VisorCentral.com - One Year On

Pages (24): « First ... « 16 17 18 19 20 [21] 22 23 24 »
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page

VisorCentral.com (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/index.php)
- Off Topic (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/forumdisplay.php?forumid=6)
-- One Year On (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/showthread.php?threadid=26965)

Posted by DingoFish on 10-22-2002 04:59 PM:

Wow.
This is a serious question:
Do you think that the US government and Pres. Bush and his top aides are actually so evil as to risk US lives and kill thousands of Iraqi for profits in the oil business?

If you firmly believe that our nation is so purely evil towards the love of money, then I wonder why you would stay in this country at all.

Why diplomacy for North Korea, but not for Iraq? Short answer because we are ten years into diplomacy with Iraq, and just starting wit N Korea. For ten years Iraq has told the UN to f*ck off. This isn't "all of a sudden" or just becasue there are elections coming up.

quote:
Originally posted by jhappel

I am opposed to a war against Iraq at this time because I think there is a lot more that can and should be done diplomatically by the UN and the other countries trying to work something out. Whether or not I oppose a war against Iraq in the future if all diplomatic efforts fail is something I don't know at this time. I think that what is happening with North Korea is a good example of my thoughts. NK has admitted that it has been actively trying to build/obtain nuclear weapons but the Shrub administration is not threatening to invade their country. This in spite of the fact that Dubya has branded NK as on of the three worst terrorist countries in the world. Instead we are trying to use diplomacy to end the threat. This leads me to think that maybe there are other forces at work with the plans for the war against Iraq. Maybe the oil industry wanting to get their hands on Iraq's oil fields?????????????

Posted by Toby on 10-22-2002 05:09 PM:

Re: Summary

quote:
Originally posted by KRamsauer
I think it's time for another summary because I'm not appearing to get my point across.

Learning to stay within the context of the real discussion going on might help.

quote:
[...] I am aiming to drive a wedge between the notion of "prejudice" (judging the worth/ability of something before knowing) [...]

Prejudice does not necessarily have to do anything with value statements. Prejudice is simply prejudging something. For example, you assume to know how someone will vote with a pro-choice candidate based on whether or not they are a devout Catholic. I say there's no rational basis to state this since life does not exist in a single issue vacuum. First of all, you do not get to state what is or isn't a devout Catholic. Second of all, pro-choice beliefs do not exist in a vacuum. Third of all, being Catholic does not make one a thoughtless automaton who simply follows whatever orders the Vatican issues (incidentally, that's why people tried to say Kennedy shouldn't be President). In an election where all other things were equal, you might be able to reliably predict something. All things are rarely equal, though. That's where reality must temper theory. The two are inextricably linked if one wants to really make some headway in reasoning. And ultimately, if one isn't going to try and base logical decisions on solid rational premises, logic becomes quite illogical.

quote:
Fighting to reduce prejudice is a good cause because it encourages an equitible treatment of new people.

It's also poor reasoning.

Posted by Toby on 10-22-2002 05:14 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by KRamsauer
But my point is if they really wanted to go get the oil, whiney Frenchmen wouldn't keep them from it. [...]

The French, Russians, and Chinese aren't opposing war in Iraq because of some concern for the color of the Iraqi's eyes. They're opposed to war and embargos on Iraq because they want to make money there by selling the Iraqis stuff. The embargos are cutting into their action.

Posted by Toby on 10-22-2002 05:17 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by KRamsauer
[...] I think it's fairly clear we aren't communicating correctly here, though I think part of it has to do with an overly emotional response to these issues. Nothing wrong with that. It's the nature of the field on which we're playing.

If you think you aren't communicating clearly with me because of emotion on my part, you're mistaken. Any emotions you read into my responses are projection on your part.

Posted by Toby on 10-22-2002 05:19 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by DingoFish
[...] Why diplomacy for North Korea, but not for Iraq? Short answer because we are ten years into diplomacy with Iraq, and just starting wit N Korea. [...]

We've tried diplomacy with N. Korea before. AAMOF, it's probably a big part of why Jimmy Carter just got the Nobel Peace Prize. Now that Korea has proved Jimmy to be extremely gullible, I wonder if the committee will ask for the award back?

Posted by Toby on 10-22-2002 05:21 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by yardie
Or maybe the U.S is just afraid to pick on a country that can give it some competition.

That's OK, I'm sure that France, Russia, and China will save us again.

quote:
They have people believing that Saddam is a major threat, while one more closer to home is the real threat.

I think you buy into the propaganda more than most. Bushie is playing a classic Reagan strategy, I'd wager.

Posted by KRamsauer on 10-22-2002 06:24 PM:

Re: Re: Summary

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
It's also poor reasoning.

I've given up on most of what you've said because it appears to be aimed at simply perpetuating arguments and nothing constructive. However, I'm eager to learn why you think "Fighting to reduce prejudice is a good cause because it encourages an equitible treatment of new people." is poor reasoning. Please enlighten.

Posted by Toby on 10-22-2002 06:30 PM:

Re: Re: Re: Summary

quote:
Originally posted by KRamsauer
I've given up on most of what you've said because it appears to be aimed at simply perpetuating arguments and nothing constructive.

Ahh...prejudice in action. Lovely.

quote:
However, I'm eager to learn why you think "Fighting to reduce prejudice is a good cause because it encourages an equitible treatment of new people." is poor reasoning. Please enlighten.

Prejudice is poor reasoning. IOW, 'Fighting to reduce prejudice is a good cause because prejudice is poor reasoning.' Within the context of what I was talking about, 'it' == 'prejudice' should have been obvious.

Posted by KRamsauer on 10-22-2002 06:36 PM:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Summary

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
Ahh...prejudice in action. Lovely.

First, I said "appears" which relaxes any assumption of certainty as well as moving the judgement to your actions not your personality. Second, we've had what, 250 messages in this thread? I'm not basing this on your name, race, sex or age, believe me. This is based on experience. That is not prejudice. If I were to think your mom isn't friendly becuase you aren't acting friendly, that would be prejudicial.

quote:
Prejudice is poor reasoning. IOW, 'Fighting to reduce prejudice is a good cause because prejudice is poor reasoning.' Within the context of what I was talking about, 'it' == 'prejudice' should have been obvious.

Should have? It wasn't clear to me, so thanks for clearing it up (honestly). In my mind, when you quote something it becomes the focus of the following sentence. For instance:
"The early bird catches the worm"
"It's not true." Clearly the "it" refers to the passage and not the early bird nor the worm.

Posted by KRamsauer on 10-22-2002 06:40 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by DingoFish

This is a serious question:
Do you think that the US government and Pres. Bush and his top aides are actually so evil as to risk US lives and kill thousands of Iraqi for profits in the oil business?

If you firmly believe that our nation is so purely evil towards the love of money, then I wonder why you would stay in this country at all.

Don't forget the real reason Bush is wanting to oust Saddam. He tried to kill Bush's daddy!

I think your reasoning is right on. To assume this is only about oil is to basically categorize Bush with an imperial conquerer. If one feels comfortable with such a designation, fine, but realize the gravity of such a statement.

Posted by Toby on 10-22-2002 06:47 PM:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Summary

quote:
Originally posted by KRamsauer
First, I said "appears" which relaxes any assumption of certainty.

If I said that you appear to be a clueless moron who wouldn't know how to read the English language for context if he had the entire staff of Oxford to teach it to him, how would that change the crux of the statement? Were I saying it seriously, the 'appear' is hollow and meaningless.

quote:
Second, we've had what, 250 messages in this thread? I'm not basing this on your name, race, sex or age, believe me. This is based on experience. That is not prejudice.

It is based on biased anecdotal information. It is the very definition of prejudice.

quote:
If I were to think your mom isn't friendly becuase you aren't acting friendly, that would be prejudicial.

I've been acting quite friendly, all things considered.

quote:
Should have?

Yes, it's called context. It does not only exist within the bounds of a sentence.

quote:
It wasn't clear to me, so thanks for clearing it up. In my mind, when you quote something it becomes the focus of the following sentence. For instance:
"The early bird catches the worm"
"It's not true." Clearly the "it" refers to the passage and not the early bird nor the worm.

Did you happen to miss the word 'also'? 'Also' should have implied that I agreed with the majority of your statement and was providing addition information. If I was disagreeing with your statement, I would have said, "No, that's bad reasoning." 'That' would more clearly apply to your statement since I am making my disagreement obvious. Instead, the 'also' should have made my agreement obvious, and made it obvious that 'it' (within context) referenced 'prejudice'.

Posted by Toby on 10-22-2002 06:51 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by KRamsauer
Don't forget the real reason Bush is wanting to oust Saddam. He tried to kill Bush's daddy! I think your reasoning is right on. To assume this is only about oil is to basically categorize Bush with an imperial conquerer. If one feels comfortable with such a designation, fine, but realize the gravity of such a statement.

At least oil would be a motivation worthy of a nation-state. Familial revenge and vigilantism is actually a _worse_ motivation for a national leader. It shows they put personal goals over the nation's.

Posted by K. Cannon on 10-22-2002 06:54 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
If most scientists believed that a God/Creator exists (which I'd be willing to bet is true), does that make it true?

Do you base your belief on other than anecdotal evidence?

Posted by KRamsauer on 10-22-2002 06:59 PM:

Last word?

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
If I said that you appear to be a clueless moron who wouldn't know how to read the English language for context if he had the entire staff of Oxford to teach it to him

Oh yeah, we're adults here.....

quote:
It is based on biased anecdotal information. It is the very definition of prejudice.

I was commenting on your actions, which I have experienced. What you're saying is like saying you cannot comment on the quality of a play after having seen it.

quote:
Did you happen to miss the word 'also'? 'Also' should have implied that I agreed with the majority of your statement and was providing addition information. If I was disagreeing with your statement, I would have said, "No, that's bad reasoning." 'That' would more clearly apply to your statement since I am making my disagreement obvious. Instead, the 'also' should have made my agreement obvious, and made it obvious that 'it' (within context) referenced 'prejudice'.

I didn't miss it, but since you have attacked so much of what I've written over the last week I assumed your "also" referred to the growing body of my posts you deem to be poor reasoning. Turns out we agree: predictions are not always right and to treat them as such is poor logic. We both agree you are talking about the application of probability principles as being morally wrong while I am saying it depends on the property being estimated. Clearly you aren't going to agree with me, and I'm not going to agree with you. So long as you understand what I'm saying and I understand what you are saying (which I do), let's drop it. For the sake of TC's servers and our own productivity. Feel free to post the last word, unless it's completely crazy (beyond anything written so far) I will not respond. Have a good day.

Posted by KRamsauer on 10-22-2002 07:02 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Toby

At least oil would be a motivation worthy of a nation-state. Familial revenge and vigilantism is actually a _worse_ motivation for a national leader. It shows they put personal goals over the nation's.

That's true. I wonder where the line is drawn between personal goals and national goals? For instance, clearly the owners of big oil companies will benefit more than those who don't own them, and many of those owners are friends of Bush. Oh well, I guess it's just a gray area.

Posted by Toby on 10-22-2002 07:11 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by K. Cannon
Do you base your belief on other than anecdotal evidence?

This assumes incorrectly that I believe. I'm an agnostic.

Posted by K. Cannon on 10-22-2002 07:17 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
This assumes incorrectly that I believe. I'm an agnostic.

Your belief that most scientists believe in a God/Creator is the belief I believe I was referring to. Not your personal belief in a God/Creator.

Posted by KRamsauer on 10-22-2002 07:20 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
This assumes incorrectly that I believe. I'm an agnostic.

Actually he wasn't assuming anything incorrectly. From M-W.com:
Agnostic: of, relating to, the beliefs of agnostics

Clearly there are beliefs involved in being an agnostic. Don't always assume people are disagreeing with you.

Often we are not.

Posted by Toby on 10-22-2002 07:25 PM:

Re: Last word?

quote:
Originally posted by KRamsauer
Oh yeah, we're adults here.....

See how the 'appear' didn't change anything of the impact of the statement? I even said I wasn't serious in the next sentence, and you totally ignored it.

quote:
I was commenting on your actions, which I have experienced.

No, you're commenting on my statements, motivations, and demeanor based on how you view your own statements, motivations, and demeanor in comparison to them. Considering that you theoretically know what you _want_ to say, you have a different outlook on what you said, and hence the responses that you get to it.

quote:
What you're saying is like saying you cannot comment on the quality of a play after having seen it.

No, it's more like saying that you can't say that the player dropped the ball because he's having problems at home or wanted his team to lose the game.

quote:
I didn't miss it, but since you have attacked so much of what I've written over the last week I assumed your "also" referred to the growing body of my posts you deem to be poor reasoning.

That's what you get for assuming out of context. You should control that impulse.

quote:
Turns out we agree: predictions are not always right and to treat them as such is poor logic. We both agree you are talking about the application of probability principles as being morally wrong while I am saying it depends on the property being estimated.

You're still bogged down in morality here, and are still obviously not getting my point, since I even stated that morality was peripheral to everything I was originally saying.

quote:
Clearly you aren't going to agree with me, and I'm not going to agree with you.

No, not if you continue to let your biases cloud your judgement.

quote:
So long as you understand what I'm saying and I understand what you are saying (which I do)

No, you don't. I also wouldn't assume the former considering you've got some communications issues.

quote:
let's drop it. For the sake of TC's servers and our own productivity. Feel free to post the last word, unless it's completely crazy (beyond anything written so far) I will not respond. Have a good day.

It would be difficult to seriously post something crazier than some of the things written in this thread.

Posted by Toby on 10-22-2002 07:32 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by K. Cannon
Your belief that most scientists believe in a God/Creator is the belief I believe I was referring to. Not your personal belief in a God/Creator.

Ahh...sorry. No, that's based on something I read a while back. Considering that I can't remember a title, you can only consider it as reliable as anything else I'd tell you, so I wouldn't consider it gospel by any stretch. It had to do with the relationship between religion and science. The number of believers was lower than the total population, but still quite high. Regardless, you had the right response.

All times are GMT. The time now is 04:46 AM.

Pages (24): « First ... « 16 17 18 19 20 [21] 22 23 24 »
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page