Philosophy Now Forum

an explanation for the thickies

iran has been about to get the bomb any time now for longer than i have been alive

i think its safe to assume by now that this is a load of horseshit

It doesn't have a Shah any more, only 'sharia' law.

Iran has never been a threat to America or it's allies..The international Jewry & AIPAC is seeking to drag America into yet another war in the middle-east.

I see your point. The claim has been going on since the Shah's time.
What a bizarre species we are. We invent weapons to annihilate each other (and ourselves) and then say that only the 'goodies' can have them, not the 'baddies'.
Johngal, why the hell would the US go to war just because some other country supposedly wants it to? You have no evidence to make that assertion. The idea is preposterous. The US does what it wants to do, and the President can do pretty much as he pleases.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:why the hell would the US go to war just because some other country supposedly wants it to? You have no evidence to make that assertion. The idea is preposterous. The US does what it wants to do, and the President can do pretty much as he pleases.

evidence my dear, is everywhere if you look close enough. it's no secret that all major financial institutions in America & Europe are founded and operated by Jews. the Jewish lobby in America exerts too much influence on american politics & foreign policy issues and has been a decisive factor in US support for Israel.

johngalthasspoken wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:why the hell would the US go to war just because some other country supposedly wants it to? You have no evidence to make that assertion. The idea is preposterous. The US does what it wants to do, and the President can do pretty much as he pleases.

evidence my dear, is everywhere if you look close enough. it's no secret that all major financial institutions in America & Europe are founded and operated by Jews. the Jewish lobby in America exerts too much influence on american politics & foreign policy issues and has been a decisive factor in US support for Israel.

Right, lots of evidence if you are looking on conspiracytard websites. That doesn't count.

Kayla wrote:an explanation for the thickies

iran has been about to get the bomb any time now for longer than i have been alive

i think its safe to assume by now that this is a load of horseshit

Your argument is irrational. Even if we were to assume for the sake of argument that mistakes were made about Iran's nulcear capabilities in the past, that would not mean current assessments are wrong.

SecularCauses wrote:Your argument is irrational.

in the same way that all induction is irrational

i take it you consider the scientific method to be irrational

Even if we were to assume for the sake of argument that mistakes were made about Iran's nulcear capabilities in the past,

it is trivially obvious that mistakes were made given that iran has no nuclear weapons

that would not mean current assessments are wrong.

just because things have always fallen down does not mean that they are not going to start falling up tomorrow

Kayla wrote:

SecularCauses wrote:Your argument is irrational.

in the same way that all induction is irrational

i take it you consider the scientific method to be irrational

Even if we were to assume for the sake of argument that mistakes were made about Iran's nulcear capabilities in the past,

it is trivially obvious that mistakes were made given that iran has no nuclear weapons

that would not mean current assessments are wrong.

just because things have always fallen down does not mean that they are not going to start falling up tomorrow

You sure have not learned how to think rationally. I stated that your claim was irrational, and explained exactly what was wrong with your argument. There is a formal name for it called the fallacy of the antecedent. Just because someone was wrong in the past does not mean they are wrong now. The issue on whether Iran is close to having a nuke depends on current facts, not whether someone was or was not right in the distant past. Rather than addressing this point, you go off on an irrational tangent about inductive reasoning and the scientific method -- issues I never mentioned. There is a name for this logical foul as well, it is called raising a strawman argument. Maybe when you learn how to string two thoughts together logically you can learn how to make a coherent argument. Until then, your arguments are not very entertaining for those of us who do understand the rules of rational argument.

SecularCauses wrote:You sure have not learned how to think rationally. I stated that your claim was irrational, and explained exactly what was wrong with your argument. There is a formal name for it called the fallacy of the antecedent. Just because someone was wrong in the past does not mean they are wrong now. The issue on whether Iran is close to having a nuke depends on current facts, not whether someone was or was not right in the distant past. Rather than addressing this point, you go off on an irrational tangent about inductive reasoning and the scientific method -- issues I never mentioned. There is a name for this logical foul as well, it is called raising a strawman argument. Maybe when you learn how to string two thoughts together logically you can learn how to make a coherent argument. Until then, your arguments are not very entertaining for those of us who do understand the rules of rational argument.

i have come across this line of argument before

i live in an area where the view that the apocalypse is almost upon us and obama is the antichrist is by no means fringe

and if you point out that previous predictions of apocalypse and identifications of the antichrist have a long history of having been wrong they will respond with your argument

they will say that the previous failures do not matter, what matters is considering whether or not the bible applies to current circumstances

The US is only interested in keeping alive the concept of an enemy.
It has nothing to do with truth.
Ahmadinejad has never stated an aim to destroy Israel.
He has no control over the nuclear industry in Iran.
There have been daily weapons/ nuclear inspectors in Iran since 2003.

The entire rhetoric and propaganda against Iran is false.

Having an enemy gives the excuse to spend lots of cash on CIA, FBI, Homeland Security, and Armed Forces.
Where is the 'intelligence', and the news stories coming from? From people with an interest in beefing up the security fear.

In Nazi Germany they invented the International Jewish Conspiracy. This enabled them to spend resources building-up the Gestapo and Back-Shirts.

In the US we now have what Eisenhower warned about - The Military/ Industrial Complex. But now we have the added feature of counter-terrorism.
Politicians support the fear on 3 levels. One is that a population in fear is more compliant and easy to control. The second element is that most politicians are investors in military business. The third is the association of the political world with individuals such as military lobbyists and as well has having the support of the military minded. This give them kudos, makes them sound and act tuff. Which the moron voter responds to positively.

Kayla wrote:

SecularCauses wrote:You sure have not learned how to think rationally. I stated that your claim was irrational, and explained exactly what was wrong with your argument. There is a formal name for it called the fallacy of the antecedent. Just because someone was wrong in the past does not mean they are wrong now. The issue on whether Iran is close to having a nuke depends on current facts, not whether someone was or was not right in the distant past. Rather than addressing this point, you go off on an irrational tangent about inductive reasoning and the scientific method -- issues I never mentioned. There is a name for this logical foul as well, it is called raising a strawman argument. Maybe when you learn how to string two thoughts together logically you can learn how to make a coherent argument. Until then, your arguments are not very entertaining for those of us who do understand the rules of rational argument.

i have come across this line of argument before

i live in an area where the view that the apocalypse is almost upon us and obama is the antichrist is by no means fringe

and if you point out that previous predictions of apocalypse and identifications of the antichrist have a long history of having been wrong they will respond with your argument

they will say that the previous failures do not matter, what matters is considering whether or not the bible applies to current circumstances

Switching the subject matter yet again? Is that what they teach you kids these days? After you make an irrational argument and it is pointed out to you, instead of learning from your mistake, just spout off with some other idiocy and hope nobody notices that you have not a single rational thought in your head? It's not working with me. Perhaps with children and the uneducated, but it does not impress anyone with an education.

So, now you are saying because people who raise irrational arguments repeatedly may also rely on the fallacy of the antecedent, that somehow it makes your reasoning sound? Haven't you ever heard that two wrongs do not make a right? You cannot excuse your irrational argument by referring to others who also make irrational arguments. A rational argument depends on reason and evidence. That was my point from the beginning. A point that has gone completely over your head.

chaz wyman wrote:The US is only interested in keeping alive the concept of an enemy.
It has nothing to do with truth.
Ahmadinejad has never stated an aim to destroy Israel.
He has no control over the nuclear industry in Iran.
There have been daily weapons/ nuclear inspectors in Iran since 2003.

The entire rhetoric and propaganda against Iran is false.

Having an enemy gives the excuse to spend lots of cash on CIA, FBI, Homeland Security, and Armed Forces.
Where is the 'intelligence', and the news stories coming from? From people with an interest in beefing up the security fear.

In Nazi Germany they invented the International Jewish Conspiracy. This enabled them to spend resources building-up the Gestapo and Back-Shirts.

In the US we now have what Eisenhower warned about - The Military/ Industrial Complex. But now we have the added feature of counter-terrorism.
Politicians support the fear on 3 levels. One is that a population in fear is more compliant and easy to control. The second element is that most politicians are investors in military business. The third is the association of the political world with individuals such as military lobbyists and as well has having the support of the military minded. This give them kudos, makes them sound and act tuff. Which the moron voter responds to positively.

Wow. It's truly amazing that you have the nerve to consider yourself as worthy of teaching anyone. The United States consists of more than 300 million people with widely divergent opinions. Your statement is irrational unless you have proof that the US believes in such nonsense. You are a bigot, a minor-league intellectul.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:It doesn't have a Shah any more, only 'sharia' law.

The Shah was put there by Western Powers. Sharia was there by popular support - a thing Americans hold dear!
The trouble with democracy is when something gets chose that you don't like.
The USA has been suppressing democracy all over the world since the end of WW2.