Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Libya Deception

Options
12345679»

Comments

  • Options
    #242
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    humanji wrote: »
    Now, how did I misquote you?

    because you said
    humanji wrote: »
    Davoxx, you've used the fact that in the past the US and UK have overthrown regimes as evidence that they must be doing it in Libya.

    which i corrected you and said
    davoxx wrote:
    i used the fact that they overthrew for their own gain. there is a huge difference.

    the difference is for their own gain.

    that is how you misquoted me. i'm sure you'll figure out an excuse. <edit -- yup i was right>
    humanji wrote: »
    Yes, insults will definitely help your argument.
    how did i insult you? by saying i hope you're not working in the science field?
    humanji wrote: »
    You used overthrowing a regime for oil as evidence that they are now overthrowing a regime for oil.
    yes.


    i'll break it down and then hopefully you'll understand. hell i'll even take out all the variables.

    what happens if a person lets go of a bowling ball 1m from the ground?
    me - based on previous observation, it will fall to the ground
    you - we don't know.
    me - huh?
    you - just because it fell last time doesn't mean it will, there is a chance that anything can happen.
    me - okay? so you don't know what will happen and you can not even guess?
    you - that's right past experience proves nothing.
    me - what about the likelihood of it falling to the ground?
    you - thats possible, but so is the ball turning into a smurf.
    me - well i know it will hit the ground
    you - for a fact
    me - it is the most likely outcome
    you - you are talking nonsense, the ball could made from helium
    me - a bowling ball?
    you - yeah, you are just using so called facts to support you claim ...
    etc
    etc

    and that is why your arguments are fundamentally wrong. and why i hope that you don't work in a science field.

    i can just imagine ....
    sick guy - i'm vomiting blood
    doctor - have a glass of water
    sick guy - what will that do?
    doctor - who knows
    sick guy - everyone else who has vomited blood like this died within 1 hour
    doctor - and? past experience proves nothing .. we don't have enough info to make a decision
    sick guy - when will you know that this vomiting won't kill me?
    doctor - never
    sick guy - what about after the hour, if i'm' dead
    doctor - nope, still will have no idea

    :)


  • Options
    #243
    humanji
    Registered Users Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    Davoxx, you said that the war is about oil. I asked what evidence there was in the last paragraph of post #220:
    And where is the overwhelming evidence?

    In post #224, you quoted me and gave a list of 6 items. No 3 in the list was:
    3, usa and uk have forced regime change before for their own benefits.

    Now you can't argue that you didn't posted this, because it's right there. You were asked for evidence that would lead you to believe that it's about oil, and you pointed out what the USA and UK had done in the past. So how were you misquoted? You claim that because something happened in the past, it must happen again.

    Now, to counteract the bolloxolgy of the rest of your post. You're analogy is completely false as there are laws of physics in play that can be counted on. There aren't a billion variables that leave the result unknown.

    Here's an acurate analogy: Have you ever told a lie? Because if you have, then everything you've ever said since has been a lie. That's the logic you're following. It's happened before, so there's no alternative for it to happen again.

    Or, to keep the medical feel of things:

    Patient: I've a headache.
    Doctor 1: It's a brain tumour. Let's cut that out right now.
    Doctor 2: Well let's do some tests and see if it could be anything else before we jump to conclusions.
    Doctor 1: Nope, I've seen people with brain tumours before. They had headaches. So this guy must have a brain tumour
    Doctor 2: But a headache doesn't necessarilly mean it has to be a brain tumour.
    Doctor 1: I know what I'm talking about. Let's cut him open.
    Doctor 2: But what if you're wrong?


    And adding a smiley face doesn't stop it being an insult.


  • Options
    #244
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    humanji wrote: »
    Davoxx, you said that the war is about oil. I asked what evidence there was in the last paragraph of post #220:
    that is true i did

    humanji wrote: »
    In post #224, you quoted me and gave a list of 6 items. No 3 in the list was:
    also true
    humanji wrote: »
    You were asked for evidence that would lead you to believe that it's about oil, and you pointed out what the USA and UK had done in the past. So how were you misquoted?
    i already told you how you misquoted me .. refer to previous post.
    humanji wrote: »
    You claim that because something happened in the past, it must happen again.
    false .. i claimed nothing of the sort.
    that is why your arguments are nonsense
    i claimed that this with THE OTHER evidence lead me to believe it's about oil.
    humanji wrote: »
    Now, to counteract the bolloxolgy of the rest of your post.
    nice --- is that a science?
    humanji wrote: »
    You're analogy is completely false as there are laws of physics in play that can be counted on. There aren't a billion variables that leave the result unknown.
    err false - they are theories, and there are possibilities that balls can float ... read more about physics ...

    humanji wrote: »
    Here's an acurate analogy: Have you ever told a lie? Because if you have, then everything you've ever said since has been a lie. That's the logic you're following. It's happened before, so there's no alternative for it to happen again.

    it's not accurate ... the correct analogy would be have you ever made several bad analogies? because if so the likelihood of another one is high.

    and no, you're wrong, the logic i'm following is very simple it happened before so it confirms it as a possibility and increases it's likelihood.

    by your logic - which is exactly the same as dropping a ball. the event happened once, you deny its relevance to the outcome, it happens 10 times, you still deny its relevance, we show you other information and theories that are backed up by experimental data, you still deny relevance, you claim other data is irrelevant as it was a different object being dropped.
    that is your logic, and is flawed. and most importantly anyone else in real life will will and do disagree with it


    humanji wrote: »
    Or, to keep the medical feel of things:

    Patient: I've a headache.
    Doctor 1: It's a brain tumour. Let's cut that out right now.
    Doctor 2: Well let's do some tests and see if it could be anything else before we jump to conclusions.
    Doctor 1: Nope, I've seen people with brain tumours before. They had headaches. So this guy must have a brain tumour
    Doctor 2: But a headache doesn't necessarilly mean it has to be a brain tumour.
    Doctor 1: I know what I'm talking about. Let's cut him open.
    Doctor 2: But what if you're wrong?


    i like that ... but you have it wrong so i'll have to fix it

    Patient: I've a headache. here are my other results.
    <part you forgot - other information>
    Doctor 1: based on all the info, It's a brain tumour. Let's cut that out right now.
    Doctor 2: Well we did tests, but it's not enough, we'll never know lets just say it could be anything
    Patient: how does that help
    Doctor 2: we need to find the out if it is a tumour, so we need you to die to prove it might be a tumor.
    Doctor 1: I've seen people with brain tumours before. They had headaches along with the other symptoms. So this guy more than likely has a brain tumour.
    Doctor 2: But a headache doesn't necessarily mean it has to be a brain tumour.
    Doctor 1: Not by itself it does not, but there are other results, high white blood-cell count a growth can be seen on the mri
    Doctor 2: That growth could be a thumbprint, that mri could be a scan from the Internet, the patient might be lying.
    Doctor 1: Too late the patient died ..
    Doctor 2: Could have died of old age
    Doctor 1: He is 26
    Doctor 2: That is old, i'm just saying 26 is older that 2 years, therefore he died of old age.

    you get the idea now i hope
    humanji wrote: »
    And adding a smiley face doesn't stop it being an insult.
    sure it does :)


  • Options
    #245
    humanji
    Registered Users Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    davoxx wrote: »

    false .. i claimed nothing of the sort.
    that is why your arguments are nonsense
    i claimed that this with THE OTHER evidence lead me to believe it's about oil.
    You gave 6 pieces of evidence which I countered. On one of them (number 3)you claimed that my counter argument supports your evidence, which it didn't at all. Then claimed I misquoted you.

    Again, you gave as number 3 in your list of evidence:
    3, usa and uk have forced regime change before for their own benefits.

    Now, the only way this can be used as evidence in this case is if you are implying that because it happened in the past it can happen now.

    I countered by pointing out that they have also not forced regime change in the past for their own benefit. So this is evidence that they don't always force regime change with shows that you can't simply use one side of this fact to support your theory and ignore the other.
    err false - they are theories, and there are possibilities that balls can float ... read more about physics ...
    So you just proved your own analogy wrong. You do realise that,right? You're saying that I'm right not to assume it'll fall because there are possibilities the ball could float. And you'd be wrong to claim as fact (as you did with the Libya) that there is no alternative but for it to fall.

    it's not accurate ... the correct analogy would be have you ever made several bad analogies? because if so the likelihood of another one is high.

    Again, you're the one who made a false analogy, not I.
    and no, you're wrong, the logic i'm following is very simple it happened before so it confirms it as a possibility and increases it's likelihood.
    You claim to begin with and now claim it's assumption? That's what I've been pointing out since the start. You don't know for certain why the UN are in Libya. You've also provided little evidence. I've already shown that there are valid counter arguments to the 6 points you've given before. So that at least should make someone stop and think.
    by your logic - which is exactly the same as dropping a ball. the event happened once, you deny its relevance to the outcome, it happens 10 times, you still deny its relevance, we show you other information and theories that are backed up by experimental data, you still deny relevance, you claim other data is irrelevant as it was a different object being dropped.
    that is your logic, and is flawed. and most importantly anyone else in real life will will and do disagree with it
    Well, no. You're mistaking the "most likely scenario" with "what's happened before".

    The ball is expected to fall as the laws of physics explain it will. There are extraordinary reason why it wouldn't, but to go on about them is being pedantic.
    The US and UK may or may not invade Libya for it's oil. There are billions of variables including the people involved, the politics, the fallout etc, that will dictate what will happen. The laws of physics are a fairly (for the most part)strict set of rules. You can't use that type of thinking to guess how governments will act. And that's why the simplistic ball falling scenario has nothing to do with this situation.

    And finally:

    Patient: I've a headache. here are my other results. Here's a couple of results, but there's plenty more that are being done at the moment.
    <part you forgot - other information> <part you forgot - you don't have all the information>
    Doctor 1: based on all the infoBased on the small amount of information available, plus the fact that I don't trust Ken, the guy who runs the Cat Scan, It's a brain tumour. Let's cut that out right now.
    Doctor 2: Well we did tests, but it's not enough, we'll never know lets just say it could be anythingLet's wait until we get all the results before we operate, as it could be just a headache.
    Patient: how does that helpI like that thinking. It's better safe than sorry.

    Doctor 2: we need to find the out if it is a tumour, so we need you to die to prove it might be a tumor.
    Doctor 1: I've seen people with brain tumours before. They had headaches along with the other symptoms. So this guy more than likely has a brain tumour. But I don't know for sure.
    Doctor 2: But a headache doesn't necessarily mean it has to be a brain tumour.
    Doctor 1: Not by itself it does not.
    Doctor 2: Then why not wait for the other results?
    Doctor 1: Meh.

    See, you'll not that you're trying to build a strawman argument, pretending that I'm saying we'll never know the answer and so should give up. Where as I'm actually saying we currently don't know enough to draw a conclusion, so let's get some more information first.


  • Options
    #246
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    3, usa and uk have forced regime change before for their own benefits.
    the counter to this is
    3, usa and uk have forced regime change before against their own benefits. (note that this never happened)
    as the benefit is oil
    not
    3, usa and uk have not forced regime change before.
    the fact that they did not do something proves what?
    surely you meant:
    3, usa and uk have opposed forced regime change before.
    okay so what? we are talking about the reason for the action not the action
    so you should have meant:
    3, usa and uk have opposed forced regime change before for their own benefits. (which is fact)
    so if the benefit is oil this does not disprove my claim, it supports it as if the benefit is oil and they did not force a change, then it still about oil.

    this is basic reasoning.


    <part you forgot - you don't have all the information>
    we will never have all the information .. you agreed to this before.
    we have evidence
    we can make assumption on the evidence we have
    we can say there is not enough evidence to draw a conclusion
    we can say there is plenty
    but we will never have all the evidence.
    so you can never draw a conclusion about anything.

    You gave 6 pieces of evidence which I countered
    i did, and your counters were incorrect, in fact and i proved the first on and backed it up, yet you still deny it.


    so i'll have to say the points you think back up your point, do not.
    the claim that there is more information we do not have is obvious
    the point that we can not draw a conclusion is 100% wrong

    i'm not even going to breakdown the broken logic you have in your replies to mine.

    you have not proven me wrong .. i have provided evidence to support my case. so i'm going to say unless you have proof that counters my claims, please don't say i am wrong.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #247
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    sorry i missed this
    humanji wrote:
    I countered by pointing out that they have also not forced regime change in the past for their own benefit. So this is evidence that they don't always force regime change with shows that you can't simply use one side of this fact to support your theory and ignore the other.

    brilliant .. simply the best defence ever.


  • Options
    #248
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    good reading

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/0330/1224293355321.html


  • Options
    #249
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 82,131 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    davoxx wrote: »
    good reading

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/0330/1224293355321.html
    "with yet more civilians last weekend being slaughtered in Afghanistan on the authorisation of our scheduled May visitor"

    I hope he isn't referring to the Stryker team? Did I miss something?


  • Options
    #250
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    i like the comments, they amuse me.


  • Options
    #251
    humanji
    Registered Users Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    davoxx wrote: »
    the counter to this is

    as the benefit is oil
    not

    the fact that they did not do something proves what?
    surely you meant:

    okay so what? we are talking about the reason for the action not the action
    so you should have meant:

    so if the benefit is oil this does not disprove my claim, it supports it as if the benefit is oil and they did not force a change, then it still about oil.

    this is basic reasoning.

    Ok, you're again missing the entire point. You have claimed that it is 100% about oil. Then occasionally said it's an assumption and then gone back to saying it's a certainty.

    You gave evidence to backup the theory about oil. I countered those, not to show them as false, but to show that they can be interpreted in other ways and are in fact misleading. Again, I'm not saying it's not about oil. I'm saying that you have decided it's about oil and are providing a view of evidence that backs up that claim.

    It's the interpretation of the evidence that is the problem. It's specious at best.
    we will never have all the information .. you agreed to this before.
    we have evidence
    we can make assumption on the evidence we have
    we can say there is not enough evidence to draw a conclusion
    we can say there is plenty
    but we will never have all the evidence.
    so you can never draw a conclusion about anything.
    Utter pedantic nonsense, trying to imply I meant something I didn't. Again, your evidence is specious. It only looks damning if you look at it as being damning.
    i did, and your counters were incorrect, in fact and i proved the first on and backed it up, yet you still deny it.
    My counters were perfectly adequate and just as logical as your evidence. Seeing things from a different point of view yeilds a different result. And you did prove your first point. Libya was an ally, but you left that part out.
    so i'll have to say the points you think back up your point, do not.
    the claim that there is more information we do not have is obvious
    the point that we can not draw a conclusion is 100% wrong

    i'm not even going to breakdown the broken logic you have in your replies to mine.

    you have not proven me wrong .. i have provided evidence to support my case. so i'm going to say unless you have proof that counters my claims, please don't say i am wrong.

    I've proven that jumping to conclusions is not the way to go about things. I've proven that your evidence is specious and one sided. I've countered your claims, not to prove them wrong, but to show that you're purposfully misrepresenting evidence and leaving out other bits because they don't suit your agenda.
    davoxx wrote: »
    sorry i missed this

    brilliant .. simply the best defence ever.
    Since you didn't understand it, it would probably have been best to leave it missed.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #252
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    humanji wrote: »
    Ok, you're again missing the entire point. You have claimed that it is 100% about oil. Then occasionally said it's an assumption and then gone back to saying it's a certainty.

    You gave evidence to backup the theory about oil. I countered those, not to show them as false, but to show that they can be interpreted in other ways and are in fact misleading. Again, I'm not saying it's not about oil. I'm saying that you have decided it's about oil and are providing a view of evidence that backs up that claim.

    It's the interpretation of the evidence that is the problem. It's specious at best.

    Utter pedantic nonsense, trying to imply I meant something I didn't. Again, your evidence is specious. It only looks damning if you look at it as being damning.


    My counters were perfectly adequate and just as logical as your evidence. Seeing things from a different point of view yeilds a different result. And you did prove your first point. Libya was an ally, but you left that part out.


    I've proven that jumping to conclusions is not the way to go about things. I've proven that your evidence is specious and one sided. I've countered your claims, not to prove them wrong, but to show that you're purposfully misrepresenting evidence and leaving out other bits because they don't suit your agenda.


    Since you didn't understand it, it would probably have been best to leave it missed.


    no problem. i've shown the thought process and the deduction of a conclusion, you claim that is 'jumping' fair enough, it you won't accept it for what it is.

    but you have not countered my claims, you've just disagreed with them.
    I countered those, not to show them as false

    countering means to show that they are false, otherwise you are not countering them, you are just disagreeing with them.
    but to show that they can be interpreted in other ways
    which are wrong interpretations the data ...

    Utter pedantic nonsense, trying to imply I meant something I didn't.
    but that isn't that what you meant? i don't know what you meant ... i can't seem to have a logical debate with you at all, i've presented the evidence, and you've just denied it, then said that we don't have all the evidence and hence can not come to a conclusion ... which is what i restated, and you disagree with that too.


    anyway .. i think with the recent announcements of usa trying to force regime change, we can safely assume they have ulterior motives... the UN is turning into a bigger joke that it was before.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement