PARENT GROUPS ASK MARYLAND TO STOP NEW SEX ED LESSONS

No, it is not logical, it ignores the evidence that President Bush Believed, as we all did, that Iraq had Weapons and was ready to use them on the U.S. and her allies. The entire congress believed that this was a clear and present danger.

Well... I'm sure President Bush thought that Iraq did have WMD's, so it is impossible for him to have lied. If you're going to use a pretext to invade a country (which the liberals say is what happened), then you're not going to use a pretext that will easily be falsified. He could have focused on the 'capability' to build WMDs if he wasn't sure of the WMDs themselves. But an opponent might argue the following: President Bush knew that there were no WMDs, but he used them as a pretext anyway, because he expected Iraq to become stable within a few months. Then again, every intelligence agency in the world thought that Saddam did have WMDs.

As for Iraq using them on us, I think that scenario would have been implausible. Saddam was not stupid, even though he had illusions of grandeur, he probably knew that using WMDs against the West would result in Iraq being nuked. Therefore, I doubt that he was planning to use WMDs against us. This is further supported by the fact that he did not use WMDs when we invaded Iraq in 2003, that would have been the perfect moment to use them, unless he wasn't stupid enough to do so.

It is illogical to expect that all your information will be correct. It is also illogical to reject the analysis based on all available data. Just as it is Illogical for people with more information to demand that decisions made in the past be evaluated according to data that did not exist at the time the decision was made.

Absolutely. Maybe my example was not good. But I think it's possible for a logical person to become frustrated by something that is logical.

Yes, that is one of the reasons discussions such as these are great, we can rid ourselves of illogical assumptions.

Well... in my experience, some people just assume too many things. You have to destroy assumption after assumption, and after four hours (I'm exaggerating), the debate ends and you still haven't addressed the substance of the matter.

Logic based on unfounded assumptions is not logic, but reasoned assumptions. Logic is based on facts and known probabilities, assumptions are often emotion based.

But we are not machines. All of us have unfounded assumptions and associations. We don't evaluate everything on the basis of facts, and known probabilities. Our cognitive biases are part of the human condition. And I disagree with your assertion that assumptions are often emotion-based, certainly no more than opinions are.

I am not saddened; I see it as an opportunity to educate. I only hope I can come up with explanations that are simple enough to be understood by that person.

If you're lucky enough to meet a person with an open mind, that's great. But the average Bush-hater is quit resilient. He will reject any attempt at 'education'. And because you can't prove most of your points with certainty, someone who is not open-minded is not prone to persuasion.

While in this world absolutes are few and far between, I have found that most people (99.999%) see themselves in a positive light. Most rational people will agree with this statement, if you take that as a postulate in your argument it then falls to the liberal to prove that President Bush is the exception, not the rule. Once you are on that footing, the rest is easy. (Set the division, choose the terrain and time, and win the argument)

The fact that someone sees himself in a positive light, does not necessarily make him a good person. And I certainly don't think that 99.999% of all people are good. Making that argument is a huge, huge risk, because it is so transparent.

When dealing with another person, directly questioning their emotions does not bear a high probability of meeting with acceptance, indeed it bears a high probability of engendering feelings of anger and repulsion, resistance to any further instruction is almost certain to be the result of such an observation. Is it your purpose to win, or convert?

It depends on the person. Debate isn't usually a good way of persuading people, because people are naturally defensive in a debate. It has to be veeeery subtle if you want to convince someone. (Or it might just be me, and the fact that I'm probably more confrontational in my approach than you are.)

If it is only your purpose to win, that is achieved easily by this means, if it is your purpose to convert (the more difficult and challenging task I might add) then this is a tactic you should eliminate from your arsenal of common use. In my experience if you present someone with a logical argument that is so solid that they cannot find a flaw, it bothers them, they mull it over, and eventually come to a conclusion that is compatible with the logic you gave them, thus they have changed their perspective and have come closer to your views.

Interesting. I might have done this before, but I'm not sure because I never thought about it consciously. (By the way, in my experience, people find a flaw even though there is no flaw, grin.)

My point precisely, informal Logic since it is inherently unpredictable is useless.

Right now, we are using informal logic to debate about informal logic. The debate you wrote about homosexuality utilized informal logic. So in practice, you don't find it uselss, otherwies, you would not be using it.

I am trying to build a good definition of “Informal logic” can you give me and example of something that can be proved by Informal Logic that cannot be proved with “Formal Logic”?

Nothing can be proven by informal logic. Informal logic comes with probability, not with certainty. Example: Bush is a good man, he liberated 40 million people.

You might think of informal logic as "reaching conclusion based on observation: generalizing to produce a universal claim or principle from observed instances" and of formal logic as "the forming of conclusions by applying the rules of logic to a premise".

Since Logic is a term that by definition must predate Informal Logic and there are many books and documents that have been written it is only logical to mean formal logic when you say Logic and only say “Informal Logic” when you mean this newer brand of Logic, don’t you agree?

Perhaps, but in that case, we shouldn't be using 'logic' and 'informal logic' interchangeably, which you were doing, I believe. But as far as the phenomena the words describe go, I believe informal logic is older than logic itself. Logic had to be invented (remember, All men are mortal), while informal logic is intuitive. So in fact, we should be using logic for 'informal logic'. (I just wanted to hit back at you, wink.)

“I have worked hard to become so [adept at putting people through a meat-grinder].” – Princess bride

Interesting. Can you teach me, or at least tell me how you learned it? After a gazillion posts, my inability to adequately explain the term 'informal logic' should make it very clear to you where my weakness in debates lays.

As a Mormon who grew up in the buckle of the bible belt, I had many “Preacher’s sons” come after me with some supposed “Faith killer” argument. I found it was easy to say “If we are going to discuss religion, we need to be clear what we are talking about, what do you accept as scripture?” this was such a reasonable request that we then went on to set ground rules even after the discussion had begun. These hapless attackers of my faith soon found themselves trying to explain where Jesus’ body went after he was resurrected if God currently has “no body, parts or passions”. Or why Deuteronomy can say “Do not add to this book” and it’s ok to add other books, but when revelation says it (even though it was not written last) it means no more revelation ever.

You really knew what you were doing, if you were able to put people who were coming after you on the defensive about their own faith. I don't have that problem, I'm agnostic. But I don't argue with religious people over their religion. Answers are rarely given, it is mostly a waste of time. I'm very curious to know why Christians, for example, insist on the inerrancy of the Bible, and regard it as the Word of God, while at the same time disregarding huge portions of it. I don't mean to offend you (Mormons believe in the Bible too, not), I'm just curious, but I never got an answer. Thus, I concluded that it was pointless and only served to damage my nerves.

. I never lost.

I can't remember ever losing a single debate in real life (though I probably conveniently 'forgot' about them anyway).

In my experience, the tactic is sound even if the battle is already joined (Sun Tzu reference here) it is always best to have a plan. Thus I will state that it is never to late to ask for consensus on the scope of the discussion, to deny that scope makes even the most aggressive attacker feel like they are taking unfair advantage and they will look bad to any onlooker.

Good idea.

(Again with a Sun Tzu plagiarism) The best warrior can win a battle without landing a blow. (Sorry, I read Sun Tzu in Chinese, so my quotations may not agree with what you can find on the web, but that is the meaning of what I was thinking about.)

CHINESE? You can read Chinese? And Sun Tzu is right, as always.

That is a good tactic, some of the time, kind of like a frontal assault, in conversations, I will often let my opponent over extend themselves on some point of attack and then ask a question that kills their entire line of argument. When you do this, your opponent often cannot regroup and present a coherent defense against the attacks that I will now launch into this new breach of logical defense. (Think of it as drawing an army into a feigned weakness only to cut off and destroy the invading force thus weakening the enemy’s position.) This tactic is useful when an “Frontal assault” type of argument is difficult (like when you are one and there are three opponents .)

It is always nice to let an opponent occupy a position that is weaker. However, usually, after he has failed to defend that position successfully, he will just retreat to a stronger position. He will lose some credibility with the audience, but he has not 'lost'.

I have yet to meet a scientist worth his salt who was “Objective” usually they are passionate about something the rest of us go “So?” about. (But I know my sample is inadequate for any statistical meaning)

Well... they have to be objective. Because if other scientists can't reproduce their experiments, they are regarded as worthless. Quite different from a regular person.

As the next scientist you meet to explain this “In a truly statistical universe, everything possible must happen” and have fun listening to him explode (grin).

I don't get it either.

My point was that you might want to change your focus from “Winning lots of arguments” to “winning lots of converts”. You see arguments are easy to win, you can win an argument by just being more stubborn, more ruthless, or more skilled than your opponent, but to win a convert, you must convince them you are right. The best part about winning converts is that they stay won, and then you have friends. Have you ever “Won” an argument only to meet that person later and have the same argument?

I don't think so. But that might be due to fears of getting the response: "Liek I told you last time, this and that." Anyway, it depends on the person. Sometimes, I don't give a damn about whether people are convinced (people whom I don't know). Other times, I do care. Of course, I'll debate them in a different manner. I don't want to use hatchet style arguments against people I want to convince.

I prefer to win converts, I can boast that I have converted 5 liberals to conservatism, I never counted those who have joined my church, I have also converted many to my way of thinking about logic. It is a very rewarding exercise. Think about it.

I will, but at the moment, I judge it on a case-by-case basis.

I thought you also believed that evolution is true, and that ID is a farce, though I might be mistaken about that. That would make two things.

Quite opposite. So you were mistaken, it turns out we only agree on one thing.

It seems absurd to me that anyone would act on attraction that is not present, or that behavior would in any way influence the attraction a person has.

doesnt seem absurd to me that past beahvior molds future attraction.

"Just `cause there's a cat in the oven doesn't make it a biscuit!"

Amazing how things have changed since I was in school.

Mark

Right... (your next amusing response might well be: you said 'right', so you agreed with the fact taht the case was closed)

My mistake, I figured that you knew that I was kidding. Obviously you would never agree with me on this.

Uhm, no.

Thanks, its been a nice waste of time. You discount credible evidence by refusing to read it. You have spent more time talking about the form of your arguments than you have creating any kind of substance to your argument. You've typed pages of yap yap about logical fallacies, debate strategies, and the like. Yet to this point you've pointed to one twins study to support your argument, yet scripter promptly proved the flaws in your post. You deflected and refocused on something else.

You are very effective at prolonging an argument for days while actually saying very little at all.

I'll be around.

>>Well... I'm sure President Bush thought that Iraq did have WMD's, so it is impossible for him to have lied.
Phrase that in a logical argument and you have the basis of the 99.999% argument.

1. 99.999% argument.
2. Bush honestly believed the evidence that all the other countries believed as well as the congress of the USA (if a liberal argues this, ask how Bush figured out something Hillary did not and they will cede your point.)
3. Lying takes intent, so you cannot lie by stating something you believe to be true.

Presto, they will agree that President Bush did not lie.

>>If you're going to use a pretext to invade a country (which the liberals say is what happened), then you're not going to use a pretext that will easily be falsified.
This is a particularly silly argument and I have waxed every liberal who has spouted it in my presence.

>>But an opponent might argue the following: President Bush knew that there were no
>>WMDs, but he used them as a pretext anyway, because he expected Iraq to become
>>stable within a few months. Then again, every intelligence agency in the world thought
>>that Saddam did have WMDs.

How about this for a statement “So, bush was smart enough to fool the world into going to war with Iraq, but not smart enough to have WMD’s ready to plant when he won? “ These liberals now have to explain the inconsistency. (Remember, their assumption is going to be that he is barely smart enough to tie his shoes and not get them tied together.)

>>As for Iraq using them on us, I think that scenario would have been implausible.
>>Saddam was not stupid, even though he had illusions of grandeur, he probably knew
>>that using WMDs against the West would result in Iraq being nuked. Therefore, I
>>doubt that he was planning to use WMDs against us. This is further supported by the
>>fact that he did not use WMDs when we invaded Iraq in 2003, that would have been
>>the perfect moment to use them, unless he wasn't stupid enough to do so.

Saddam was stupid, the Commander and chief of the USA was a Texan, not Bill Clinton. He did not believe we would attack him without months more negotiation, then he expected it to be a bill Clinton style “fire all the missiles you have in your inventory”, then go home style war.

>> I think it's possible for a logical person to become frustrated by something that is logical.

My Experience tells me otherwise, if even one person in the debate relentlessly brings the debate back to a logical footing, both sides tend to stay calm.

>>Well... in my experience, some people just assume too many things.
I know what you mean.

>>You have to destroy assumption after assumption, and after four hours (I'm
>>exaggerating), the debate ends and you still haven't addressed the substance of the
>>matter.
I have found that you can take assumptions out in groups if you can find the root of the assumption. As for addressing the substance of the matter, I will speak again in military terms; a good general only fights battles that advance his strategy, and ignores feints. For example, do you have a clear goal for our discussion? I do.

But we are not machines.
Actually we are machines, bio mechanical machines, which not only replicate, repair, but house intelligence far greater than our physical structure should be able to hold. It is one of life’s mysteries that both religion and science try to answer.

>>All of us have unfounded assumptions and associations. We don't evaluate everything
>>on the basis of facts, and known probabilities. Our cognitive biases are part of the
>>human condition.
I have an autistic son, looking back, I was mildly autistic myself. It gives me a clarity of thought that I seldom see in others, in that I have had to study emotion, in order to understand others (I am not saying I have no emotion, only that It has a limited access to my conscious mind) The more I understood emotion in others, the more I understood myself. By studying mankind you learn about your self, by studying God you learn about yourself as well. Thus when we understand the relationship between man and God we will understand why he is interested in us.

>>I disagree with your assertion that assumptions are often emotion-based, certainly no more than opinions are.
Opinions are also often emotion based. (Which is the better team… Who is the best basket ball player, what is your favorite book) often if you dig into these “Opinions” you will find that the person has an emotional connection (my dad used to take me to their games, I used to imagine I was…, My mom and I read… together.) There is nothing wrong with having opinions or assumptions, we should just know why.

The Chinese have a saying about knowledge; they break understanding into three categories:
1. Savage (a savage has no understanding of a tree, he will shelter under it, chop it and burn it for warmth but it is a mystical wonderful thing to him.
2. Scientist (A scientist will break a tree down into systems and parts, xylem, heartwood, root systems cytoplasts, etc) but the scientist will no longer enjoy the beauty of the tree because they are so caught up in the parts that make it up.
3. Learned Man: One, who encompasses the learning of both, while understanding the systems that make up a tree, can also enjoy its beauty and mystery.

I hope that I have become a learned man when it comes to people.

>>If you're lucky enough to meet a person with an open mind, that's great.
All minds are open if we can just find the right phrase to open the lock they have placed there; words are keys, just find the right ones.

>>But the average Bush-hater is quit resilient. He will reject any attempt at 'education'.
>>And because you can't prove most of your points with certainty, someone who is not
>>open-minded is not prone to persuasion.
I have found that if they will actually talk to me instead of throwing verbal bombs and running away (linguistic terrorists if you will) that I can find common ground from which to teach.

>>The fact that someone sees himself in a positive light, does not necessarily make him a good person.
He or she is a good person in his mind, and that is where you start, what is wrong with their perception of what is good? Why do they think they are a positive influence? What can they be taught to bring them one step closer to truth?

>>And I certainly don't think that 99.999% of all people are good.
Ah, but they think they are, and that is what matters.

>>Making that argument is a huge, huge risk, because it is so transparent.
No one will insist that most people are evil in their own sight (unless rarity of rarities you are talking with someone who is evil in their own sight) because people tend to project when talking about others in a generic sense. This projection will cause them to want everyone to see themselves as good because they see them selves as good. To say the reverse is to want the reverse, see?

>>Debate isn't usually a good way of persuading people, because people are naturally
>>defensive in a debate.
That is entirely the point of debate, and if you can draw out your opponent by making truly thought provoking statements, you can communicate with even the most recaltrant verbal hermit.

>>It has to be veeeery subtle if you want to convince someone. (Or it might just be me,
>>and the fact that I'm probably more confrontational in my approach than you are.)
Oh, I can be confrontational when I want to be.. My wife had this Feminazi co worker that was always harassing the men, they could not fight back because she would cry harassment if they defended themselves. I held my tongue at my wife’s request until we were at a department party. She saw me helping my wife with her coat, after holding the door for her. She went off on a tirade about what a male chauvinist pig I was. My wife turned to me and winked and said “Have fun dear” I turned to her and said “My wife likes me that way and I care far more about her opinion than I do about yours.” She tried to talk about the reasons it was not “Good” to be a chauvinist, but couldn’t get past that I didn’t care what she thought. I opined that “It must be really hard for you to know that God is a man and really doesn’t care that you do not like how he arranged the natural order here on earth.” She burst into tears and tried to play the victim, but much to her shock all the men from her department started clapping. She avoided me from then on (which was fine with me.) So you see, I can be blunt when it serves my purpose.

>>(By the way, in my experience, people find a flaw even though there is no flaw, grin.)
They may, but it will bother them, they will continue to mull it in the back of their mind, like an itch that you cannot scratch.

>>Right now, we are using informal logic to debate about informal logic.
Are we?

>>The debate you wrote about homosexuality utilized informal logic.
Actually, it used formal Logic, or real logic, the original logic? OK, Logic.

>>So in practice, you don't find it uselss, otherwies, you would not be using it.
I am using Logic, the old style.

>>Nothing can be proven by informal logic. Informal logic comes with probability, not
>>with certainty. Example: Bush is a good man, he liberated 40 million people.
Your informal logic cannot prove anything because it assumes relationships which are not established in fact as part of the rationale. For example in your statement, the “freeing of 40 million”, was that on purpose? Or did he just have a duel and win?

>>You might think of informal logic as "reaching conclusion based on observation:
>>generalizing to produce a universal claim or principle from observed instances" and of
>>formal logic as "the forming of conclusions by applying the rules of logic to a
>>premise".
Observation is part of Normal logic.
Normal logic can also have generalization, though you usually need to have several instances to have a generalization stick.
Premises are a part of all scientific processes, including logic, as are postulates and theories.

>>>>Since Logic is a term that by definition must predate Informal Logic and there are
>>>>many books and documents that have been written it is only logical to mean formal
>>>>logic when you say Logic and only say “Informal Logic” when you mean this
>>>>newer brand of Logic, don’t you agree?

>>Perhaps, but in that case, we shouldn't be using 'logic' and 'informal logic'
>>interchangeably, which you were doing, I believe.
Not having a clear definition has left me in quandary as to when I should be using which term.

But as far as the phenomena the words describe go, I believe informal logic is older than logic itself.
This cannot be, or we would refer to inductive reasoning as logic deductive logic would have the additional words to define it in terms of the existing version of Logic.

>>Logic had to be invented (remember, All men are mortal), while informal logic is
>>intuitive. So in fact, we should be using logic for 'informal logic'. (I just wanted to hit
>>back at you, wink.)
Logic is, kind of like wet is, you may have to invent a word for it, but it just is. (back at you with spin)

>>>>“I have worked hard to become so [adept at putting people through a meat-grinder].” – Princess bride

>>Interesting. Can you teach me, or at least tell me how you learned it?
I have always had a different way of looking at things. It gives me an edge in debates, I can have more than one perspective, I can have up to eight concurrent thoughts running in my head at once although to do so for more than a few hours gives me a headache. (Part of that autistic tendency I was talking about.) Normal brains kill off any neural nets that do not join the largest one (“There can be only one” – Highlander, for your brain) Autistic people never kill a brain cell voluntarily, so I have multiple neural nets in my brain.

>>After a gazillion posts, my inability to adequately explain the term 'informal logic'
>>should make it very clear to you where my weakness in debates lays.
I have found that following in Jesus’ footsteps is always a good way to go. He was a master teacher, he changed the perspectives of heaven only knows how many people, he taught with stories. Try a story that illustrates both types of Logic and highlites the differences.

At the risk of being too bold, I will attempt to tell such a story. In these storys it is best to begin with a topic most of your audience already knows about.

So let’s use Adam and Eve and Satan in the Garden of Eden (Even non Christians tend to know this story)

Satan trying to tempt Adam went to him and asked him to try the forbidden fruit. Adam said “no.” Then Adam told Satan he would not disobey God the Father. This is logic or direct reasoning Action and reaction, straight lines of thought.
Then Satan went to eve and asked her to eat of the fruit, he told her it was delicious, and good. Eve asked Satan who he was. Satan answered that he was her brother, and he wanted her to try the forbidden fruit.
Here we have Satan using Normal Sight logic, and Eve using curved, non linear logic which as I read Genesis kind of put Satan off his guard.

So Logic is Straight lines and “Informal Logic” is curved lines. But you can use both to come to the same conclusions.

>>You really knew what you were doing, if you were able to put people who were coming after you on the defensive about their own faith.
It’s really not that hard, honest.

I don't have that problem, I'm agnostic. But I don't argue with religious people over their religion. Answers are rarely given, it is mostly a waste of time.
I would agree, answer questions yes, defend when attacked, yes offer to teach yes, attack someone else = waste my time?

>>I'm very curious to know why Christians, for example, insist on the inerrancy of the
>>Bible, and regard it as the Word of God, while at the same time disregarding huge
>>portions of it. I don't mean to offend you (Mormons believe in the Bible too, not), I'm
>>just curious, but I never got an answer. Thus, I concluded that it was pointless and only
>>served to damage my nerves.

Mormon’s believe the Bible to be the word of God as long as it is translated correctly (there is a lot of stuff in there that is open to interpretation, this keeps us from being stuck with someone else’s interpretation.) Mormons actually adhere to and read the Bible more than most other religions, but they would disagree with that. I will state that when I attended other churches with my friends, their ministers were always impressed with my grasp of the Bible.

CHINESE? You can read Chinese? And Sun Tzu is right, as always.

I spent two years in Taiwan as a missionary, learned 5 dialects, graduated from a Buddhist monastery, memorized the basic 3K characters that give you the equivalent to a two year degree from a college and I specialized in computer symbols and added those to my 3K. It has been over 20years, and I can’t read much without a dictionary near by, but I like to keep my hand in (I am still conversational though) It surprises a lot of people for a round eyes like me to respond to questions about me (grin) you should see their faces!

>>It is always nice to let an opponent occupy a position that is weaker. However, usually,
>>after he has failed to defend that position successfully, he will just retreat to a stronger
>>position. He will lose some credibility with the audience, but he has not 'lost'.
Only if you let him; if you let him expend enough capital/intellect/reputation, and even start to plan a strategy around holding that ground, you destroy his strategy and his defense is weaker because of this lost time and confusion at losing ground he though he controlled.

>>>>Ask the next scientist you meet to explain this “In a truly statistical universe,
>>>>everything possible must happen” and have fun listening to him explode (grin).

>>I don't get it either.

Scientists act like the universe can be described with statistics; however statistics describe a universe where everything happens, just the probability is being calculated. Therefore we do not live in a truly statistical universe (because not everything happens here), statistics are then an improper tool to describe our universe, but it’s such a useful tool we use it anyway.

Logic is superior to illogic; Straight lines are easier to explain to another person than curved lines. By using arguments that are direct, yet thought provoking you can change someone’s mind who thought it had been made up. Questions are often more powerful than statements. Most of all, strategy in conversation keeping your goal in mind will give your conversation a sharp quality that is attractive to others, while being difficult to refute. Ronal Reagan exemplified this kind of tactic when giving a press conference he opened with “Before I refuse to answer your questions, I have a statement.” His humor, directness and charisma made those in the press chuckle, but they let him get away with this tactic. I miss having a president like him.

Anyway, God bless.

Quite opposite. So you were mistaken, it turns out we only agree on one thing.

I agree that we seem to agree on only one thing. Oh wait, that would make agreement on two things. So I'll just agree and disagree with your second statement.

Thanks, its been a nice waste of time. You discount credible evidence by refusing to read it. You have spent more time talking about the form of your arguments than you have creating any kind of substance to your argument. You've typed pages of yap yap about logical fallacies, debate strategies, and the like.

So, the study of argumentation is yap yap, eh? Your comment reminds me of an ancient eastern proverb: "A man is an enemy of what he doesn't understand."

Yet to this point you've pointed to one twins study to support your argument, yet scripter promptly proved the flaws in your post. You deflected and refocused on something else.

Not really. A claim was made about what I cited, but no evidence was provided. Thus, I deferred judgement until I have the time to examine the study in question.

I'll be around.

Truly, I'm shaking in my boots. The last few days I have not been able to sleep, because I feared that you might be in this thread. Apparantly, my suffering (that no human has ever had to endure) is going to be prolonged.

Phrase that in a logical argument and you have the basis of the 99.999% argument. 1. 99.999% argument. 2. Bush honestly believed the evidence that all the other countries believed as well as the congress of the USA (if a liberal argues this, ask how Bush figured out something Hillary did not and they will cede your point.) 3. Lying takes intent, so you cannot lie by stating something you believe to be true.

The argument that is made, is usually more sophisticated and not vulnerable to attacks on the basis of Hillary's position. They would claim that the White House and the CIA manipulated the evidence, and that Congress was deceived into supporting the war. Also, most hard-core lefties nowadays seem to dislike Hillary because of her initial support for staying the course. Point 3 is absolutely correct.

Of course, this wouldn't prove that foreign intelligence services were manipulated, and it can't. I still haven't had a liberal respond to that point, ever.

Presto, they will agree that President Bush did not lie.

Your opinion of human nature is way too optimistic, or you might have less insane liberals down there in the South.

How about this for a statement “So, bush was smart enough to fool the world into going to war with Iraq, but not smart enough to have WMD’s ready to plant when he won? “ These liberals now have to explain the inconsistency. (Remember, their assumption is going to be that he is barely smart enough to tie his shoes and not get them tied together.)

And on the assumption that Bush is the kind of person who would plant WMDs in order to prove that Iraq did have WMDs. Wasn't that what they were claiming before the war, in case any WMDs WOULD be found?

Anyway, a liberal might argue that it's impractical to plausibly plant WMDs. A liberal might argue that Bush did not fool the entire world into war, since most countries opposed the war. He might argue that Bush is just a puppet for the indisputably intelligent Cheney.

My point is not to say that what they might say is plausible. I don't think it is. But informal logic (any logic that can't establish its conclusion with certainty) rests on plausibility, and it does not work with mathematical precision, like formal logic does.

Saddam was stupid, the Commander and chief of the USA was a Texan, not Bill Clinton. He did not believe we would attack him without months more negotiation, then he expected it to be a bill Clinton style “fire all the missiles you have in your inventory”, then go home style war.

Great quote: "I'm not going to fire a $2 million missile to hit a empty tent and a camel in the ..."

Saddam was stupid, but he was not suicidal. That's why he didn't use WMDs on our troops (if he had them) after we invaded. He might have believed that he would be able to get away, but a nuclear strike would certainly kill him.

I have found that you can take assumptions out in groups if you can find the root of the assumption. As for addressing the substance of the matter, I will speak again in military terms; a good general only fights battles that advance his strategy, and ignores feints. For example, do you have a clear goal for our discussion? I do.

Unfortunately, it's difficult for me to have a clear goal. I tend to focus on the details while ignoring the big picture.

But we are not machines. Actually we are machines, bio mechanical machines, which not only replicate, repair, but house intelligence far greater than our physical structure should be able to hold. It is one of life’s mysteries that both religion and science try to answer.

Ah, but just how large or small is our physical structure?

I have an autistic son, looking back, I was mildly autistic myself.

You're kidding me?!! I'm slightly autistic (Asperger's). And I think that's why I'm unable to focus on the big picture.

It gives me a clarity of thought that I seldom see in others, in that I have had to study emotion, in order to understand others (I am not saying I have no emotion, only that It has a limited access to my conscious mind) The more I understood emotion in others, the more I understood myself. By studying mankind you learn about your self, by studying God you learn about yourself as well. Thus when we understand the relationship between man and God we will understand why he is interested in us.

Well... I guess he is interested in us because he created us, or the other way around. Other religions reflect the same thing. Remember Prometheus, who gave us fire and as a retaliation had his liver eaten out by an eagle every day? Why did he help Man? Because, some Greek sources say, he was the one who created us. I think the same applies to the Christian God. You aren't going to create humans if you are not interested in them, or in what they might do.

Opinions are also often emotion based. (Which is the better team… Who is the best basket ball player, what is your favorite book) often if you dig into these “Opinions” you will find that the person has an emotional connection (my dad used to take me to their games, I used to imagine I was…, My mom and I read… together.) There is nothing wrong with having opinions or assumptions, we should just know why.

'Your favorite book' is purely subjective, so it's no big surprise that it is not based on reason. But you're correct that emotions often influence our opinions, in that, opininos are no different from assumptions. Another example: President Bush - Iraq War. As more soldiers are killed, people will start getting negative feelings about President Bush, based purely on emotion. Purely subjective: "Was the war worth it? No. Who started the war? Bad man!"

The Chinese have a saying about knowledge; they break understanding into three categories: 1. Savage (a savage has no understanding of a tree, he will shelter under it, chop it and burn it for warmth but it is a mystical wonderful thing to him. 2. Scientist (A scientist will break a tree down into systems and parts, xylem, heartwood, root systems cytoplasts, etc) but the scientist will no longer enjoy the beauty of the tree because they are so caught up in the parts that make it up. 3. Learned Man: One, who encompasses the learning of both, while understanding the systems that make up a tree, can also enjoy its beauty and mystery. I hope that I have become a learned man when it comes to people.

So do I. The Chinese really do have some wisdom in them.

What's worse, not knowing something, or 'knowing' something that isn't true? I used to argue that an ignorant man and a learned man are often in agreement, while the somewhat-learned man disagrees. The ignorant man understands nothing, so he just accepts what . The somewhat-learned man understands some things, but thinks that he knows all, and therefore sometimes has foolish and counterintuitive opinions that are directly opposed to common sense. The learned man, on the other hand, knows what's relevant to the subject and comes to agree with the position of common sense. I used to have tons of examples, but I can't think of one right now, unfortunately.

All minds are open if we can just find the right phrase to open the lock they have placed there; words are keys, just find the right ones.

I assure you, some minds are closed. Imagine a holocaust denier. No matter how much evidence you give him, he will still come up with conspiracy theories to explain them away. Why? Because his underlying reason for denying the holocaust is not doubt about the holocaust, but his hatred of Jews.

He or she is a good person in his mind, and that is where you start, what is wrong with their perception of what is good? Why do they think they are a positive influence? What can they be taught to bring them one step closer to truth?

I really can't believe that you're arguing this. Your argument is not sound. We don't reason based on the point of view of our victim, we do that as an independent observer. Otherwise, you might actually argue that because 70% of people think that they're better drivers than average, they really are unless we can prove that it isn't so. In other words, the average man is a better driver than the average man.

Ah, but they think they are, and that is what matters.

No, because we're not trying to establish that person A thinks he's a good man, but whether he IS a good man. His self-image has absolutely nothing to do with reality, since most evil people think that they are good too (as evidenced by the 99.999% figure we both agree on).

No one will insist that most people are evil in their own sight (unless rarity of rarities you are talking with someone who is evil in their own sight) because people tend to project when talking about others in a generic sense. This projection will cause them to want everyone to see themselves as good because they see them selves as good. To say the reverse is to want the reverse, see?

Perhaps. But I don't see the relevance to the argument. Most people will agree that most people see themselves as good, but that's a poor argument to use for arguing that people are good unless the opposite can be shown to be true.

That is entirely the point of debate, and if you can draw out your opponent by making truly thought provoking statements, you can communicate with even the most recaltrant verbal hermit.

It depends on what kind of debate it is. Sometimes, it is a contest. I don't see presidential candidates convincing each other in a debate. Other times, it is used for persuasion, and you're right about thsoe caes.

Oh, I can be confrontational when I want to be.. My wife had this Feminazi co worker that was always harassing the men, they could not fight back because she would cry harassment if they defended themselves. I held my tongue at my wife’s request until we were at a department party. She saw me helping my wife with her coat, after holding the door for her. She went off on a tirade about what a male chauvinist pig I was. My wife turned to me and winked and said “Have fun dear” I turned to her and said “My wife likes me that way and I care far more about her opinion than I do about yours.” She tried to talk about the reasons it was not “Good” to be a chauvinist, but couldn’t get past that I didn’t care what she thought. I opined that “It must be really hard for you to know that God is a man and really doesn’t care that you do not like how he arranged the natural order here on earth.” She burst into tears and tried to play the victim, but much to her shock all the men from her department started clapping. She avoided me from then on (which was fine with me.) So you see, I can be blunt when it serves my purpose.

You did the right thing, women who harrass men are very annoying. Of course, you weren't trying to persuade her, you were trying to defeat her, because she was coming after you.

Actually, it used formal Logic, or real logic, the original logic? OK, Logic.

Did it establish your conclusion indisputably? It didn't. In fact, I have my doubts about killing for the sake of evolution. Therefore, it is necessarily informal logic. Formal logic is deductive, mathematical and works regardless of the context. All these criteria did not apply to what you said.

But there's nothing wrong with informal logic (you need to get rid of the idea that it is somehow worse than formal logic). If we allow only formal logic, a political debate is impossible.

I am using Logic, the old style.

You're using informal logic, no matter what you think you're using. Your posts have been 100% inductive, not deductive. Formal logic is something a computer program could resolve. All lawyers are politicians, all politicians are corrupt, are some lawyers corrupt? A computer would be able to say yes. However, Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, it cannot prove that they have been destroyed, does Iraq have WMDs? A computer could not understand this statement (because it's not mathematical, it's judgemental), only humans can. And the answer does not follow with certainty.

Your informal logic cannot prove anything because it assumes relationships which are not established in fact as part of the rationale. For example in your statement, the “freeing of 40 million”, was that on purpose? Or did he just have a duel and win?

Perhaps. You can use informal logic to argue any of those two points, one more plausibly than the other. But ask yourself: do the arguments you have used establish their conclusions with absolute certainty? No, they don't. That's because you are using informal logic.

Observation is part of Normal logic. Normal logic can also have generalization, though you usually need to have several instances to have a generalization stick.

Now you're introducing your own logical terms to the debate? What is 'normal logic'? Why not stick to the terms 'formal logic' (with absolute and indisputable certainty, adds no new information), 'informal logic' (using logic, but uncertain), and 'illogic' (contrary to logic).

This cannot be, or we would refer to inductive reasoning as logic deductive logic would have the additional words to define it in terms of the existing version of Logic.

The words are irrelevant to the question of which of the two came (not the words, but the forms themselves) first. There is no way we can know for sure, but I assume informal logic came first, because formal logic isn't all that useful in daily life (especially not for a cave-dweller).

Logic is, kind of like wet is, you may have to invent a word for it, but it just is. (back at you with spin)

Ah! That may be relevant to the natural world, but for us humans, the question is whether formal or informal logic was used first by humans. And the ancients did not agree over whether logic exists outside the human perception, so it's perfectly reasonable, from their perspective, to put formal logic on an equal footing with informal logic.

I have always had a different way of looking at things. It gives me an edge in debates, I can have more than one perspective, I can have up to eight concurrent thoughts running in my head at once although to do so for more than a few hours gives me a headache. (Part of that autistic tendency I was talking about.) Normal brains kill off any neural nets that do not join the largest one (“There can be only one” – Highlander, for your brain) Autistic people never kill a brain cell voluntarily, so I have multiple neural nets in my brain.

Hey, I got the autism, but not the eight concurrent thoughts. Any way I can sue God for this?

I spent two years in Taiwan as a missionary, learned 5 dialects, graduated from a Buddhist monastery, memorized the basic 3K characters that give you the equivalent to a two year degree from a college and I specialized in computer symbols and added those to my 3K. It has been over 20years, and I can’t read much without a dictionary near by, but I like to keep my hand in (I am still conversational though) It surprises a lot of people for a round eyes like me to respond to questions about me (grin) you should see their faces!

I never knew. Why did you graduate from a Buddhist monastery if you were there to convert people? Did you just think that it was interesting?

I have found that following in Jesus’ footsteps is always a good way to go. He was a master teacher, he changed the perspectives of heaven only knows how many people, he taught with stories. Try a story that illustrates both types of Logic and highlites the differences.

I can't tell a story, I'm not that creative.

So let’s use Adam and Eve and Satan in the Garden of Eden (Even non Christians tend to know this story) Satan trying to tempt Adam went to him and asked him to try the forbidden fruit. Adam said “no.” Then Adam told Satan he would not disobey God the Father. This is logic or direct reasoning Action and reaction, straight lines of thought. Then Satan went to eve and asked her to eat of the fruit, he told her it was delicious, and good. Eve asked Satan who he was. Satan answered that he was her brother, and he wanted her to try the forbidden fruit. Here we have Satan using Normal Sight logic, and Eve using curved, non linear logic which as I read Genesis kind of put Satan off his guard. So Logic is Straight lines and “Informal Logic” is curved lines. But you can use both to come to the same conclusions.

I disagree. I don't think a statement like 'I won't disobey my Father' is logic at all, it is just a statement of intent. Now, he *might* use logic to explain the statement, like: 'I won't disobey my Father, because I have Him to thank for everything.' That would be informal logic. Only with reasoned factual statements with which Satan would agree are TRUE, are 'formal logic' (not that Satan playing dumb would elevate informal logic to te status of formal logic). God created humans, I am a human, God created me (for Adam, this is something even Satan cannot dispute).

Only if you let him; if you let him expend enough capital/intellect/reputation, and even start to plan a strategy around holding that ground, you destroy his strategy and his defense is weaker because of this lost time and confusion at losing ground he though he controlled.

I have to learn how to finish people off. Oftentimes, I can't to anything about such a strategic retraet.

Scientists act like the universe can be described with statistics; however statistics describe a universe where everything happens, just the probability is being calculated. Therefore we do not live in a truly statistical universe (because not everything happens here), statistics are then an improper tool to describe our universe, but it’s such a useful tool we use it anyway.

If we're talkinga bout recurring events that are replicable, then statistics are quite proper. How big is the chance that the sun will come up in the morning? 100%. That tossing a coin will give me a head? 50%. But just asserting statistics is not proper. Someone might say, there is a 99% chance that Bush will be re-elected in 2008, despite the constitutional prohibition. Now that cannot be proven wrong. If Bush is not elected in 2008, he will argue that the 1% scenario played out.

I'm not sure whether I got it (in fact, quite sure that I didn't get it). You won't be surprised to know that when it comes to mathematics and physics IQ, I'm moving into the retarded zone.

Logic is superior to illogic; Straight lines are easier to explain to another person than curved lines. By using arguments that are direct, yet thought provoking you can change someone’s mind who thought it had been made up. Questions are often more powerful than statements. Most of all, strategy in conversation keeping your goal in mind will give your conversation a sharp quality that is attractive to others, while being difficult to refute. Ronal Reagan exemplified this kind of tactic when giving a press conference he opened with “Before I refuse to answer your questions, I have a statement.” His humor, directness and charisma made those in the press chuckle, but they let him get away with this tactic. I miss having a president like him.

Me too. Your fellow Mormon Romney might be someone like Reagan, he's quite articulate and eloquent. I'm not sure how you ended up with describing informal logic as 'curved lines'. Anything that does not conclusively prove its point beyond despute, would be a 'curved line'.

FYI to those I've pinged.

Not really. A claim was made about what I cited, but no evidence was provided.

You provided references to two studies but you've never taken the time to read either study. I have along with many more. Go ahead and read the study now that you're familiar with the snowball effect.

Not a single study supports your position that genes play a huge role. Not one. What's really sad are the only times such claims are made is when they are made by those who did not understand the study or are misrepresenting the study, many times to push an agenda.

Some studies, such as the one you referenced, demonstrate a blatant disregard for scientific principles. What's worse is this study got referenced somewhere, picked up by you and displayed as supporting evidence for something it doesn't at all support.

There are no studies to support your statement that genes play a huge role.

I find this comment of yours quite educational:

I'm weighing the time that it will cost me to provide support for what I said against the chances that the person has the slightest idea of what he's talking about (and thus might be able to contest what I said). ¹⁸¹

That tells me you play games and waste time. From what you've said about purposely irritating people you'll apparently say anything to detract from the real issue. Here at FreeRepublic we don't appreciate somebody wasting our time. You call it fun but we call it trolling and it will get you banned. In that same post you said you don't have an infinite amount of time and neither do we. Please don't waste our time. We only have so much of it and want to spend it wisely.

Just remember if a pro-abortion, pro-sodomy candidate is elected POTUS, what you are saying might be considered "hate speech" and if that's not scary enough, there are FRiberals on here now who want both parties to nominate pro-abortion, pro-sodomy candidates.

The homosexual agenda message: Tolerance for me but not for thee, so-called 'ex-gay'!

You provided references to two studies but you've never taken the time to read either study. I have along with many more. Go ahead and read the study now that you're familiar with the snowball effect.

Not a single study supports your position that genes play a huge role. Not one. What's really sad are the only times such claims are made is when they are made by those who did not understand the study or are misrepresenting the study, many times to push an agenda.

Every single professional interpretation of this study I've ever read by psychologists, supports the interpretation I stated. I tend to trust their judgement over that of someone on the Internet, since I see no credible evidence that they are trying to push an agenda. However, I'll look into the study itself when I can, to see whether what you said is correct.

There are no studies to support your statement that genes play a huge role.

It might have been someone else, but I believe you said that it is a combination of genes and envioronment. That's how I think it is. If genes don't play a role, then it can't possibly be a combination of genes and environment.

That tells me you play games and waste time.

Hardly. What I said was that I don't see a need to waste precious time on explaining something when the other person is familiar with the evidence or when the other person lacks the understanding to contest my point even if I don't state it as elaborately as I can. It's not a matter of playing games, it's a matter of the economics of debate.

From what you've said about purposely irritating people you'll apparently say anything to detract from the real issue.

Wrong. I don't say anything unless I believe it's true, whether it be positive or negative about the other person. If someone avoids answering a post by making personal attacks or unsubstantiated statements about my posts, I might question his motives by asking whether he is saying that to dodge this issue. Personal attacks should not go unanswered.

Here at FreeRepublic we don't appreciate somebody wasting our time. You call it fun but we call it trolling and it will get you banned. In that same post you said you don't have an infinite amount of time and neither do we. Please don't waste our time. We only have so much of it and want to spend it wisely.

It is debate that is quite amusing, not wasting people's time. There are few things I enjoy more. As for wasting your time, I believe you made the choice to re-enter this thread ('waste [my] time' in your own words) after a few days in which the only real debate was between me and DelphiUser.

If you believe this is wasting your time, then why did you respond? Why did you search my debate with DelphiUser for 'incriminating' evidence? Why did you ping your list? To waste their time? It doesn't make sense.

You found a reference to a study and from what you've said you're weighing your odds that I don't know what I'm talking about. Unfortunately for you I demonstrated you've done nothing but obfuscate, misdirect and thrown out many logical fallacies.

I very much encourage you and anybody to read the study you referenced. It doesn't support your position that genes play a huge role. Bailey and Pillard would be the first to tell you that so stop mirepresenting their study.

As I've previously said, you are demonstrating a profound ignorance on this subject. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. And I want everybody who follows this issue to see you for what you are: a time waster and game player.

Just remember if a pro-abortion, pro-sodomy candidate is elected POTUS, what you are saying might be considered "hate speech"

That's certainly a possibility. Anybody who speaks out should put everything they own in a trust.

This trash is in my back yard.

Last time they tried this it was shut down by a judge.

Prayers go out that it will happen again.

Every single professional interpretation of this study I've ever read by psychologists, supports the interpretation I stated. I tend to trust their judgement over that of someone on the Internet, since I see no credible evidence that they are trying to push an agenda.

Once again, stop and think about that rock. If they want to be taken seriously then Bailey and Pillard should not have been snowballing their study. For anybody using the snowball effect is demonstrating a blatant disregard for scientific principles. You said Kinsey did not use a valid sample so to follow your logic, neither did Bailey and Pillard. Out of ignorance you're pushing the Bailey and Pillard study as valid.

"It's probably genetics and environment."

That is the laziest, most half-baked retort I've ever read here.

Since you are so lazy, I googled "is there a gay gene" for you and the answer is NO. Here's the link, for your spare time.

http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html

You found a reference to a study and from what you've said you're weighing your odds that I don't know what I'm talking about.

No, I was addressing another case when talking about weighing the odds.

Unfortunately for you I demonstrated you've done nothing but obfuscate, misdirect and thrown out many logical fallacies.

You may believe whatever it is that you wish to believe, as an American citizen. Even if there has not been any such demonstration.

I very much encourage you and anybody to read the study you referenced. It doesn't support your position that genes play a huge role. Bailey and Pillard would be the first to tell you that so stop mirepresenting their study.

I don't think I'm making any representation of their study. I rely on the interpretation by psychologists when it comes to psychological studies. While we're at it, I tend to trust their judgement over yours when it comes to their subject matter, but of course, my own judgement is superior for myself, so you need not worry, I'll read it for myself.

And I want everybody who follows this issue to see you for what you are: a time waster and game player.

That's something I've already refuted. Anyway, why did you not stop wasting your time on me?

I'll see. As I have already stated, I'm reserving my own judgement on the matter until I've read the study myself.