Muzzies, Godwin's, and Liberal Media BiasFollow

Or, OMG, he wouldn't have had the umbrella if some guy hadn't opened his store one day seven years earlier! Sure, you would have bought an umbrella elsewhere but no one can deny that someone got poked in the eye because that store was once opened!!! In fact, when I get poked in the eye, I yell out "Damn you, John Wilcox for opening your store in 1998 and allowing this man to buy an umbrella! Damn you to hell for being the reason for my agony!"Sure. If the class was being taught by a monkey

Somebody doesn't understand the distinction between proximate and ultimate cause.

I'm trying to be shocked.... failing.

That wasn't until Logic 102.

Funny that Samira brings up the whole "proximate/ultimate cause" issue. I wasn't going to go there, but it's relevant.

The issue is what change would have changed the outcome. You're all trying to look at it the other way (ie: what possible other causes would have resulted in the same effect). In your store example, it's reasonable to assume that had John Wilcox not opened his store, said umbrella would have been purchased somewhere else instead. Thus, we can't say that the store opening is a "cause" of the resulting effect.

However, we *can* conclude that had it not rained, said individual would not have brought his umbrella to work, and therefore not poked anyone in the eye.

See how that works?

There is no reasonable argument to say that had Iraq not been doing what it was doing, and the UN (and US) responded with sanctions and such that those US soldiers would have been in Saudi Arabia. None at all. They weren't there prior to Iraq invading Kuwait. They were moved in specifically to protect SA from potential Iraqi invasion. They were kept there to provide ongoing protecion (at Saudi government request) and to help enforce the UN sanctions on Iraq.


It's completely reasonable to therefore conclude that the soldiers were there specifically because of the situation regarding Iraq. While we can dream up scenarios in which they might have been there for other reasons, or even that they might not have been there at all even with the same conditions on the ground in Iraq, when assessing what actually happened, we have to look at what actually happened.

Except that your reason for buying an ubrella was to have something to keep you dry when it rains. You didn't buy it because that store opened. The "cause" of you buying the umbrella exists whether or not that particular store exists. Any store that sells an umbrella would become part of that logic chain, so therefore it's an irrelevant component and can be ignored.


In the case of Iraq, the *only* reasons those soldiers were there related directly to the situation in Iraq. Thus, that situation in Iraq is a prime cause of the resulting effect (soldiers stationed in SA), and therefore is *also* a prime cause of anything that resulted from that situation (ie: the 9/11 attacks).

You do see how those are different, right? Or, more correctly, that the true cause of you buying the umbrella was the desire for something to keep you dry when it rains, just as the true cause of us having soldiers in SA was to defend (in one way or another) against Iraqi agression. Take away the Iraqi situation, and the need for soldiers disapates. Just as if we take away the rain, the need for an umbrella disapates.


Again. Logic 101. To find the "cause" of something (assuming a known chain of events/situations), you need to ask "If I remove this component of the chain, does the end effect still occur?". In the case of Iraq, if you remove the situation in Iraq, you remove the need for soldiers in SA, and (based on an historical lack of soldiers there), there wont be any there and the whole chain collapses (9/11 doesn't happen cause OBL has no specific reason to direct attacks at the US). In the umbrella example, if you remove that one store (assuming your blaming that particular store and not the mere fact that umbrellas exist and can be bought in stores period), it does *not* remove the end result. You'd have puchased the umbrella elsewhere, it would have later rained, and you'd have therefore had the umbrella in hand and poked someone in the eye with it.

When you know you've lost a debate

It's good that you know this one time. Miraculous, really.

You mean it contributed - people use the word "cause" to mean without which it would not have happened - and I doubt anyone believes it even contributed very much. It isn't, for example, prominent in the prewar NIE. Oh wait, you don't believe that document exists...

No one is barking mad enough to think if the US didn't have troops in Saudi Arabia, Bin Laden would not have *plenty* of reasons for attacking us - and plenty of recruits. Read the quote you gave, gbaji, the answer is right there.



Read all the demands: the US won't meddle in other nations affairs; won't support oppressive regimes; won't maintain large troop deployments in foreign lands. No one in their right mind would follow Bin Laden's demands, whole hog.

Further, as the Baker-Hamilton commission pointed out, it is all inextricably linked to the Israel-Palestinian conflict. The US has historically been a strong Israel supporter and that alone was (pre-Iraq fiasco) the main recruiting tool for terrorists.



I know no women this irrational.

I've proven him wrong on simple factual issues. He claimed that there was no prewar NIE. I gave him the links. He read them. He just ignores the fact he is wrong and simply makes stuff up to suit himself and moves on.

In his head, gbaji is actually right. Everything he says is actually self-consistent. When I think of that, he is so much funnier. He is his own strong antropic principle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle in that he redefines his words as he uses them.

He creates the truth by speaking it. He can simply redefine (or circularly define: a cause is what causes it) terms as he wishes to make it true later.



Yep.

Don't know which NIE you're talking about (there's a lot of them), but whatever. Look. The fact that an NIE didn't specifically mention this cause does not mean it didn't exist. It just means that that particular NIE didn't contain that particular information. Oddly, as I showed in an earlier link, CNN knew why OBL was pissed at the US a mere week after 9/11. Strange that you seem to think this wasn't a known relationship.

Also, you're using a very narrow definition of "cause". There are two broad definitions of cause in logic.

Necessary: The cause *must* exist for the effect to occur. So basically, you can say that if B then A (where B is the effect and A is the cause). Thus, if 9/11 happened, the US must have had soldiers in SA enforcing sanctions against Iraq. The cause is necessary for the effect to occur. Um... That's not the argument I'm making. I've stated several times that 9/11 *could* have occured for different reasons, but in historical fact, didn't...

Sufficient: The cause "causes" the effect. Logically: If A then B. If cause A exists, then B will occur. This is the type I'm talking about (and interestingly enough, how *most* people use the "cause/effect" relationship when they're talking about it. B could occur via a variety of means, however it *will* occur if A happens. More siginificantly for this conversation, we can say that B happened *because* of A.


You, Joph, and presumably others in this thread, are trying to argue that since the effect (9/11) could have occured as a result of other causes that therefore it *wasn't* caused by the presence of soldiers in SA. But that's **** poor logic since you're essentially using the wrong proof.



^
|

Case in point.


And also totally irrelevant. We can speculate that OBL might have ordered the 9/11 attacks even if we didn't have soldiers in SA, but that does not change the absolute fact that the reason he did order those attacks was specifically because of US soldiers in SA.


Your argument is equivalent to saying that it's not your fault that you wrecked the car while driving today, because the car could have been wrecked while left parked on the street. Well. Yes, it could. But that does not change the fact that in this particular chain of events, you drove the car and got into an accident.

See how that's flawed logic? It's meaningless because you can always invent a set of "might have beens" that can result in the same ultimate effect and therefore argue that nothing ever causes anything else to happen, no one is "at fault" for anything, and we can't take action against anyone for any action they take. Afterall, that person that was murdered might have died of a heart attack anyway, so why punish the guy who shot him with a gun?


You can't all be this bad at logic and critical thinking... can you?

The only reason I know that troops in SA wasn't the cause it that you already told me that Iraq War part I was the cause. The direct cause.

And Christopher Columbus too. He was also the cause.

You can't all be this bad at logic and critical thinking... can you?

It's either that or you're mentally ill and literally become delusional when you're wrong. Occam says you should seek professional help.

Gah! Stop that!