Originally posted by StarValleyWyI am neither angry at nor opposing the thread. If you'll notice, my first post was very polite. I was honestly trying to clarify what you wanted to debate. I started insulting you because of your second post and because you've shown before that you are arrogant, you insult people without cause, and you're kind of stupid. Note that I insult you with cause; I told you why in another thread.
Whatever has made you so angry at this thread.
You are opposing the thread, are you not? Surely you wouldn't retreat into ad hominem attack on the creator of a thread about critical thinking. Would you?
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWho is the more stupid? One who knows another to be stupid and insists on conversing? Or one who tries to create a dialogue on interesting subjects?
I started insulting you because of your second post and because you've shown before that you are arrogant, you insult people without cause, and you're kind of stupid. Note that I insult you with cause; I told you why in another thread.
You also wondered why I responded to a question tonight. I really am trying to understand your hatred.
<edit> What is the cause? Do you notice the question mark? This is a question. Not a declaration.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyIf you think I am the more stupid, then by your logic (not mine) you are more stupid.
Who is the more stupid? One who knows another to be stupid and insists on conversing? Or one who tries to create a dialogue on interesting subjects?
You also wondered why I responded to a question tonight. I really am trying to understand your hatred.
<edit> What is the cause? Do you notice the question mark? This is a question. Not a declaration.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyEDIT - If you're honestly asking a question, I'll answer you. There's no way to tell which of the two is more stupid.
Who is the more stupid? One who knows another to be stupid and insists on conversing? Or one who tries to create a dialogue on interesting subjects?
You also wondered why I responded to a question tonight. I really am trying to understand your hatred.
<edit> What is the cause? Do you notice the question mark? This is a question. Not a declaration.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungJust to clarify... you asked me to help you form an opinion by supplying ammunition. This thread is not a chimp attack. That is why I simple replied "No". The "no" was because the very definition of critical thinking requires you to examine the question. You instead asked me to examine it for you. That is not logical. You can ask me a thousand times if I can clarify it for you. The answer will be "no" in every case. YOU must clarify it. By definition.
I started insulting you because of your second post and because you've shown before that you are arrogant, you insult people without cause, and you're kind of stupid. Note that I insult you with cause; I told you why in another thread.
Then oppose with reason or not. You must decide the best course of action. Just don't ask me to do your thinking for you. That is just another miracle that I don't think is possible.
The key to your queston lies in "Direct responsibility". If the outcome of your decision has no effect on the questioned situation, all energy invested in coming to the decision is, literally, academic. It is an exercise for the brain, nothing more. In this case, you could debate for years on appropriate methods to come to a "decision". It must be considered subjective, thus rendering this discussion impossible.
If, on the other hand, you are pondering the question out of practical necessity, your method of linear thought is the best tool the human brain has come up with. When we are accountable, our methods deviate from theory, for the simple fact that all theories are models.
Bloody hell
Originally posted by PullhardExcellent.
The key to your queston lies in "Direct responsibility". If the outcome of your decision has no effect on the questioned situation, all energy invested in coming to the decision is, literally, academic. It is an exercise for the brain, n ...[text shortened]... for the simple fact that all theories are models.
Bloody hell
Only that which is done becomes real.
The universe only offers binary (boolean) choice. <edit> I stated it wrong... Change "That is why it is quantum in nature." to... "Because it can only act in a 'true/false' manner in as much as we 'act' or don't" <end edit> Do. Don't do. That's about it, except for "memory". And we don't have a clue as to whether the past is real or imaginary. Even if it is "real", who made it happen? Those who "CHOSE". Not those who took sides.
I think maybe this thread might have some possibility.
Thank you for your post.
Mike
Originally posted by StarValleyWyI think you've missed the possibility of both being true at the same time. Personally, im glad Saddam has gone. Before he was removed i wanted him to go as well, he is evil, end of story. When i think about the knock on affects of his removal though, i can't justify the manner in which it was done. Although this is obvious to you now (i hope so, i've said it enouph times), i hope it highlights the dillemma it creates when asking 'should he be removed? Yes or No?.' This is an incredibly complex question that requires a reasoned answer. Yes or no don't have any meaning unless they are followed with 'why?'
I tried to discuss the notion that PERHAPS critical thinking requires one to progress to points of decision based on listing all elements that the universe will allow, then in making said decision, realizing that it will be Boolean in nature. A decision either "is or isn't".
This can be said as "One must decide Yes Or No" on that question.
Wh ...[text shortened]... "maybe" then they really don't have a right to express an opionion. Too bad that so many do.
Your linear thought sound almost the same as a PMI, (Plus, Minus & interesting). The interesting points are neither good nor bad only points of interest, observations, comments or neutral points.
I don't think you can make a decision on this question without also doing a "OPV" (other peoples views)
1) who has been effected by this action.
2) What are the views of those people affected.
1) The effect parties are Iraqies, Americans, Other Allies.
2) I believe that the vast majority of Iraqies would not like to have Saddam in charge, but that said I also believe that they would perfer not to have a puppet American government either. On the one hand they had a tyrant for a leader, but basic things like schools, hospitals, fresh water, homes, sewage etc.. Much of this has been destroyed, and needs rebuilding which isn't going to make life better for them.
The vast majority of Americans are uneffected by what has happened directly. However they are happy because they "won the war". But they are getting increasing concerned about the cost in dollars & in American lives. Then there is the issue on the motive for the war, to help out the iraqie people, revenge for 9/11, WMD, or as an excuse to get oil. (I can just imagine one of Bush's aids saying "Let's invade Iraq, get rid of Saddam, kill off the terriorists, and steal all of the oil, its a win, win situation Mr President). all of which is making the average "jo" more cynical & aware of the double standards of American foreign policy.
The Allies (this is the easy one for me being a Brit) again are not really effected by what has happen in Iraq, except for the supposed increase in terriorist threats. We have always been more cynical of the reasons for the war, and the removal of Saddam. The main way it will effect us will be policially, at the next general election. I don't think Tony B will get in, i'm not voting for him again. I guess the people in the other allied countries are thinking the same about their governments.
We should also do a "CAF" (consider all facts) to see what has been left out, One thing springs to mind, in considering the original question :-
What would be the chances of the Iraqie people gaining "a true chance to pick their own government" under a) Dictatorship b) Puppet American Government ?.
My own view is that it would be easier to kick out the Puppet American Governement because democractic governments can be challenged & changed though the courts.
So to answer the question I guess I come down on the Yes side, but I would be more supportive if I believed in the intention of American & allied governments.
Originally posted by Jay PeateaIneresting sort of.
Your linear thought sound almost the same as a PMI, (Plus, Minus & interesting). The interesting points are neither good nor bad only points of interest, observations, comments or neutral points.
I don't think you can make a decision on this question without also doing a "OPV" (other peoples views)
1) who has been effected by this action.
2) What ...[text shortened]... ut I would be more supportive if I believed in the intention of American & allied governments.
So what OPV are determine whether the universe allows Yes, No.
I will have to think on that. Ok. I'm through thinking on that.
What did the universe allow in "removing or not" Saddam?
What does the universe allow in the future in "removing Bin Laden or not"?
I don't think a whole bunch of views and opinions of history affect at all what the universe allows.
What am I missing? What did you miss about the point of this thread?
Originally posted by StarValleyWyIts depends what you really want to talk about in this thread ?
Ineresting sort of.
So what OPV are determine whether the universe allows Yes, No.
I will have to think on that. Ok. I'm through thinking on that.
What did the universe allow in "removing or not" Saddam?
What does the universe allow in the future in "removing Bin Laden or not"?
I don't think a whole bunch of views and opinions of hi ...[text shortened]... hat the universe allows.
What am I missing? What did you miss about the point of this thread?
Quoting from yourself
" This thread is about critcal thinking",
Perhaps you need to follow the KISS principle (Keep it simple, stupid) when asking questions for those of us with just a normal amount of intelligence!
I have a hunch though, that if I were to change a few words in the last sentence of your last post ....
I don't think a whole bunch of critical or logical thinking affect at all what the universe allows.
But I'm still none the wiser🙂
Sorry, I may be one of those fence sitters that you dont want here, after reading my post let me know.
Despite its loaded nature, I will use your Iraq example.
Should we remove Saddam?
Well I think that no matter whether you choose yes or no you have only scratched the surface. There are many shades of grey for each of these answers.
If yes, then do you send in a sniper, bomb a palace where he is, nuke the country, use money and subversion to increase political pressure so he is removed?
If no, then can you use money or political pressure to reduce his influence? Kill some of his officers to do the same? Sell him arms to make him a friend again?
So I dont think real world situations often lend themselves to the yes/no answers that so many seem to want.
z