Originally Posted By Beaumandy I am so sick of the whole misled thing. The evidence is piling in showing Saddam's ties to terrorism, his pursuit of WMD's and the fact that the world is a much better place with a free Iraq. Everyday these documents are proving that Saddam was not the misunderstood innocent guy the left would have us think he is. They also show that containing him was a joke. The libs have so much invested in Iraq being a failure it would not matter if we found a nuclear bomb in one of Saddams palaces, they still would say Saddam should still be in power and Bush, the most honest guy in Washington will still be called a.... misleader... by the terrorist appeasing left. America needs to be reminded of this everyay until November because it's totally true.
Originally Posted By JeffG >> "I am so sick of the whole misled thing." << Most of us are. That is why we would all like to get to the bottom of whether or not it was intentional and, if so, replace the people responsible as soon as possible. -Jeff
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <That is why we would all like to get to the bottom of whether or not it was intentional and, if so, replace the people responsible as soon as possible.> You think we should replace almost every intelligence agent in the world?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>The public is perfectly capable of believing that Bush misled us on Iraq, AND that we shouldn't leave now, for whatever reason they believe that (for instance, because it could make a bad situation worse.) The two things are not mutually exclusive, and to contend that they are is not logical.<< <By definition, they are two separate things. They are mutally exclusive. Whatever reason we gotten into Iraq, what we do now is RELEVANT. You haven't really said how they are NOT mutually exclusive. You gave no reason for the dichotomy (I know the meaning of the word).> Really? Because you don't seem to understand the meaning of "mutually exclusive." I'll make it as simple as I can. If does not make sense for one to believe in point A and point B, if the two points are mutually exclusive; that is, if they are inherently at odds with each other or contradict each other. It makes no sense to believe that California is the most populous state in the union while simultaneously believing that Texas is the most populous state in the union. Both things can't be true. They are mutually exclusive. However, it is perfectly possible to believe that California is the most populous state in the union while simultaneously believing that Nevada's population is increasing at a faster RATE. These are related points, but not the same thing. Both things can be true, therefore they are not mutually exclusive. Just because things are separate does not mean, as you said, that they are mutually exclusive; this is a misunderstanding of what the phrase means. In the case of our discussion, it's perfectly possible for a person to believe that we were misled into Iraq, AND to believe that now that we're there we shouldn't pull out right now. Those two things are not mutually exclusive. And, in fact, that's what a majority of the American public believes. <The debate over entering the war is past. Why? The liberals have dismissed the Iraq documents. If they are not willing to look into them, what value is the debate?> First of all, you are not clear what you mean by "the Iraq documents." And as this thread - and thousands of websites, newspapers, radio shows, etc. show - the debate over entering the war is far from over. <<That doesn't mean we don't still feel misled, or feel that those who made bad decisions shouldn't be accountable for them. Do you see?>> <You can "feel" anything you want. If you want to feel misled, it is your choice.> <I believe the misled allegation is not based on fact. It is a wild conspiracy theory of the Michael Moore type.> For the record, I've said many times that I'm not sure if Bush and co. intentionally misled us. On 9/11 ties I'm pretty close to saying yes, and it has nothing to do with "feel" and everything to do with facts: i.e. the administration's own statements at the time vs. what they must have known about Saddam's non-involvement.
Originally Posted By woody >>In the case of our discussion, it's perfectly possible for a person to believe that we were misled into Iraq, AND to believe that now that we're there we shouldn't pull out right now. Those two things are not mutually exclusive. And, in fact, that's what a majority of the American public believes.<< You are fully capable of believe in each reason, but that does not mean they are related. In fact, it points to their mutual exclusivity. What is the debate? Justification for the Iraq War Subset #1: Reason to go to war; Objects: Misled or intelligence about Saddam's plans. Subset #2: Reason to stay in the war; Objects: Progress on the ground, # of casualties. None of the objects of either subset (#1 or #2) can go into the other subset. The objects of each subset are mutually exclusive. I think you gotten it wrong with your example: "It makes no sense to believe that California is the most populous state in the union while simultaneously believing that Texas is the most populous state in the union." The most populous state is not a subset with objects. It is a conclusion (not based on fact as well). State Population Subset #1: California population; Objects: #persons, rate of increase. Subset #2: Nevada population; Objects: #persons, rate of increase. DEFINITION OF MUTUAL EXCLUSIVE <a href="http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9058597?query=mutually" target="_blank">http://www.britannica.com/eb/a rticle-9058597?query=mutually</a>%20exclusive&ct= "in mathematics and logic, division of a set of objects into a family of subsets that are mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive; that is, no element of the original set is present in more than one of the subsets, and all the subsets together contain all the members of the original set." You're clearly misinformed about the defintion. Not sure if it has anything to do with liberal education.
Originally Posted By woody >>And as this thread - and thousands of websites, newspapers, radio shows, etc. show - the debate over entering the war is far from over.<< At least the polling haven't stopped, but the debate is lagging due to lack of new information, or the ignoring of the Iraq documents. I am clear about the implications of the Iraq documents. Not sure what you're saying.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>In the case of our discussion, it's perfectly possible for a person to believe that we were misled into Iraq, AND to believe that now that we're there we shouldn't pull out right now. Those two things are not mutually exclusive. And, in fact, that's what a majority of the American public believes.<< <You are fully capable of believe in each reason, but that does not mean they are related. In fact, it points to their mutual exclusivity.> Congratulations. You have just demonstrated you do not understand the meaning of the phrase. <What is the debate? Justification for the Iraq War Subset #1: Reason to go to war; Objects: Misled or intelligence about Saddam's plans. Subset #2: Reason to stay in the war; Objects: Progress on the ground, # of casualties.> None of the objects of either subset (#1 or #2) can go into the other subset. The objects of each subset are mutually exclusive.> First of all, you are starting with a faulty premise. There is much more to either getting in or staying in the war than those, obviously. You are also confusing mathematics with rhetoric. It's kind of telling that you had to look up the definition to begin with. <I think you gotten it wrong with your example: "It makes no sense to believe that California is the most populous state in the union while simultaneously believing that Texas is the most populous state in the union." The most populous state is not a subset with objects. It is a conclusion (not based on fact as well).> It is not a conclusion not based on facts. It IS a fact. <State Population Subset #1: California population; Objects: #persons, rate of increase. Subset #2: Nevada population; Objects: #persons, rate of increase. DEFINITION OF MUTUAL EXCLUSIVE <a href="http://www.britannica.com/eb/a" target="_blank">http://www.britannica.com/eb/a</a> rticle-9058597?query=mutually%20exclusive&ct= "in mathematics and logic, division of a set of objects into a family of subsets that are mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive; that is, no element of the original set is present in more than one of the subsets, and all the subsets together contain all the members of the original set."> Once again, you are confusing math with rhetoric. I tried to make it as simple as I could and you still found a way to muddle it. <You're clearly misinformed about the defintion. Not sure if it has anything to do with liberal education.> At some point, all one can do is laugh. It's like you're William Hung telling someone he can't sing. >>And as this thread - and thousands of websites, newspapers, radio shows, etc. show - the debate over entering the war is far from over.<< <At least the polling haven't stopped, but the debate is lagging due to lack of new information, or the ignoring of the Iraq documents. I am clear about the implications of the Iraq documents. Not sure what you're saying.> I'm saying you weren't clear on WHICH Iraqi documents you're referring to. "Iraqi documents" is awfully broad.
Originally Posted By woody Dabob: How would math be different than rhetoric? The definition is for your benefit. Besides, you ignore the definition which clearly says "in mathematics and logic"... LOGIC. It is true that there is more, but our argument is very clear about the differences between getting into the Iraq War and staying in the Iraq War. You've muddled the discussion to no one's benefit. Are you missing the LOGIC? Are you an adjunct teaching me to learn about logic?
Originally Posted By cape cod joe I swear I'm going to use my contacts here and have this published! You are two are unreal! Even though you're both not mutually exclusive or is that you both ARE mutually exclusive? Or is that only in math? If you two live in the same geographical location would that alter the exclusivity of the aforementioned debate? This is better than Hardball that I'm listening to in the other room!
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Dabob: How would math be different than rhetoric? The definition is for your benefit. Besides, you ignore the definition which clearly says "in mathematics and logic"... LOGIC.> This is quite simple: One can believe that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq. One can simultaneously believe that we should not pull out right now. The two ideas do not inherently contradict one another; therefore, by definition they are not mutually exclusive. <It is true that there is more, but our argument is very clear about the differences between getting into the Iraq War and staying in the Iraq War. You've muddled the discussion to no one's benefit.> I'm trying to make it clear, but I really don't think you get it. I could cut and paste Einstein's Specific Theory of Relativity, but that doesn't mean I'd understand it. Based on what you've said, I really don't think you understand what you've cut and pasted. <Are you missing the LOGIC? Are you an adjunct teaching me to learn about logic?> I'm trying.
Originally Posted By woody Your definition on mutually exclusive relies on the word "believe" in both reasons. Surely, you're capable of believing both reasons, but the reasons themselves are mutually exclusive. "Believe" should not be used to describe mutual exclusivity. >>One can believe that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq. >>One can simultaneously believe that we should not pull out right now. With these two REASONS, it means they are mutually exclusive. That's according to the defintion. Again, "Believe" should not be used to describe mutual exclusivity. You can believe in each reason with facts to support each reason, but the reasons fit into a box of their own. There is no mixing of the two reasons. >>The two ideas do not inherently contradict one another; therefore, by definition they are not mutually exclusive.<< No, that is not the definition. Mutually exclusive does not mean the two different reasons contradict one another. It means you can consider one reason and it does not interfere with the other reason. You can believe in both for different reasons. Belief does not describe mutually exclusivity. You don't understand the definition of mutually exclusive. That's pretty amazing. You actually gave the opposite definition of mutually exclusive. Let me fix it for you. "The two ideas do not inherently contradict or relate to one another; therefore, by definition they are mutually exclusive."
Originally Posted By Capstan Great Britain was thrown out of every place on Earth it ever went and ended up bankrupt. Why do Americans, who founded a nation to stop that sort of bullying, persist in following such a stupid example? Does the U.S. really think it can rule the world? Napoleon couldn't. Niether could Hitler nor Great Britain. What this nation has done is homicidal, genocidal and suicidal. So, figure it out....
Originally Posted By woody Dabob2: Okay, you're right on the definition according to how you use it. It is true that there are different ways of using it, but for these purposes, I was wrong about it.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Great Britain was thrown out of every place on Earth it ever went and ended up bankrupt. Why do Americans, who founded a nation to stop that sort of bullying, persist in following such a stupid example? Does the U.S. really think it can rule the world? Napoleon couldn't. Niether could Hitler nor Great Britain. What this nation has done is homicidal, genocidal and suicidal. So, figure it out....> Even if it were true that the US wants to rule the world, which we don't, what does your post have to do with the topic?
Originally Posted By Beaumandy If we wanted to rule the world we would keep the countries we defeat in war or liberate. No nation has ever done more good and been as mighty as the USA. Then we would roll into Canada and Mexico and take their oil if we were the evil nation the left says we are. But nice try Capstan. How old are you and who brainwashed you?
