cease fire, how long will it last?

[Adron]

Americans, and even myself, are uneducated or unqualified to speak

I think that your using the words "even myself" alone shows a great deal about why these discussions turn out so long-winded. You know you aren't a 50-year-old expert who has worked with foreign relations his entire life, right? How about showing some humility? Noone is flawless

as long as you recognize that you are no more educated, and no more qualified. If you feel you are, you're not fooling anybody but yourself with the possible addition of the before mentioned people.

But back to what you were saying...

I think I'm more educated than you are (just considering total education level, school years etc). I think I'm more mature than you are, and that I have more accumulated years of life experience to give me more perspective on different things. I think that you are lacking in knowledge of things outside America just as I'm lacking in knowledge of things inside America. I think that our different backgrounds have given us very different perspectives and that we should've been able to complement each other much better.

I think that I'm way better at logic deduction than you are. I think you're a bit irrational in your reasoning, and that you need to start focusing on what's wrong about our assumptions / facts and not on proving that logic is incorrect (for example the comments on Arta's "british logic").

[Hazard]

We weren't in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, etc. pre-9/11 and they attacked us. Explain?

[Hazard]

Further, I claimed that you knew less about some Iraqi events than I do. You claimed not, but then helped support my claim here:

So all 6 Iraqis living in Sweden voted in the election? Whoop de doo? Yea, the economic and military center of the entire world is certainly way far away from whats going on in the world.

The correct numbers for the Iraqi election were posted in the local newspaper that I picked up on the train. I can only assume that either they were not posted in your local newspaper, or you didn't read them, which does support my point about Swedes getting to be more well-informed about affairs outside the USA than Americans.

Since you are so much better informed than myself, can you tell me how many Iraqi citizens voted in the following countires: Spain, France, Germany, Russia, Canada off of the top of your head? Since, after all we Americans are so uninformed and you are, can you give me that information? No. You know about what happens in your country, thats all your information says. Your own quotation proved it.

[Hazard]

Americans, and even myself, are uneducated or unqualified to speak

I think that your using the words "even myself" alone shows a great deal about why these discussions turn out so long-winded. You know you aren't a 50-year-old expert who has worked with foreign relations his entire life, right? How about showing some humility? Noone is flawless

It was a point of emphasis. Bone up on your English and critical reading. You want to talk about humility? Wouldn't you find it wise to follow your own advice?

as long as you recognize that you are no more educated, and no more qualified. If you feel you are, you're not fooling anybody but yourself with the possible addition of the before mentioned people.

But back to what you were saying...

I think I'm more educated than you are (just considering total education level, school years etc). I think I'm more mature than you are, and that I have more accumulated years of life experience to give me more perspective on different things. I think that you are lacking in knowledge of things outside America just as I'm lacking in knowledge of things inside America. I think that our different backgrounds have given us very different perspectives and that we should've been able to complement each other much better.

You think, you don't know. Thats all that needs to be said. However, you did claim that a non-American would have a much better idea about things that would happen in a 3rd-party situation than an American, and I'd love for you to qualify that. Why would a German know more about Cambodians than an American? Why would a Swede know more about Brazilians? Why would a Korean know more about a Chilean? The fact is everything you think you know is based off of what appears to be nothing more than anti-American sentiment.

I think that I'm way better at logic deduction than you are. I think you're a bit irrational in your reasoning, and that you need to start focusing on what's wrong about our assumptions / facts and not on proving that logic is incorrect (for example the comments on Arta's "british logic").

Once again, you think you don't know. At your form of "logic" you might be "better" but it doesn't your logic correct. In your mind thats how things work. I can prove to you logically that God exists, but in your logic it is impossible based on your own interpretation of facts and opinions. Thats like trying to say that there is only one logic, and yours is superior to mine. To be honest, I think that you're completely arrogant in your reasoning, and believe me it is not a feeling only I have. You need to realize that your logic is completely foulable and that you really don't understand anything completely, just as I don't. You need to stop refusing that your assumptions or facts could be discolored or, God forbid, even incorrect! God forbid that the young American could be right and the high and mighty, educated and logically superior Swede could ever be wrong.

Do you disagree that different nationalities have different forms of logic?

[Adron]

Americans, and even myself, are uneducated or unqualified to speak

I think that your using the words "even myself" alone shows a great deal about why these discussions turn out so long-winded. You know you aren't a 50-year-old expert who has worked with foreign relations his entire life, right? How about showing some humility? Noone is flawless

It was a point of emphasis. Bone up on your English and critical reading. You want to talk about humility? Wouldn't you find it wise to follow your own advice?

I am. And I definitely think there are Americans with more experience of politics than you.

as long as you recognize that you are no more educated, and no more qualified. If you feel you are, you're not fooling anybody but yourself with the possible addition of the before mentioned people.

But back to what you were saying...

I think I'm more educated than you are (just considering total education level, school years etc). I think I'm more mature than you are, and that I have more accumulated years of life experience to give me more perspective on different things. I think that you are lacking in knowledge of things outside America just as I'm lacking in knowledge of things inside America. I think that our different backgrounds have given us very different perspectives and that we should've been able to complement each other much better.

You think, you don't know. Thats all that needs to be said.

Noone knows anything outside logic. It's all just think.

So, what is your education level? How many years of schooling do you have? Clearing up that "think" is easy. How old are you? Clears up the next think. Third think, well, I picked one example of something from outside America that you were unaware of. Fourth think I'm pretty sure is correct. We have different perspectives. Fifth.... Well, maybe you're unable to complement anyone well?

However, you did claim that a non-American would have a much better idea about things that would happen in a 3rd-party situation than an American, and I'd love for you to qualify that. Why would a German know more about Cambodians than an American? Why would a Swede know more about Brazilians? Why would a Korean know more about a Chilean? The fact is everything you think you know is based off of what appears to be nothing more than anti-American sentiment.

A German wouldn't know more about a Cambodian than an American, but he'd know more about Poland, Switzerland and many places that are closer to him. What I think I know is based on proximity, news coverage, browsing American news sites and comparing them to local ones, seeing what news they cover, reading American news papers, etc.

I think that I'm way better at logic deduction than you are. I think you're a bit irrational in your reasoning, and that you need to start focusing on what's wrong about our assumptions / facts and not on proving that logic is incorrect (for example the comments on Arta's "british logic").

Once again, you think you don't know. At your form of "logic" you might be "better" but it doesn't your logic correct. In your mind thats how things work.

Have you ever studied logic?

I can prove to you logically that God exists, but in your logic it is impossible based on your own interpretation of facts and opinions. Thats like trying to say that there is only one logic, and yours is superior to mine.

There is only one logic

Mine is superior to yours - as far as I can tell, you just don't grasp the concept of logic.

You're free to try to prove that God exists with logic, but even if your logic is correct, you'll most likely fail on some assumption you made.

To be honest, I think that you're completely arrogant in your reasoning, and believe me it is not a feeling only I have. You need to realize that your logic is completely foulable and that you really don't understand anything completely, just as I don't. You need to stop refusing that your assumptions or facts could be discolored or, God forbid, even incorrect! God forbid that the young American could be right and the high and mighty, educated and logically superior Swede could ever be wrong.

I can be wrong, but you'll have a pretty hard time finding a case where I'm wrong in logic. If I'm wrong, it's because of bad premises. I'm not refusing that some assumptions I make, or facts I rely on could be incorrect, I keep inviting you to point them out and discuss them. You just hardly ever do.

Do you disagree that different nationalities have different forms of logic?

You'd definitely have to quantify that. Unless you have a very different interpretation of the word logic than me, logic is an absolute thing. There's no arguing against logic because logic is absolute. Logic is like math - it's correct.

[Hazard]

I am. And I definitely think there are Americans with more experience of politics than you.

There are. And I further know that there are millions of Americans better versed in logic, politics, and foreign affairs than you.

How old are you?

Age has very little to do with intelligence, widom, and experience. If you were a more social creature, you would know that.

Have you ever studied logic?

2 years thus far.

Noone knows anything outside logic.

You sound like a Vulcan out of Star Trek. Logic is not the end all be all of human thinking, and even logic is foulable.

A German wouldn't know more about a Cambodian than an American, but he'd know more about Poland, Switzerland and many places that are closer to him. What I think I know is based on proximity, news coverage, browsing American news sites and comparing them to local ones, seeing what news they cover, reading American news papers, etc.

Okay, so you're know arguing that location will dictate who knows more about what? Would a 17 year old Saudi boy know more about what is happening in Syria than a Professor of Middle Eastern Relations at Cambridge? Would a 22 year old computer technician in Spain know more about the Bosnian conflict than, say, a Professor of Bosnian Studies at Princeton? You know more than me about the conflict in Iraq because you are geographically closer than me? Is that really your "logic" because if it is, you're sunk.

There is only one logic

Wrong. Even the scholars Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates had differing logics. Have ever studied logic?

Mine is superior to yours - as far as I can tell, you just don't grasp the concept of logic.

You think your logic is superior to mine. Prove it. I don't grasp your twisted view of what logic is.

You're free to try to prove that God exists with logic, but even if your logic is correct, you'll most likely fail on some assumption you made.

In the logic of all of those who believe, the existence of God is proven. I can't prove it to you because of the failures in your assumptions. Oh yea, Adron you've made a big mistake in your logic and you can't even see it. You've read a book on logic and taken a few credit  hours of courses, but that doesn't mean you get it. Its not my fault you don't recognize your foulability. Its humerous you think that you're above all the rest of us. One day, you're going to be humbled by something you wont have some smart ass response to, and I hope that you realize your own stupidity.

I can be wrong, but you'll have a pretty hard time finding a case where I'm wrong in logic. If I'm wrong, it's because of bad premises. I'm not refusing that some assumptions I make, or facts I rely on could be incorrect, I keep inviting you to point them out and discuss them. You just hardly ever do.

Point out a time that you have accepted the foulability of your logic. Show me one time that you have changed your logic based on a fact I have corrected you on. You haven't because you dismiss my facts as "irrelevant" or some such.

You'd definitely have to quantify that. Unless you have a very different interpretation of the word logic than me, logic is an absolute thing. There's no arguing against logic because logic is absolute. Logic is like math - it's correct.

Hundreds of years ago it was concluded that the Earth was, logically, the center of the universe. Was that absolute? It was absolutely correct?

[dxoigmn]

Once again, you think you don't know. At your form of "logic" you might be "better" but it doesn't your logic correct. In your mind thats how things work. I can prove to you logically that God exists, but in your logic it is impossible based on your own interpretation of facts and opinions. Thats like trying to say that there is only one logic, and yours is superior to mine. To be honest, I think that you're completely arrogant in your reasoning, and believe me it is not a feeling only I have. You need to realize that your logic is completely foulable and that you really don't understand anything completely, just as I don't. You need to stop refusing that your assumptions or facts could be discolored or, God forbid, even incorrect! God forbid that the young American could be right and the high and mighty, educated and logically superior Swede could ever be wrong.

I think this right here pretty much sums up why we shouldn't even bother arguing with Hazard.  This is quite possibly the most asinine thing I have ever read for reasons Adron has already pointed out.  Personally, the only reason I ever argue with Hazard or his friends is to dispel common understood "facts" because it is this kind of ignorance that hurts progress.

[Hazard]

dxo, you didn't have to even talk before we knew who you would side with your brown nose. Unless you want to enter the debate, don't bring it here.

[Arta]

Logic is not subjective. Your comments show a lack of understanding of logic. To conclude that the earth was the center of the universe was logical, given the knowledge of the time. The only reason we know different now is that we know more, and thus, can reason more accurately.

Wisdom and experience are largely a function of age, but I agree not totally. However, making that statement with no qualification is not reasonable. The definition of experience that is relevant here is:

   1. An event or a series of events participated in or lived through.
   2. The totality of such events in the past of an individual or group.

More age or more 'concentrated events' == more experience. However, your arrogance and self-assuredness are not indicators of wisdom and experience, in my opinion. In fact, I think they indicate the exact opposite. You seem incapable of accepting 'shades of gray' rather than 'black and white'. You deal in absolutes. You say we are wrong, and you are right. You are inflexible. These are indicators of inexperience, and lack of wisdom. I am not much older than you (22), but even I can tell that your dogged perseverence is a manifestation of misplaced confidence, and displays fundamental naiveté.

Here you are, claiming that logic is subjective, 'British', and that different countries have different logic. These things are all completely absurd, but I doubt you will accept even that.

For the record, I have never claimed that my facts and assumptions are invariably correct. In fact, Adron and I have frequently challenged you to produce evidence that contradicts us, and you rarely do, if ever. Instead, you resort to these tirades about how we malign you incessently and never listen to what you say.

I'm given to wonder if you're even capable of conducting a reasoned, dispassionate, interesting, civil and logical conversation.

[Hazard]

So you both recognize that your logic is insufficent to explain life, as you clearly don't know even close to enough to make judgments. In your own statment that logically counter-terrorism doesn't work, you are required to realize that your conclusions aren't accurate because you are not privy to all of the information available.

[dxoigmn]

dxo, you didn't have to even talk before we knew who you would side with your brown nose. Unless you want to enter the debate, don't bring it here.

You figured me out   .  I am sucking up to Adron and Arta because they are in vL and I want to be in vL and they are so cool!!!  ...despite the fact that I have been offered and don't go on Battle.net nor talk to any of them except on this forum.  I entered the debate and feel quite content about my argument as you both conveniently ignored parts of my posts.

So you both recognize that your logic is insufficent to explain life, as you clearly don't know even close to enough to make judgments. In your own statment that logically counter-terrorism doesn't work, you are required to realize that your conclusions aren't accurate because you are not privy to all of the information available.

Yes, you got it!  Arta and Adron don't say their solution is the solution to end all, where you frequently do.  They propose a solution to a problem, recognize that it may have flaws and encourage people to find them.  You don't do this.  Instead you spew out some solution that has no supporting evidence and you go ever further to call any criticism of it wrong as if to claim your solution correct.  Generally you do this by sidestepping the criticism and resorting to ad hominem attacks which are unacceptable in any other forum of discussion - especially in the academic world from which Arta, Adron and I come from.

[Arta]

Of course. A logical argument is built using the available information. The discovery of new information may require an argument to change. Logic itself, however, is never insufficient. There may be insufficient information to draw a meaningful conclusion, but I don't think we've run into such a situation here.

On the subject of information to which we are not privy, you make a fair point. In a specific situation, lack of information may make a reasonable opinion impossible. In such a situation, one must rely on one's impression of those in charge - basically, on trust. What other criteria are there? With the exception of the space program & the war in Afghanistan, I cannot think of a single thing the current US administration has done that I have agreed with. In other words, I do not trust Bush. You clearly do. Thus, we will disagree, and we will do so in a manner that assures that no debate will be meaningful: one cannot empirically debate about a situation where the only predicate is trust in the person making the decisions. An impasse is inevitable.

That said, one certainly can reason about a set of specific situations, especially where one does posses information about the outcome of and leadup to those situations.

On the subject of counter-terrorism, I think you may have misconstrued my position.  If, given a set of people planning to attack imminently, I would of course not object to apprehending those people, which would necessarily require people to be armed and would probably result in violence and bloodshed. The specific, small, and precise application of force in situations where there is little or no alternative is a necessary reality of life.

What I object to is the constant, relatively indiscriminate application of force. The occupation of another country. The unfounded and frankly simplistic belief that violent subjugation of the cultures that generate terrorists will mitigate terrorism. The belief, in short, that the world is a set of problems with military solutions.

With respect to the problem of terrorism, much of the reasoning and information given to the public by the governments involved  - most notably, the US government - is utterly blatent FUD, and I wish people would stop being taken in by it.

[Banana fanna fo fanna]

dxoigmn, you remind me of Ward Churchill, the man who writes shit like:

As for those in the World Trade Center, well, really, let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire – the "mighty engine of profit" to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved – and they did so both willingly and knowingly.

...

If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it.

[Arta]

That kind of extremism doesn't remind me of anyone here, and I'd be pretty offended if that comment had been aimed at me.

[dxoigmn]

dxoigmn, you remind me of Ward Churchill, the man who writes shit like:

I consider this an insult and blatant mud slinging in an attempt to discredit my opinion based on sheer ignorance.  It's this kind of crap that is deserving of a ban and is counter-productive to intellectual debate.

But moving on.  You, Banana fanna fo fanna (aka $t0rm), purport to be a staunch advocate against the "liberal media."  Yet you yourself blindly follow what they have told you.  I am willing to wager you have never read any of Churchill's books or essays and yet you seem so confident in making comparisons to that of which you have no knowledge.  This is hypocritical of the utmost level and speaks directly to why many of us have trouble debating you and others in a manner that is sophisticated.

Just as a little history lesson, I do not like Churchill nor do I agree with most of what he says.  He is the epitome of everything I'm not.  Not to mention my grandmother and great grandmother were one of the few people who called into question is status within the academic world back in the early '90s.