TERRORISM

[Mamie]

better yet hate them both

[HollyElise]

Originally posted by TomSawyer

"You have me picturing two guys on death row. One of them has killed three people and the other four, so the one who's killed only three feels like a righteous saint. I think your argument is ridiculous, Tom." (HollyElise)

But that wasn't my argument. You have committed the fallacy of setting up the 'strawman.' This disappoints me, because I spent considerable time introducing you to Colin Wilson, whom I felt might answer your question.

From the point of view of Bin Laden, 9/11 WAS a declaration of war. It seems to me that Bush is justified in fighting evil. "You can't negotiate with terrorists." People should spend less time harping on Bush and more time remembering the lives lost in 9/11. Hate Bin Laden: not Bush.

Originally posted by TomSawyer

"You have me picturing two guys on death row. One of them has killed three people and the other four, so the one who's killed only three feels like a righteous saint. I think your argument is ridiculous, Tom." (HollyElise)

But that wasn't my argument. You have committed the fallacy of setting up the 'strawman.' This disappoints me, because I spent considerable time introducing you to Colin Wilson, whom I felt might answer your question.

From the point of view of Bin Laden, 9/11 WAS a declaration of war. It seems to me that Bush is justified in fighting evil. "You can't negotiate with terrorists." People should spend less time harping on Bush and more time remembering the lives lost in 9/11. Hate Bin Laden: not Bush.

Originally posted by TomSawyer

"You have me picturing two guys on death row. One of them has killed three people and the other four, so the one who's killed only three feels like a righteous saint. I think your argument is ridiculous, Tom." (HollyElise)

But that wasn't my argument. You have committed the fallacy of setting up the 'strawman.' This disappoints me, because I spent considerable time introducing you to Colin Wilson, whom I felt might answer your question.

From the point of view of Bin Laden, 9/11 WAS a declaration of war. It seems to me that Bush is justified in fighting evil. "You can't negotiate with terrorists." People should spend less time harping on Bush and more time remembering the lives lost in 9/11. Hate Bin Laden: not Bush.

It is not a 'strawman' but an analogy... surely you've heard the term before.

Fighting Bin Laden, yes. But Bush did not declare war on Bin Laden. He declared war on Afghanistan and then on Iraq, and tomorrow possibly on Iran. Brace yourself, here comes another analogy: The war in the middle east to end Bin Laden's terrorism is like using a wrecking ball on a house to get rid of a roach.

Someone i knew was in the trade towers that morning and my brother was flying American Airlines out of Boston the same hour of the hijacking of the plane out of Logan that morning too and we spent a lot of the day not knowing where he was, so you are waaaaaay off base with your assumption on what "people" remember.

As for the broader issue of evil, who gets to define evil? To many in the world, America's foreign policies are what is evil and some, even those sad to see 9/11, still commented that America had it coming for ages and shouldn't have been surprised. That doesn't justify the aggression, of course, for the same reasons i fail to see America killing innocent victims in response to "evil" to be justified. For another example on how perspective can skew what's defined as evil, to Hitler, the Jews and Gypsies were evil and he felt his aggressions were "justified."

And as for whatever laws or expectations you have in your mind for me or anyone else at this site, Tom... tough luck. You set yourself up to be disappointed in everyone, therefore you continually are. I don't think i've ever seen you reply to anyone's post in a positive manner. You seem to be continually setting controlling expectations and holding grudges for imagined slights. Your disappointment then, is entirely predictable.

I fail to see what Colin Wilson has to do with the topic in this string, but at any rate, I don't have to comply to any rule of logic you wish to impose on me, nor do i have to like or agree with Colin Wilson simply because you took the time to write all that out. I am a free person whether you like it or not, so you're just going to have to cope with my not being your puppet and kneeling in awe before the infallible "logic" that serves you so well and makes you such an admirably happy, well-liked person! (Note new vocabulary term: sarcasm)

And for the record, hate is a strong word for me but i detest them both and i think Bin Laden was or is just plain sick! Yet another false presumption from your "logic," dear.

[emballantine]

Yes, I too am neither Christian or Atheist.

Originally posted by TomSawyer

Also bear in mind that the Afrikaners are descended (mainly) from Dutch Calvinists. Weren't they persecuted by the Catholics? And didn't the Catholics also persecut the French Hugoenots in the 1680s? And don't Catholics continue to persecute Freemasons?

Did I hear you right? The freemasons are persecuted by the Catholics? I'm gonna make a broad statement here, and maybe get myself lynched, but the freemasons run the world. I've never heard of them being persecuted by the Catholics. And as previously stated. Many are Catholic.

[HollyElise]

Scotland.com is not a gang, Tom. There is no conspiracy against you or secret club (at least none that i'm aware of) and i do not email anyone from s.com that has even posted in any of the strings you habit and i'm not sure they would know who you are if i mentioned you.

What you are perceiving as ganging up on you is a combination of your paranoia and behavior on your part that sets up self-fulfilling prophesy. People can tolerate your paranoia for a while until you start lashing out at them, and then they either fight back for a while or just want you to go away or both. This is what you are perceiving as people "turning" on you. People just get tired of getting sucked into the conflicts continually created by your pathology. I think nearly everyone would rather NOT have conflict with you Tom, but you set it up to be extremely difficult for them (and me) to avoid, because you are almost continually aggressive, insulting, controlling, and paranoid.

You can of course argue back at me before thinking objectively about what i just said. That would be your usual M.O. ...OR... you can step back a moment and try to look at things freshly and test your theory... if you have the balls to...

so...

Are so many people really out to get you? Why? I mean seriously, why? Why bother? What is so special about you, Tom, that you would be singled out for abuse by moderators and the Scotland.com "gang" and the rest of your list of "persecutors"? What can they possibly stand to gain by it? What can I stand to gain by it? Because i assure you i'm not enjoying myself here and have considered more than once in the last months ignoring you entirely. Exchanges with you always seem to become very unpleasant.

Is Scotland.com really a gang? Is it that most people perceive Scotland.com as a gang or is it just you that perceive it that way? Do I even know Marti, SharpKid, Mamie, all the others you have had conflict with on this site... the list is far too long to make!!! That alone should give you a clue. ALso, if we are so abusive to you... why do you remain at Scotland.com? Is that a wise decision, or does it indicate someone who is attracted to conflict and abuse?

Is it that conflict follows you around wherever you go, whether at Scotland.com or in your 3-d world or other boards, past or present you never seem to be able to get away from people out to get you, turning on you and picking on you? Does the same development seem to happen again and again and again, "confirming" your theory that people are out to get you? Does it always seem people betray you? Is this how others experience their lives and relationships or is it that your life in particular has more argument and less friendship and trust in it?

Here is an important one: Do the people you have so much conflict with, do they have that much conflict in most of their relationships or just with you? Are YOU the center of conflict, Tom? Could you be unwittingly creating the conflict?

If you calculated the percentage of conflicts on this board that ANYONE has been in, how many of them involve you? List them. List lots of people here and what conflicts they have been in. I think you will find that nearly all conflicts repeatedly involve just a few individuals, and a very large percentage of them include you. (Only one other seems to me to match you in conflicts and they have been banned.)

Now here's the thing, Tom... you can dig in and go immediately to your snappy reply. But there is an old saying... "if you keep doing what you've been doing, you keep getting the same results." Do you really want to keep having the same conflicts, people "turning" on you, calling you names, etc.? Do you really want the same results? Well then, keep doing what you've been doing.

OR...

Try something new. I mean, really new.

[emballantine]

AND WHO DETERMINES THE RULES OF LOGIC?

What exactly is logic? If you are not judeo christian...then the rules of logic may very well not apply to you. In budhism the rules of logic would be based around ones own reality. And each person has their own reality. That is why you are able to bend and shape it.

And I would have to agree: Damn Bin Laden and George W. to hell. George W. is no better then the worst vermin that walk this earth. He is not fighting a holy war, he is not fighting a war against terror. He is simply carrying out his own vendetta to achieve his own political goals. Hmm....very much like Bin Laden.

And while we're at it....i mean come on now...Christianity and Islam are not very responsible for much of any of the development of the Western world. In fact Christianity is responsible for slowing and practically bringing to a halt the development of the Western World. It is the pre-christians of the Western Hemisphere who made all the great strides in human history. And yes early gnostics made some advances. But...gee whiz...what happened to that. Oh yeah the beginnings of the catholic church brought that to a quick end.

And, again, is the Western Hemisphere really all that great? The Eastern hemisphere seems to be doing fine with very little Christianity or Islam.

[HollyElise]

I think he is refering to formal logic, like Aristotilian logic, embalantine. It's similar to math.

It's stuff like, "if A = B and B = C then A = C." It can be applied to what people say too, sometimes. For example, "if all A's are B's then all B's may or may not be A's" might refer to an example like, "all apples are fruit but all fruit may not be apples." If you were to say "all apples are fruit therefore all fruit are apples" it would be illogical.

And there are certain known "fallacies" too... many written by Aristotle. These are commonly used arguments that sound persuasive but are not logical. Television commercials are riddled with them. For example an actor who plays the part of a doctor recommending asperin.

The problem is, usually people screw things up when they go to apply logic to situations they are in or topics they are emotional about or when some psychological quirk is involved. Our emotions and psychology frequently skew things and we think we are being logical when we are not. This is largely because if you are diagramming logic as an abstract problem, as above in the case of fruit, it is a small system with few variables. Life on the other hand has infinite variables and is very complex, and so are people. Logic applied life is only as good as you are complete in including all the relevant factors, which for many reasons, rarely happens.

[emballantine]

Yeah, I kinda knew he was probably referring to aristotle's rules of logic. Aristotle was a very smart man.

It still hold true that even Aristotle's rules of logic will only hold true if everyone agrees on the state of reality.

ie. All A's are B's. And all B's are C's. Therefore all A's are C's. But what constitutes an A? That's kinda what I was saying.

I guess the thing that amuses me is for all the development of human culture, we have no way of actually describinb reality (that is if it exists).

It's like the old color question. If what you have learned to call blue looks different from what I have learned to call blue, how would you ever know? Since our languages have no vice for describing anything that has not been previously agreed upon. In other words blue is just blue because we call it that. That doesn't mean we're seeing the same color.

In this sense, the rules of logic (even Aristotle's rules) begin to lose their definitiveness.

Anf of course, when you start dragging things like religion into a logical argument you are working with two different basises (how do your pluralizes the word basis) for reality.

Your local philosophical pagan