Paris attacks
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-11-2015, 06:08 PM
RE: Paris attacks
(16-11-2015 05:21 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(16-11-2015 04:19 PM)Slowminded Wrote:  I think, in this case, common sense is perfectly sufficient to reach the conclusion.

"I don't know, therefore I do, because feels" is nonsense when theists try it, too. It isn't going to work for you either.

What conclusion, for that matter? You were rather vague about it. Would it not be better to be explicit?

(16-11-2015 04:19 PM)Slowminded Wrote:  Btw, some data is in....

23 people arrested in France and 2 in Belgium. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34830233
Is this data sufficient to say they had support ? If yes, do I get brownie points for making a correct conclusion without sufficient data?

Do you mean to say that "the number of people who are violent radicals is greater than zero"? Because, yes, no shit. Was anyone denying that? I don't recall doing so.

What some people think says absolutely nothing about what other people thought or think. Do... do you not understand that? Do you not see how drawing conclusions as to the mindset of third parties based only on the actions of second parties to whom there is no direct connection is, to say the least, a bit of a stretch?

(16-11-2015 04:19 PM)Slowminded Wrote:  If not, what would be sufficient? I am hoping here that "sufficient data" is not some unobtainable mystical thing that exists only for the lack of it to be used as an excuse for not reaching the conclusions we might not like.

'Sufficient' would depend on the claim being made. That's, like, remedial skepticism 101. Why are you pretending not to know how this works?

We obviously have trouble understanding each other again.

I will do my best....

Quote:What conclusion, for that matter? You were rather vague about it. Would it not be better to be explicit?

I read this:

Quote: Withholding conclusions given insufficient data is a new, and very odd, definition of naivete.

Since you used the word naivete, to me it is clear that you are objecting to exactly this sentence from my post:

Quote:but you need to be really naive to think that this kind of actions can be planned and executed without , at best turning a blind eye and at worst active support from ( part of ) the community.
My conclusion that they had support in the community is implied.

Am I right so far?

So, to me it seems that you are objecting to my conclusion that it is impossible to pull of a terrorist attack like the one that happened in Paris without the support from the community.
And that you are objecting based on the fact that we don't have sufficient data about the support they did or did not receive.


Is it now clear about what conclusion we are talking about?

Then I provided the link about 25 people arrested because they are linked to the terrorist attacks , to show that that they DID have the support within the community and thus making my conclusion correct even tho it was made without the date and just based on the common sense.

How are we doing so far?
.................................

Quote:What some people think says absolutely nothing about what other people thought or think. Do... do you not understand that? Do you not see how drawing conclusions as to the mindset of third parties based only on the actions of second parties to whom there is no direct connection is, to say the least, a bit of a stretch?

I've read this 3 times and honestly I have absolutely no idea what that means in regards to what we are talking about here.

.....................................

Quote:'Sufficient' would depend on the claim being made. That's, like, remedial skepticism 101. Why are you pretending not to know how this works?

I am not pretending I don't know how it works, I just thought the claim was obvious.
To remove any doubt, claim is "terrorist had the support in the community"



Why the fuck is this so hard with you? It is one thing to disagree with somebody, but it seems that we are talking in completely different languages. This is fuckin' annoying and it's starting to piss me off.

. . . ................................ ......................................... . [Image: 2dsmnow.gif] Eat at Joe's
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2015, 06:10 PM
RE: Paris attacks
BoT- Paris attacks back...

https://www.google.com/search?q=french+a...8&oe=utf-8
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Fireball's post
16-11-2015, 06:14 PM
RE: Paris attacks
(16-11-2015 05:52 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  
(16-11-2015 05:34 PM)Banjo Wrote:  Lesson learned by Napoleon and Hitler. "DON'T FUCK WITH THE RUSSIANS!" Smile

I disagree, Banjo.

What Napoleon and Hitler learned was not to avoid pissing off the Russians, but to never ignore General Winter.

They lost ultimately because they failed to take the winter into account, with bled their inadequately prepared forces dry and left them easy marks while the Russians, being accustomed to such conditions and on home turf were able to rebuild and ready up for the next round.
... It didn't help that Hitler had major WWI PTSD and refused to allow his men to manoeuvre because he feared losing that way again.

I disagree entirely.

Never underestimate the Russians, nor Russia itself.

I just wrote a huge response

But we are getting off topic. Big Grin

Instead, if you are interested here is a fine lecture which is limited in time and only touches on that 1940's conflict. If you are interested you can watch it.




NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2015, 06:17 PM
RE: Paris attacks
(16-11-2015 05:48 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(16-11-2015 05:34 PM)Banjo Wrote:  Lesson learned by Napoleon and Hitler. "DON'T FUCK WITH THE RUSSIANS!" Smile

Sure, but with a thousand years of history to choose from, they've got the same essentially 50/50 record as anyone. They lost to the Lithuanians, Poles, Swedes, Ottomans, Prussians, Germans, and Austrians as often as the other way around.

Don't forget the Mongols! Big Grin

However, times have changed.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2015, 06:29 PM
RE: Paris attacks
(16-11-2015 06:08 PM)Slowminded Wrote:  
Quote:What conclusion, for that matter? You were rather vague about it. Would it not be better to be explicit?

I read this:

Quote: Withholding conclusions given insufficient data is a new, and very odd, definition of naivete.

Since you used the word naivete, to me it is clear that you are objecting to exactly this sentence from my post:

Quote:but you need to be really naive to think that this kind of actions can be planned and executed without , at best turning a blind eye and at worst active support from ( part of ) the community.
My conclusion that they had support in the community is implied.

Am I right so far?

Partially. That was after you just mentioned how hard it is to say just what "support" means, based on the example of the public opinion survey cited earlier. It seems that you're just stressing that there is Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. Indeed; no shit?

(16-11-2015 06:08 PM)Slowminded Wrote:  So, to me it seems that you are objecting to my conclusion that it is impossible to pull of a terrorist attack like the one that happened in Paris without the support from the community.
And that you are objecting based on the fact that we don't have sufficient data about the support they did or did not receive.

Is it now clear about what conclusion we are talking about?

... That, what, terrorists exist? I mean, yes, there is that, but, so far as I can tell, no one disagreed with that much? I certainly didn't? I thought it was fairly clear that I was referring to the earlier discussion on the prevalence of those ideas and beliefs, and the conviction (and, thus, will to act) behind them.

In other words: define "support", and define "community". That isn't (just) me being flippant, but knowing who and what we're talking about is the essential step one before we can even begin to say what we think should be done about it - if, presuming, we care about any follow-up.
(trivially: the "community" in question could be anything from "the local ISIS chapter" to "all Muslims" and the "support" in question could be anything from "supplying the weapons" to "not actively resisting in the heat of the moment" - do you see why I think greater specificity would be useful?)

(16-11-2015 06:08 PM)Slowminded Wrote:  
Quote:'Sufficient' would depend on the claim being made. That's, like, remedial skepticism 101. Why are you pretending not to know how this works?

I am not pretending I don't know how it works, I just thought the claim was obvious.
To remove any doubt, claim is "terrorist had the support in the community"

See above. Define "support" and define "community".
(it's... not like you have to or anything, I just think that that's a necessary step in order to proceed anywhere in a discussion - not with me, just with anyone)

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2015, 06:32 PM
RE: Paris attacks
(16-11-2015 06:17 PM)Banjo Wrote:  
(16-11-2015 05:48 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Sure, but with a thousand years of history to choose from, they've got the same essentially 50/50 record as anyone. They lost to the Lithuanians, Poles, Swedes, Ottomans, Prussians, Germans, and Austrians as often as the other way around.

Don't forget the Mongols! Big Grin

However, times have changed.




The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free Thought's post
16-11-2015, 07:18 PM (This post was last modified: 17-11-2015 07:39 AM by Slowminded.)
RE: Paris attacks
EDIT:

(16-11-2015 06:29 PM)cjlr Wrote:  (it's... not like you have to or anything, I just think that that's a necessary step in order to proceed anywhere in a discussion - not with me, just with anyone)
Thanks for reminding me that I don`t have to...

I don`t see any point in continuing this discussion with you , it will not lead to anything, so there is no need to proceed with it.

But please let others decide what they need me to define in my discussions with them.

. . . ................................ ......................................... . [Image: 2dsmnow.gif] Eat at Joe's
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2015, 11:33 PM
RE: Paris attacks
Just want to point out that the mother of one of the suicide bombers said that she believes that her son did not want to kill anyone and blew himself up over stress.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...TRESS.html

"If you keep trying to better yourself that's enough for me. We don't decide which hand we are dealt in life, but we make the decision to play it or fold it" - Nishi Karano Kaze
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-11-2015, 12:45 AM
RE: Paris attacks
I have met my first conspiracy theorist irl. Apparently it is muricans who did the bombings Facepalm

I don't really like going outside.
It's too damn "peopley" out there....
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-11-2015, 03:12 AM
RE: Paris attacks
The downed Russian plane turns out to have been brought down by ISIS.

Look at all this wonderfull peace that Islam brings!

[Image: RPYH95t.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: