Forum for discussing local and world politics and issues. All views are welcomed. Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics.
All standard guidelines apply to this board, No Flaming, No Taunting, No Foul Language,No sexual innuendos,etc..
As politics can be a volatile subject, please consider how you would feel if your comment were directed toward yourself.
Any post deemed to be in violation of guidelines will be deleted or edited without warning or notification. Any continued misbehavior will result in a ban or hidden status, so please play nice!!!
*"Moderators are here for a reason. If a moderator (or Global Moderator or Fencer) requests that a discussion on a certain subject to cease - for whatever reason - please respect these wishes. Failure to do so may result in being hidden, or banned."
Listo de diskutaj forumoj
Vi ne rajtas afiŝi mesaĝojn en ĉi tiu forumo. La minimuma necesa nivelo de la membreco por afiŝi mesaĝojn en ĉi tiu forumo estas Brain-Peono.
Temo: Re: "suspend logical thought in favor of the heart"
Czuch: Logic is fundamental, we both agree. An argument can be strictly valid, yet unsound. (I'd recommend you take a course in logic, or get a used textbook & study it, if you haven't.) An unsound argument either lacks validity, or it is valid as it goes, but is based on a false premise.
Take, for example, the U.S. invasion of Iraq. It was logical. The argument was that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and that he had a hand in the 9/11 attacks.
Yet the argument was unsound, because the premises were false. He did NOT have weapons of mass destruction, and he was NOT involved in 9/11.
The real evil is that we knew this going in. The premises were knowingly falsified. So, to be logical, the sound argument is that Bush administration exceeded Constitutional limits & defied International law, directly causing the deaths of Americans & Iraqis.
Temo: Re: "suspend logical thought in favor of the heart"
The Usurper: Take, for example, the U.S. invasion of Iraq. It was logical. The argument was that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and that he had a hand in the 9/11 attacks.
Well, here we have an example of your premise being false.... First, saddam did have WMD, he used then against his own people, and he never gave any proof that he stopped making them or had even destroyed any of them, and there was never anything said about him being involved in 9/11. check your facts...
(kaŝi) Vi povas uzi iom el la pli simplaj HTML-markoj en viaj mesaĝoj aŭ, se vi estas paganta mambro, vi povas uzi ankaŭ la riĉtekstan redaktilon. (pauloaguia) (Montri ĉiujn konsilojn)