because of some other reason than the anti-war protest? Again, you are stating that the entire anti-war effort was pointless, and had no effect on what happened." I fail to see where I have made a logical error.Or is there no requirement for her to "prove" what she believes, since you agree with it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It has been over 24 hrs. and..... From: Jim McCallan Date: 26 May 04 - 02:21 PM "limited comprehension" could be construed as one, brucie baby. "By your "logic", since there were other factors in the reason we went into Iraq besides Bush's wishes, he bears no responsibility." That is not my logic at all, just you trying to put words in my mouth. The sole reason we went into Iraq was because of WMDs, and the Bush Administration's insistence that they were there. What about these 2 million dead Cambodians, then. What with tacit support from the US, would your logic allow you to tie those deaths somewhere on the same stick as Saddam's dead Kurds? Jim |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It has been over 24 hrs. and..... From: Stilly River Sage Date: 26 May 04 - 02:15 PM beardedbruce, you're always gonna save money on health care in your lifetime--you'll never have to pay a proctologist a cent.
Tia made no claims of any sort. You're putting your garbled words in her mouth. She posted a lucid description of how rhetoric works and the fallacy of your argument. A lot of thought has gone into how people construct arguments and we've been trying to point out the error in your so-called arguments--she didn't justapose any of the elements you are trying to cobble together to make your argument stick. She was showing you that by making these claims you're assuming that they are somehow sequentially related to each other, when in fact they are merely coincidental. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It has been over 24 hrs. and..... From: beardedbruce Date: 26 May 04 - 02:14 PM and you do appear to comprehend what I am saying- The flaw MUSRT be in my explaination, although it seems reasonable to me. How am I supposed to explain simple logic to you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It has been over 24 hrs. and..... From: beardedbruce Date: 26 May 04 - 02:12 PM "Your statement is ignorant (lacking in knowledge)" How is this a personal insult? Your statement. IMO was: I have made no comment about you, or your other comments, or opinions. I stated there were other contributing factors: By your "logic", since there were other factors in the reason we went into Iraq besides Bush's wishes, he bears no responsibility. I will expect you tpo be consistant with this in the future. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It has been over 24 hrs. and..... From: Jim McCallan Date: 26 May 04 - 02:03 PM Bruce: Pol Pot, an enemy of the Soviet Union, also gained support from Thailand and the US. In particular, the US and the PRC vetoed the allocation of Cambodia's United Nations General Assembly seat to a representative of Heng Samrin's government. Influenced by realpolitik the US directly and indirectly supported Pol Pot, who espoused radically revised variant of Maoism adapted to Khmer nationalism. Envisaging a perfectly egalitarian agrarianism, the Khmer Rouge favoured a direct route to communism, thus bypassing the intermediate stage of socialism. Anti-modern and isolationist, Pol Pot was quite the opponent of Soviet orthodoxy. Because he was anti-Soviet, the United States, Thailand and People's Republic of China considered him preferable to the pro-Vietnamese government. Who is responsible for what, beardedbruce? And I see you have now lowered yourself to throwing insults, as regarding my 'ignoranty' and 'limited comprehension' And I haven't even read your poetry.... Jim |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It has been over 24 hrs. and..... From: beardedbruce Date: 26 May 04 - 01:59 PM Definition: The name in Latin means "after this therefore because of this". This describes the fallacy. An author commits the fallacy when it is assumed that because one thing follows another that the one thing was caused by the other. Examples: (i) Immigration to Alberta from Ontario increased. Soon after, the welfare rolls increased. Therefore, the increased immigration caused the increased welfare rolls. (ii) I took EZ-No-Cold, and two days later, my cold disappeared. Proof: Show that the correlation is coincidental by showing that: (i) the effect would have occurred even if the cause did not occur, or (ii) that the effect was caused by something other than the suggested cause. So, GUEST Tia, you claim that (i)the US would have withdrawn even without the anti-war protests? seems like they all wasted a lot of time and energy, then. Or is it (ii) Th US withdrew because of some other reason than the anti-war protest? Again, you are stating that the entire anti-war effort was pointless, and had no effect on what happened. I doubt it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It has been over 24 hrs. and..... From: beardedbruce Date: 26 May 04 - 01:56 PM sorry: IF A is responsible for B, and B is responsible for C, THEN A is responsible for C. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It has been over 24 hrs. and..... From: beardedbruce Date: 26 May 04 - 01:52 PM NO, Jim. YOU are the one trying to have it both ways. Your statement is ignoranty (lacking in knowledge) IF B is responsible for B, and B is responsible for C, THEN A is responsible for C. There are other contributing factors, I agree: But that does not make my arguement invalid. since simple logic seems beyound your limited comprehension: The Pol Pot regieme would not have been in power, had the US still been in SE Asia, or even had been percieved as willing to reenter. Because of the actions of the anti-war activists, the US withdrew unilaterally, and left the region in a state of political flux. I also believe that the British and French terms at the end of WWI contributed to causing WWII. SAME LOGIC HOW am I havbing it both ways? you would say that the anti-war movement bears no responsibility for the results of their actions, but the Bush administration does????????? Just because you do not want to believe something does not mean it is not true. READ what I have said. By YOUR logic, since Bush is Responsible for invading Iraq, and the invasion of Iraq is responsible for killing all those Iraqis, Bush IS NOT responsible for killing any Iraqis. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It has been over 24 hrs. and..... From: GUEST,TIA Date: 26 May 04 - 01:46 PM BB's item 4 is an example of the Post Hoc Fallacy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It has been over 24 hrs. and..... From: Jim McCallan Date: 26 May 04 - 01:37 PM "Either you take the credit for 2 million dead Cambodians, and blame Bush for the dead Iraqis, or you cannot blame Bush for what happens after we leave" No, beardedbruce. That is you having it both ways. Your 'ergo' in point 4 is not proven. Prove it please Jim |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It has been over 24 hrs. and..... From: beardedbruce Date: 26 May 04 - 01:33 PM But your arguements vice Iraq need only be stated to be accepted? Hardly fair. AGAIN: 1. The anti-war folks influenced the US to withdraw from SE Asia. 2. When we withdrew, the Pol Pot regieme was able to take over Cambodia. 3. The Pol Pot regieme killed off 2 million of their people. 4. THEREFORE, the antoi-war people bear some responsibility. Or will you say that the Bush Admin will have no responsibility for what happens in Iraq after we leave??? You can't have it both ways: Either you take the credit for 2 million dead Cambodians, and blame Bush for the dead Iraqis, or you cannot blame Bush for what happens after we leave. THAT is the way it works. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It has been over 24 hrs. and..... From: Jim McCallan Date: 26 May 04 - 01:18 PM You were the one that claimed that the anti-war 'folks' were responsible for 2 000 000 dead Cambodians. Your 'argument' has to be proved for it to be accepted, I'm afraid. That's the way it works... Jim |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It has been over 24 hrs. and..... From: beardedbruce Date: 26 May 04 - 01:11 PM Well, there are more than enough for everybody. I had agreed that your question was a good one ( about the US not going into Rwanda) YOU chose to make ME responsible for an answer, after I stated I wanted the same answer you did. "We have already put to bed the notion that the 'anti-war folks' can take the 'credit' for 2 million dead Cambodians. Are you sugessting that they can also take the 'credit' for 800,000 dead Rwandans?" Hardly- YOU have ignored it, and never answered. If you do not chose to accept my arguement, sobeit, but do not think because YOU say something that I HAVE to agree YOU are right. It does not work that way- you have to persuade me, as I would have to persuade you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It has been over 24 hrs. and..... From: Jim McCallan Date: 26 May 04 - 01:07 PM Any other dead people you would like us to take 'credit' for? Jim |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It has been over 24 hrs. and..... From: Jim McCallan Date: 26 May 04 - 01:05 PM But beardedbruce....., you haven't said anything. You said The US should have. You forgot to mention why they didn't. We have already put to bed the notion that the 'anti-war folks' can take the 'credit' for 2 million dead Cambodians. Are you sugessting that they can also take the 'credit' for 800,000 dead Rwandans? Did you lobby your Congressperson at the time, that he/she demands the US Administration to invade Rwanda? Because if you didn't, you could quite rightly claim a couple of Rwandan lives, for yourself. Jim |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It has been over 24 hrs. and..... From: beardedbruce Date: 26 May 04 - 12:59 PM And my question was why the anti-war movement helped kill 2 million Cambodians: YOU have not answered that. Do I believe they intended to? NO. But they MUST bear the consequences of their actions, just as the US must bear the consequences of the attack on Iraq. I do not believe that the present administration intened was has happened- so you think they should not bear responsibility? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It has been over 24 hrs. and..... From: beardedbruce Date: 26 May 04 - 12:42 PM As I have said: Subject: RE: BS: It has been over 24 hrs. and..... From: Jim McCallan - PM Date: 19 May 04 - 08:13 PM Why didn't the US not do the Rwanda gig on their own, then? Jim ........ Subject: RE: BS: It has been over 24 hrs. and..... From: beardedbruce - PM Date: 19 May 04 - 08:15 PM WE SHOULD HAVE! Why don't you ask that of the administration in power at the time? I would like to know the answer, as well. The anti-war folks in the US can take credit for 2 million dead Cambodians, but who gets the credit for 800,000 dead Rwandans? " |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It has been over 24 hrs. and..... From: Jim McCallan Date: 26 May 04 - 12:31 PM "beardedbruce - So why is it the U.S. didn't go it alone in Rwanda?" THAT is the question I was asking." Correction, beardedbruce. That is the question I was asking, and you still haven't answered it yet. I can imagine the reason, though..., as I'm sure you can, as well: 'Who needs the Rwandans?' Sort of like, 'Who needs the Kurds?', when Saddam was coming down heavy on them in his halcyon years, as to why we didn't invade him 'for killing his own people', then. Hypocrisy, I think the word is called, beardedbruce, and it normally swings the balance of whether or not we give a damn about other peoples' situations, if they have something worthwhile to offer us in return. The question should then have been: "What do the Rwandan's have to offer us?" C'est la vie in the big wide world, beardedbruce, and for the Bush Administration to say that they actually care about 'Saddam's own people' (like they're doing now for instance), is another little bit of the same pretzel logic at work. Like this, for instance: "...the number killed by all the WMD of Iraq's stockpile that may be used in the future." Why not add to that the number killed because some butterfly in China flapped it's wings? Jim |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It has been over 24 hrs. and..... From: Amos Date: 26 May 04 - 11:21 AM Well, I did try, Bruce, but it diid not make much sense to me., A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It has been over 24 hrs. and..... From: Stilly River Sage Date: 26 May 04 - 11:18 AM Here's more posted to another thread but works here as well. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It has been over 24 hrs. and..... From: Stilly River Sage Date: 26 May 04 - 11:16 AM Hard to believe that Saddam was telling the truth and Chalabi was lying, beardedbruce? You're still buying Dubya's lie about weapons of mass destruction? It's the U.S. with the weapons of mass destuction. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It has been over 24 hrs. and..... From: beardedbruce Date: 26 May 04 - 11:15 AM try reading the entire post. |
