August 06, 2006

To Ravana

I was arguing with someone called Ravana. These are the last two comments. One from her, one from me. It's far back in Bookworm's blog, so navigating to it to read might be troublesome so I put the link on my blog.

  1. Ravana Says:

    Jg, are you for real? I cannot even begin to attack your argument because you make none. Your post comprising of terms like “barbarians”, “civilized world”, “there is no third way” etc is pure pulpit rubbish and smacks of outdated ill-informed colonialism. You make no attempt to back up anything you are saying. You appear to see the world in black and white. Fortunately, it is not.

    The US’s defeat in Vietnam did not hasten the fall of Communism. I am curious to know why you think it did.

    Ymarsakar - you said: “In summary, people blow themselves up in Gaza because they are teenagers that are sexually frustrated.”

    If you actually believe the things you have said in your last post, I think I am going to stop having this discussion with you. You are clearly out of your mind.

    If you think that the war in Iraq is a success, you are in an extreme minority of the world’s population. And in fact, you would be a minority even in the US. The majority of Americans think that the war in Iraq has made the US less safe, the position that I have been taking all along. The rest of the world knew all along that the going into Iraq was a gross mistake, and I for one had serious doubts whether there were Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq in the first place. There aren’t any WMD. And the American government said that there were, and this was their justification for the war. There are no WMD, so the American government lied, and so the war is unjust.

    However, I have to admit, the hardline position against terrorists and (finally!) the classification of groups like the LTTE as terrorists have made me better off, but this is an unintentional consequence. The war has made Iraqis and Americans worse off.

    Here’s an article from the American media. Enlighten yourself.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/07/AR2005060700296.html

    As an aside, your deductive reasoning is flawed in the case of your argument against the BBC because all your three premises are flawed. You would have to start your reasoning from a premise accepted by me for your reasoning in turn to be accepted by me. I do not accept either of the alternative premises that you offer.

    The BBC are not a propaganda apparatus for Blair and the British. The are not propaganda machines for the Left, independent of the government.They are not shills for foreign governments like the PLO and Israel. Deception is not their goal.

  2. Ymarsakar Says:

    If you actually believe the things you have said in your last post, I think I am going to stop having this discussion with you. You are clearly out of your mind.

    I’ve already laid down the situation, Ravana, you just didn’t pay attention. Your logic starts with a NOT gate. If you don’t know what a NOT logic gate is, then here it is. A NOT logic gate makes a 1 into a 0 and a 0 into one. It is used in computers, computers that rely upon machine code otherwise known as binary code.

    This means, that whatever is positive for me, is a negative for you. de facto. If you want to opinionate it as meaning I’m out of my mind, then you’re free to wrongly do that. Others will know what I’m talking about and take from it more than your accussations based upon amateur psychotherapy.

    If you can’t tolerate, even comprehend, people who disagree with you, then that’s your problem, Ravana. Not mine or JG’s.

    You appear to see the world in black and white. Fortunately, it is not.

    Do you understand that there are more than one kind of number system? There is binary, decimal, Hexadecimal, octagimal, and various others. You can translate decimal to binary and back again, it’s easy. The world doesn’t have to be black white, the world just has to be able to translate black and white into colors. If you got a problem with someone’s 1 and 0 view of the world, then maybe you should criticize yourself for seeing anyone that disagrees with you fundamentally as being crazy. It’s either your way as 1 or craziness, 0, eh?

    You would have to start your reasoning from a premise accepted by me for your reasoning in turn to be accepted by me.

    So, I was right, it is either your way or the zero way? Regardless of that way, you’re also wrong because logic is about determining which premises and a priori propositions are correct. If I start my reasoning from a premise that you think is already true, then there is no way you could ever be wrong. You could change the fundamental laws of physics for god’s sake, just so your statement that “the sky is red” could be true.

    THat’s not how I play. But I know that’s how you play, though. Deductive logic is not about reasoning based upon “accepted premises”. Deductive logic, its usability, comes from exploring ALL possible PREMISES and fundamental foundations, in order to verify which ones are more accurately reflected by reality and facts.

    Determining whether the BBC is this way or that, requires that you assume the BBC is this way or that, then and only then asking yourself what should be true if the BBC was truely this way or that. That’s deductive logic used by someone who comprehends its usability.

    If you don’t think deception is their goal, you should say what their goal is. Then I’ll tell you why you’re wrong by assuming what you say is true, and verifying its consistency via the world line.



There's also this, which I might need for later.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home