I would suggest more than a couple of years. 10 might not be a bad point to reflect. But I would guess that 5 years would give a better picture of success or lack thereof. There are a lot of objectives and a ton of things to establish and rebuild.
That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it, but many differ from your opinion. It is way too late for that kind of "crying over spilled milk." Buck up.
Listen SH can still be installed a leader again when Kerry or Clinton get's into office, right?
Noone said you had to vote for Kerry, so don't. That is your personal choice. A freedom we enjoy here in America.
Voting for Kerry would be better than 4 more years of Bush.
Also the sweeping it under the carpet attitude doesn't cut it. People will be on Bush and the republicans because of this for years to come. It's not just going to go away.
(I will assume that you mean 'responsible for 911' and will answer accordingly, even though you were extremely vague.)
It would be idiotic to come up with a number while at the same time it would be idiotic to say that the President should not acknowledge responsibility.
WHen the buck refuses to stop anywhere then he should step up to the plate . . .o at least acknowledge teh fact that not enough was done . . . since if enough was done then it would not have happened.
Also, I would point out that this line of questioning has no bearing whatsoever on the post which you called 'circular argument.' The post in question was about your claim that "the Iraq [war] was a strategic decision in a larger plan to stabilize the ME"
Even if the president was only 10% responsible for 911, or .02% or, as some belive on these boards, 100%, my answer to your stating that the war was merely a part of a larger 'plan' (insert "Vision") is still a weariness of, and worriedness about the notion of 'Vision' oriented politics, and (if it was actually merely a part of a larger plan, as you said & which I believe it to be) and my answer is still a strong condemnation of the Administration for lying to the American People and capitalizing on real tragedy in order to play their 'world-making' games!
Responsibility for the Iraq war, however, is 90-100% on the heads of the Bush admin. and that is the calamity of this administration which I most object to.
(though there are plenty of calamities to choose from)
(I will assume that you mean 'responsible for 911' and will answer accordingly, even though you were extremely vague.)
It would be idiotic to come up with a number while at the same time it would be idiotic to say that the President should not acknowledge responsibility.
WHen the buck refuses to stop anywhere then he should step up to the plate . . .o at least acknowledge teh fact that not enough was done . . . since if enough was done then it would not have happened.
Also, I would point out that this line of questioning has no bearing whatsoever on the post which you called 'circular argument.' The post in question was about your claim that "the Iraq [war] was a strategic decision in a larger plan to stabilize the ME"
Even if the president was only 10% responsible for 911, or .02% or, as some belive on these boards, 100%, my answer to your stating that the war was merely a part of a larger 'plan' (insert "Vision") is still a weariness of, and worriedness about the notion of 'Vision' oriented politics, and (if it was actually merely a part of a larger plan, as you said & which I believe it to be) and my answer is still a strong condemnation of the Administration for lying to the American People and capitalizing on real tragedy in order to play their 'world-making' games!
Responsibility for the Iraq war, however, is 90-100% on the heads of the Bush admin. and that is the calamity of this administration which I most object to.
(though there are plenty of calamities to choose from)
Well, thank you for illustrating my point quite nicely.
Notice how you went from answering my question (sort of) to totally laying into the Pres. for something totally off of the subject at hand.
Circular argument. Meaning it always come right back around to the same thing.
Well, thank you for illustrating my point quite nicely.
Notice how you went from answering my question (sort of) to totally laying into the Pres. for something totally off of the subject at hand.
Circular argument. Meaning it always come right back around to the same thing.
End of this illustration. Thanks.
Wrong. and BTW that's not a fallacy of circular reasoning anyway . . . definition: the premis can only be true if we assume the conclusion is true, but the conclusion is assumed true and so supports the premis.
Notice how the original post wherein the claim of circularity was posed is related to the idea of a larger than expressed agenda being the motivation for the Iraqi war.
The post directly above your last post is merely a restatement of that notion.
my argument: if Bush based the Iraq war on an agenda that really is, in your words, "a larger plan to stabilize the ME"
Then,
it follows that Bush lied about the agenda of WMD and kept the larger agenda secret (this was practically stated by Wolfowitz himself)
it follows that:
This is a treasonable offence: to start a war while lying to the American people about its reasons
Granted that the assumption of my 'argument' is still debateable, the context of the discussion about the issue was your statement that Bush's agenda was this 'larger' one.
So, with that in mind you can see how my post started with the question to you: do you really believe that Bush's reasons for invading Iraq are this "larger plan to stabilize the ME"
and if so then it follows etc etc . .
the only circularity there is that if it is true that etc then bush is guilty
True that I believe it is true 'that etc' . . . but, surprisingly, you seem to have stated that as well, and I was responding to your statement.
don't you see the problem?
and by the way: if it seems that everything devolves into 'Bush-is-bad,' and the people who seem guilty of such bias have many many arguments and reasons for believing such, and many of them are people who would have formely supported Bush, then maybe there really are reasons for this constant devolution . . . . perhaps its the very devolution of the presidency?!?!
Well, thank you for illustrating my point quite nicely.
Notice how you went from answering my question (sort of) to totally laying into the Pres. for something totally off of the subject at hand.
Circular argument. Meaning it always come right back around to the same thing.
End of this illustration. Thanks.
Wrong, try again:
A circular argument as a recursive argument. An argument that uses itself to define itself. An argument where the very prospect of the argument is used to prove itself:
"I am not lying. Since I'm not lying, I must be telling the truth."
That is what a circular argument is. Like using a word to define itself.
That tactic wasn't employed. Your question was answered, and then your choice of query was questioned. The relevance as framed in this thread was scrutinized. You are asking leading questions in the hopes that if truely answered one way or the other could be used as a counter argument if answered in either direction. pfflam didn't fall for it from what I've seen. Your questions were answered fairly succinctly and adroitly. How can one assign a percentage blame for 911? pfflem answered this to whit he raised the specter that you are asking flawed questions and you classified that as a circular argument.
A circular argument as a recursive argument. An argument that uses itself to define itself. An argument where the very prospect of the argument is used to prove itself:
"I am not lying. Since I'm not lying, I must be telling the truth."
That is what a circular argument is. Like using a word to define itself.
That tactic wasn't employed. Your question was answered, and then your choice of query was questioned. The relevance as framed in this thread was scrutinized. You are asking leading questions in the hopes that if truely answered one way or the other could be used as a counter argument if answered in either direction. pfflam didn't fall for it from what I've seen. Your questions were answered fairly succinctly and adroitly. How can one assign a percentage blame for 911? pfflem answered this to whit he raised the specter that you are asking flawed questions and you classified that as a circular argument.
Read my post, i clearly defined what I meant by circular argument. And pflam illustrated it perfectly.
I know what the traditional circular argument is, and that is precisely why I defined what I meant. In a couple of posts in this thread.
I will try to come up with a better description if you are confused,
Read my post, i clearly defined what I meant by circular argument. And pflam illustrated it perfectly.
I know what the traditional circular argument is, and that is precisely why I defined what I meant. In a couple of posts in this thread.
I will try to come up with a better description if you are confused,
Well your loosely ill defined idea of a circular argument does not fit with the real definition of circular argument. If your going to trow around terms then you should use the correct terms, or use the terms correctly. Question why did you take the time to answer my post when ppflam said pretty much the same thing? Why didn't you simply address that post thus addressing both posts?
I only commented on the incorrect use of terminology while ppflam both questioned the use of terminology and addressed your line of reasoning.
[EDIT] I hit submit reply instead of preview. added last sentence.
Well your loosely ill defined idea of a circular argument does not fit with the real definition of circular argument. If your going to trow around terms then you should use the correct terms, or use the terms correctly. Question why did you take the time to answer my post when ppflam said pretty much the same thing? Why didn't you simply address that post just addressing both posts?
I just hit reply after I read your post, that's all.
Well your loosely ill defined idea of a circular argument does not fit with the real definition of circular argument. If your going to trow around terms then you should use the correct terms, or use the terms correctly. Question why did you take the time to answer my post when ppflam said pretty much the same thing? Why didn't you simply address that post thus addressing both posts?
Oh yeah, (this to everyone that it applies to) why don't some of you try to read and comprehend what is being posted before spouting off, instead of just focusing on keywords?
Oh yeah, (this to everyone that it applies to) why don't some of you try to read and comprehend what is being posted before spouting off, instead of just focusing on keywords?
Just a suggestion.
I do read the posts. My comment here was a direct rebuttal to your LINE of argument. pfflam is not presenting a circular argument though you were trying to bait him into it.
I do read the posts. My comment here was a direct rebuttal to your LINE of argument. pfflam is not presenting a circular argument though you were trying to bait him into it.
He was according to my definition. If you have a better term for it, spill it.
He was according to my definition. If you have a better term for it, spill it.
Here is my term:
I am constantly 'bashing Bush'.
It feels like the single most important thing that I can do right now.
And the reasons for being able to do it easily are so plentiful, Bush creates more and more reasons every day.
Bush has been the single worst thing to happen to the United States ever.
I am constantly angered, deeply angered that people can continue to support this tragic character . . . I don't thing these things, and do this, for no reason . . . after all I am willing to see good things that he has done . . . except that I hardly ever see any.
I will constantly return to the Iraq issue in particular, because it is truly, deeply and profoundly important! and still it gets no notice from people who are partisan puppets: we invaded a country on false premises in order to fullfil a Utopian Vision.
and, like most Utopian thought inspired actions, we didn't even do it well.
So, I keep returning to what a calamity Bush is, has been, and will be if he is re-elacted . . . how can anybody do otherwise?!
and yet, it doesn't mean that what I have to say isn't well thought out or worth consideration.
I am not merely a partisan: I think many things that are not along party lines.
It feels like the single most important thing that I can do right now.
And the reasons for being able to do it easily are so plentiful, Bush creates more and more reasons every day.
Bush has been the single worst thing to happen to the United States ever.
I am constantly angered, deeply angered that people can continue to support this tragic character . . . I don't thing these things, and do this, for no reason . . . after all I am willing to see good things that he has done . . . except that I hardly ever see any.
I will constantly return to the Iraq issue in particular, because it is truly, deeply and profoundly important! and still it gets no notice from people who are partisan puppets: we invaded a country on false premises in order to fullfil a Utopian Vision.
and, like most Utopian thought inspired actions, we didn't even do it well.
So, I keep returning to what a calamity Bush is, has been, and will be if he is re-elacted . . . how can anybody do otherwise?!
and yet, it doesn't mean that what I have to say isn't well thought out or worth consideration.
I am not merely a partisan: I think many things that are not along party lines.
It feels like the single most important thing that I can do right now.
And the reasons for being able to do it easily are so plentiful, Bush creates more and more reasons every day.
Bush has been the single worst thing to happen to the United States ever.
I am constantly angered, deeply angered that people can continue to support this tragic character . . . I don't thing these things, and do this, for no reason . . . after all I am willing to see good things that he has done . . . except that I hardly ever see any.
I will constantly return to the Iraq issue in particular, because it is truly, deeply and profoundly important! and still it gets no notice from people who are partisan puppets: we invaded a country on false premises in order to fullfil a Utopian Vision.
and, like most Utopian thought inspired actions, we didn't even do it well.
So, I keep returning to what a calamity Bush is, has been, and will be if he is re-elacted . . . how can anybody do otherwise?!
and yet, it doesn't mean that what I have to say isn't well thought out or worth consideration.
I am not merely a partisan: I think many things that are not along party lines.
Oh yeah, by the way, I respect you for being up front about your beliefs and convictions. Unlike some that try to hide behind terms like "common sense" or hide behind the number of books or articles they have read. These are personal issues and each of us form our opinions based on a myriad of influences in our lives.
Comments
Originally posted by pfflam
Could you be a little clearer as to what you are asking here?
what sort of scale should be used in calculating this sort of thing?
I'll make it a little easier.
Should bush suffer some punishment for his "failures" other than losing the election?
Originally posted by NaplesX
I would suggest more than a couple of years. 10 might not be a bad point to reflect. But I would guess that 5 years would give a better picture of success or lack thereof. There are a lot of objectives and a ton of things to establish and rebuild.
That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it, but many differ from your opinion. It is way too late for that kind of "crying over spilled milk." Buck up.
Listen SH can still be installed a leader again when Kerry or Clinton get's into office, right?
Noone said you had to vote for Kerry, so don't. That is your personal choice. A freedom we enjoy here in America.
Voting for Kerry would be better than 4 more years of Bush.
Also the sweeping it under the carpet attitude doesn't cut it. People will be on Bush and the republicans because of this for years to come. It's not just going to go away.
Enjoy!
Originally posted by NaplesX
Should bush suffer some punishment for his "failures" other than losing the election?
What were his failures? Let me know what failures there are and I'll let you know what punishment I feel is appropriate.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Let's say percentages. That is easy. Right?
Take a stab at it.
(I will assume that you mean 'responsible for 911' and will answer accordingly, even though you were extremely vague.)
It would be idiotic to come up with a number while at the same time it would be idiotic to say that the President should not acknowledge responsibility.
WHen the buck refuses to stop anywhere then he should step up to the plate . . .o at least acknowledge teh fact that not enough was done . . . since if enough was done then it would not have happened.
Also, I would point out that this line of questioning has no bearing whatsoever on the post which you called 'circular argument.' The post in question was about your claim that "the Iraq [war] was a strategic decision in a larger plan to stabilize the ME"
Even if the president was only 10% responsible for 911, or .02% or, as some belive on these boards, 100%, my answer to your stating that the war was merely a part of a larger 'plan' (insert "Vision") is still a weariness of, and worriedness about the notion of 'Vision' oriented politics, and (if it was actually merely a part of a larger plan, as you said & which I believe it to be) and my answer is still a strong condemnation of the Administration for lying to the American People and capitalizing on real tragedy in order to play their 'world-making' games!
Responsibility for the Iraq war, however, is 90-100% on the heads of the Bush admin. and that is the calamity of this administration which I most object to.
(though there are plenty of calamities to choose from)
Originally posted by pfflam
(I will assume that you mean 'responsible for 911' and will answer accordingly, even though you were extremely vague.)
It would be idiotic to come up with a number while at the same time it would be idiotic to say that the President should not acknowledge responsibility.
WHen the buck refuses to stop anywhere then he should step up to the plate . . .o at least acknowledge teh fact that not enough was done . . . since if enough was done then it would not have happened.
Also, I would point out that this line of questioning has no bearing whatsoever on the post which you called 'circular argument.' The post in question was about your claim that "the Iraq [war] was a strategic decision in a larger plan to stabilize the ME"
Even if the president was only 10% responsible for 911, or .02% or, as some belive on these boards, 100%, my answer to your stating that the war was merely a part of a larger 'plan' (insert "Vision") is still a weariness of, and worriedness about the notion of 'Vision' oriented politics, and (if it was actually merely a part of a larger plan, as you said & which I believe it to be) and my answer is still a strong condemnation of the Administration for lying to the American People and capitalizing on real tragedy in order to play their 'world-making' games!
Responsibility for the Iraq war, however, is 90-100% on the heads of the Bush admin. and that is the calamity of this administration which I most object to.
(though there are plenty of calamities to choose from)
Well, thank you for illustrating my point quite nicely.
Notice how you went from answering my question (sort of) to totally laying into the Pres. for something totally off of the subject at hand.
Circular argument. Meaning it always come right back around to the same thing.
End of this illustration. Thanks.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Well, thank you for illustrating my point quite nicely.
Notice how you went from answering my question (sort of) to totally laying into the Pres. for something totally off of the subject at hand.
Circular argument. Meaning it always come right back around to the same thing.
End of this illustration. Thanks.
Wrong. and BTW that's not a fallacy of circular reasoning anyway . . . definition: the premis can only be true if we assume the conclusion is true, but the conclusion is assumed true and so supports the premis.
Notice how the original post wherein the claim of circularity was posed is related to the idea of a larger than expressed agenda being the motivation for the Iraqi war.
The post directly above your last post is merely a restatement of that notion.
my argument: if Bush based the Iraq war on an agenda that really is, in your words, "a larger plan to stabilize the ME"
Then,
it follows that Bush lied about the agenda of WMD and kept the larger agenda secret (this was practically stated by Wolfowitz himself)
it follows that:
This is a treasonable offence: to start a war while lying to the American people about its reasons
Granted that the assumption of my 'argument' is still debateable, the context of the discussion about the issue was your statement that Bush's agenda was this 'larger' one.
So, with that in mind you can see how my post started with the question to you: do you really believe that Bush's reasons for invading Iraq are this "larger plan to stabilize the ME"
and if so then it follows etc etc . .
the only circularity there is that if it is true that etc then bush is guilty
True that I believe it is true 'that etc' . . . but, surprisingly, you seem to have stated that as well, and I was responding to your statement.
don't you see the problem?
and by the way: if it seems that everything devolves into 'Bush-is-bad,' and the people who seem guilty of such bias have many many arguments and reasons for believing such, and many of them are people who would have formely supported Bush, then maybe there really are reasons for this constant devolution . . . . perhaps its the very devolution of the presidency?!?!
Originally posted by NaplesX
Well, thank you for illustrating my point quite nicely.
Notice how you went from answering my question (sort of) to totally laying into the Pres. for something totally off of the subject at hand.
Circular argument. Meaning it always come right back around to the same thing.
End of this illustration. Thanks.
Wrong, try again:
A circular argument as a recursive argument. An argument that uses itself to define itself. An argument where the very prospect of the argument is used to prove itself:
"I am not lying. Since I'm not lying, I must be telling the truth."
That is what a circular argument is. Like using a word to define itself.
That tactic wasn't employed. Your question was answered, and then your choice of query was questioned. The relevance as framed in this thread was scrutinized. You are asking leading questions in the hopes that if truely answered one way or the other could be used as a counter argument if answered in either direction. pfflam didn't fall for it from what I've seen. Your questions were answered fairly succinctly and adroitly. How can one assign a percentage blame for 911? pfflem answered this to whit he raised the specter that you are asking flawed questions and you classified that as a circular argument.
Originally posted by faust9
Wrong, try again:
A circular argument as a recursive argument. An argument that uses itself to define itself. An argument where the very prospect of the argument is used to prove itself:
"I am not lying. Since I'm not lying, I must be telling the truth."
That is what a circular argument is. Like using a word to define itself.
That tactic wasn't employed. Your question was answered, and then your choice of query was questioned. The relevance as framed in this thread was scrutinized. You are asking leading questions in the hopes that if truely answered one way or the other could be used as a counter argument if answered in either direction. pfflam didn't fall for it from what I've seen. Your questions were answered fairly succinctly and adroitly. How can one assign a percentage blame for 911? pfflem answered this to whit he raised the specter that you are asking flawed questions and you classified that as a circular argument.
Read my post, i clearly defined what I meant by circular argument. And pflam illustrated it perfectly.
I know what the traditional circular argument is, and that is precisely why I defined what I meant. In a couple of posts in this thread.
I will try to come up with a better description if you are confused,
Originally posted by NaplesX
Read my post, i clearly defined what I meant by circular argument. And pflam illustrated it perfectly.
I know what the traditional circular argument is, and that is precisely why I defined what I meant. In a couple of posts in this thread.
I will try to come up with a better description if you are confused,
Well your loosely ill defined idea of a circular argument does not fit with the real definition of circular argument. If your going to trow around terms then you should use the correct terms, or use the terms correctly. Question why did you take the time to answer my post when ppflam said pretty much the same thing? Why didn't you simply address that post thus addressing both posts?
I only commented on the incorrect use of terminology while ppflam both questioned the use of terminology and addressed your line of reasoning.
[EDIT] I hit submit reply instead of preview. added last sentence.
Originally posted by faust9
Well your loosely ill defined idea of a circular argument does not fit with the real definition of circular argument. If your going to trow around terms then you should use the correct terms, or use the terms correctly. Question why did you take the time to answer my post when ppflam said pretty much the same thing? Why didn't you simply address that post just addressing both posts?
I just hit reply after I read your post, that's all.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I just hit reply after I read your post, that's all.
sounds about right.
Originally posted by faust9
Well your loosely ill defined idea of a circular argument does not fit with the real definition of circular argument. If your going to trow around terms then you should use the correct terms, or use the terms correctly. Question why did you take the time to answer my post when ppflam said pretty much the same thing? Why didn't you simply address that post thus addressing both posts?
Oh yeah, (this to everyone that it applies to) why don't some of you try to read and comprehend what is being posted before spouting off, instead of just focusing on keywords?
Just a suggestion.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Just a suggestion.
Good suggestion
Originally posted by NaplesX
Oh yeah, (this to everyone that it applies to) why don't some of you try to read and comprehend what is being posted before spouting off, instead of just focusing on keywords?
Just a suggestion.
I do read the posts. My comment here was a direct rebuttal to your LINE of argument. pfflam is not presenting a circular argument though you were trying to bait him into it.
Originally posted by faust9
I do read the posts. My comment here was a direct rebuttal to your LINE of argument. pfflam is not presenting a circular argument though you were trying to bait him into it.
He was according to my definition. If you have a better term for it, spill it.
Originally posted by NaplesX
He was according to my definition. If you have a better term for it, spill it.
Here is my term:
I am constantly 'bashing Bush'.
It feels like the single most important thing that I can do right now.
And the reasons for being able to do it easily are so plentiful, Bush creates more and more reasons every day.
Bush has been the single worst thing to happen to the United States ever.
I am constantly angered, deeply angered that people can continue to support this tragic character . . . I don't thing these things, and do this, for no reason . . . after all I am willing to see good things that he has done . . . except that I hardly ever see any.
I will constantly return to the Iraq issue in particular, because it is truly, deeply and profoundly important! and still it gets no notice from people who are partisan puppets: we invaded a country on false premises in order to fullfil a Utopian Vision.
and, like most Utopian thought inspired actions, we didn't even do it well.
So, I keep returning to what a calamity Bush is, has been, and will be if he is re-elacted . . . how can anybody do otherwise?!
and yet, it doesn't mean that what I have to say isn't well thought out or worth consideration.
I am not merely a partisan: I think many things that are not along party lines.
Originally posted by pfflam
Here is my term:
I am constantly 'bashing Bush'.
It feels like the single most important thing that I can do right now.
And the reasons for being able to do it easily are so plentiful, Bush creates more and more reasons every day.
Bush has been the single worst thing to happen to the United States ever.
I am constantly angered, deeply angered that people can continue to support this tragic character . . . I don't thing these things, and do this, for no reason . . . after all I am willing to see good things that he has done . . . except that I hardly ever see any.
I will constantly return to the Iraq issue in particular, because it is truly, deeply and profoundly important! and still it gets no notice from people who are partisan puppets: we invaded a country on false premises in order to fullfil a Utopian Vision.
and, like most Utopian thought inspired actions, we didn't even do it well.
So, I keep returning to what a calamity Bush is, has been, and will be if he is re-elacted . . . how can anybody do otherwise?!
and yet, it doesn't mean that what I have to say isn't well thought out or worth consideration.
I am not merely a partisan: I think many things that are not along party lines.
I got it.
I am dubbing this tactic; "boomerang" argument.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I got it.
I am dubbing this tactic; "boomerang" argument.
WHy not just call it: "hates-what-Bush-is-doing -to-his-country-and-the-world -argument"
I'm sure there are a lot of that kind of argument going around.
Originally posted by pfflam
Here is my term:
I am constantly 'bashing Bush'.
It feels like the single most important thing that I can do right now.
And the reasons for being able to do it easily are so plentiful, Bush creates more and more reasons every day.
Bush has been the single worst thing to happen to the United States ever.
I am constantly angered, deeply angered that people can continue to support this tragic character . . . I don't thing these things, and do this, for no reason . . . after all I am willing to see good things that he has done . . . except that I hardly ever see any.
I will constantly return to the Iraq issue in particular, because it is truly, deeply and profoundly important! and still it gets no notice from people who are partisan puppets: we invaded a country on false premises in order to fullfil a Utopian Vision.
and, like most Utopian thought inspired actions, we didn't even do it well.
So, I keep returning to what a calamity Bush is, has been, and will be if he is re-elacted . . . how can anybody do otherwise?!
and yet, it doesn't mean that what I have to say isn't well thought out or worth consideration.
I am not merely a partisan: I think many things that are not along party lines.
Oh yeah, by the way, I respect you for being up front about your beliefs and convictions. Unlike some that try to hide behind terms like "common sense" or hide behind the number of books or articles they have read. These are personal issues and each of us form our opinions based on a myriad of influences in our lives.