New Hypothesis

Yes I apologise Windy. Didn't make that too clear did I?, poorly worded.

What I still don't understand about your hypothesis is; that if someone says "no" to it and agrees with you or doesn't feel the need to explain, then they understand what a hypothesis is, I think. But if someone says "yes", then they're either stupid and don't understand what a loaded question is or they bombed Iraq for oil or support bombing Iraq for oil? Because theoretically aliens testing on humans for medical advancement is essentially the same basic scenario as America and Britain bombing Iraq, when it's explained properly to us by you?

Do I understand you now?

 

Eh?

Is that meant to say that and be there?

 

yes, it is

 

Come on now.

It's the refusal to answer the question truthfully I've reacted to. I've applauded those who have been honest and said they agree with inflicting suffering to benefit the human race and taken it to the next step.

A "no" answer doesn't throw up any contradictions to other priciples to be thus questioned.

 

Bloody hell Jay.

The hypothesis is independent of the question.

What are you on about?

 

RE: In my opinion

Why shouldn't we stop aid? Aren't we just prolonging the problem. Humans aren't equipped to live in certain areas of desert/drought.

 

RE: Come on now.

Seriously?

You're telling me that if someone says no, there is absolutely no argument or counter to it that you can debate?

I can answer the question truthfully with a yes, but sadly in your opinion that's not the end of it. You then have to apply to random scenarios that have no basis?

So for example, if you're firmly sat in the "no" camp, Barnsley beating Preston made you sad did it?

 

RE: Come on now.

I'm working towards the basic contradiction that a "yes" answer implies.

To say "no, it wouldn't be morally right" doesn't throw up that contradictions and offers no material for the "Is might right?" debate.

It's about the basic principles that we refer to when making decisions, not the decisions themselves. If we believe might is right then we need to think twice before criticising the war on Saddam.

Some of us don't even bother with a value system and take our positions on things to best suit ourselves often perversely whilst criticising others for doing exactly the same thing.

 

RE: Come on now.

But you are taking the view that "might is not right" yet argued that the war in Iraq was a good thing didn't you?

 

We could spend it on converting to non-greenhouse gas producing sources of energy

Prevent yet more land becoming inhospitable.

I'm a proper ******* aren't I?

 

The morals would quickly disappear

Not everyones and not all of them, but morals are what society use to keep things together

Take away the police and (some) people loot shops

Take away shops and people need to hunt and gather

The will to survive trancends morals. The film Alive (based on a true store) is proof of that. People will eat people if it's a matter of life or death.

 

mmm

logans run... nearly... Roundsman...

 

Now we're getting somewhere.

My argument in support of military action was that it would benefit the people in Iraq. It was a move in defence of others. I could be wrong and it could well have been about oil but that doesn't alter what I believed we were doing.

I'm not claiming the moral high ground here, I keep pointing out that none of us are perfect and that we can't expect to be. I'm trying to point out one particular basic contradiction in the reasoning of the human race of which I'm a member.

 

RE: Now we're getting somewhere.

Your comment about wanting to defend Iraqis brings up an interesting point about ideals. Having ideals is a fine thing, as to me they are aspirations to which we should all strive. However, for ideals to be reached they have to have realistic steps between where you are and where you want to be. For instance - imagine being stranded on a desert island but being able to see the mainland in the distance. You have no means of getting there except by swimming but the only problem is you cant swim more than 200m and its at a 3 mile swim. So do you trust to luck and set off knowing you truly can't swim that far, or do you take some realistic steps in trying to make sure you are up to the task? You could for instance practice swimming round your island and building up your swimming skills until you think you can make the long journey, and then try?

If we accept the (faulty) premise for one moment that the sole reason for invading Iraq was for the noble ideal of saving the Iraqi people, then the sensible question would be to work out how that would be done. This meant working out and taking into consideration many, many variables, some of which were known, some of which weren't in regard to what would happen after Saddam was overthrown. These important questions however were never asked, at least not by those who were for the invasion. When those opposing the war tried to raise issues of a guerrilla war, or Iraqis fighting an occupation etc.. they were simply painted as 'Saddam lovers' or as being 'unpatriotic'. The idea that it might all go horribly wrong simply wasn't one to be entertained. (Therse are besides any moral/political arguments as to why it shouldnt happen).

I don't blame anyone for wanting to save the Iraqi people, but to place so much trust in politicians who often make a ham fist of running our own country, nevermind in trying to rebuild another with so many tribal and religious issues was in my view, well plain daft.

Idealism without ideas is a recipe for disaster and sadly the Iraqi people are paying the price every minute of every day. Its truly heartbreaking.

 

RE: Bloody hell Jay.

Windy, you do not really understand what a hypothesis is (bit ironic really). Jay obviously does and that's why you are having difficulty here.
Any hypothesis is a provisional explaination used as the basis for an investigation or debate. It can be either substantiated or disproved by argument or facts.
We've had a day of debate based on false premises. You are making legitimate points about moral principles and whether they are/should be upheld in different situations but are trying to work towards a closed view (yours!).

 

Windy really ought to read K.R.P Popper's 'On the Logic of Scientific Discovery.'