Page 79 of 80 FirstFirst ... 296977787980 LastLast
Results 781 to 790 of 796

Thread: The dumb questions thread

  1. Top | #781
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,283
    Archived
    14,025
    Total Posts
    19,308
    Rep Power
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    zog equals wog and wog equals boz, therefore zog equals boz.

    Logically true but inherently nonsense.
    Although if A equals B and if B equals C, then A equals C is true, the letters denote true propositions.

    If “zog,” “wog,” and “boz” are meaningless words, then the sentence fails to express a proposition; the sentence is neither true nor false—thus the sentence is both not true and not false. There is no proposition (at all) and no statement to be either true or false.

  2. Top | #782
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    4,857
    Rep Power
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by fast View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    zog equals wog and wog equals boz, therefore zog equals boz.

    Logically true but inherently nonsense.
    Although if A equals B and if B equals C, then A equals C is true, the letters denote true propositions.

    If “zog,” “wog,” and “boz” are meaningless words, then the sentence fails to express a proposition; the sentence is neither true nor false—thus the sentence is both not true and not false. There is no proposition (at all) and no statement to be either true or false.
    Indeed.

  3. Top | #783
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,283
    Archived
    14,025
    Total Posts
    19,308
    Rep Power
    60
    “Convention” was the word

  4. Top | #784
    the baby-eater
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Straya
    Posts
    3,739
    Archived
    1,750
    Total Posts
    5,489
    Rep Power
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by fast View Post
    Kind of like framework but on a much grander scale
    BFF?

  5. Top | #785
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,283
    Archived
    14,025
    Total Posts
    19,308
    Rep Power
    60
    Is affordability a necessary condition of accessibility?

    If the nearest drink machine is two hundred miles away and locked up in a government building, I could see saying you don’t have access to a drink machine, but if there’s one twenty feet away and out in the open where you can readily push a button and get a drink only if you had the 35 cents to put in the slot, then there’s this part of me that wants to say that you access; however, that assumes access is independent of being able to afford it.

    In my mind, if you are broke yet there’s a Lamborghini dealership close by, you have the same access as one who can afford it, but there’s this (new?) sense of “access” being thrown around that has affordability being lumped in as a condition of having access. That changes things greatly. That means a person claiming not to have access might very well not have access if funds is an issue.

    What word (then) should I use when I want say a person has the (older?) other version of “access” I first described that doesn’t have affordability as a necessary condition for access?

  6. Top | #786
    Veteran Member James Brown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,837
    Archived
    5,844
    Total Posts
    8,681
    Rep Power
    55
    One criticism of Bush's Iraq War is that we invaded without an exit plan.

    Did the Allies have an exit plan when we entered World War II?

  7. Top | #787
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Oregon's westernmost
    Posts
    10,993
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    29,206
    Rep Power
    53
    Two criticism of Bush's Iraq War is we invaded without a reason.

    Apparently many Britons agreed with France's plan before Winston bolloxed it up.

    I remember what he said while I camped out in mom's womb "All we need do is say Britannia and the Gerries will run away."

    My thought for Iraq was to attack Iran in retaliation for Embassy affair 12 years earlier. How dare they throw out our puppet and claim to be on God's side.

  8. Top | #788
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Oregon's westernmost
    Posts
    10,993
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    29,206
    Rep Power
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by fast View Post
    Is affordability a necessary condition of accessibility?

    If there’s one twenty feet away and out in the open where you can readily push a button and get a drink only if you had the 35 cents to put in the slot, then there’s this part of me that wants to say that you access; however, that assumes access is independent of being able to afford it.
    Get real. You haven't been near a drink machine in at least 25 years. Thirty five cents indeed. First people don't carry money any more especially coins. Second anyone who claims to be without a debit card is lying. Third noone drinks sodas any more. Fourth what has any of this got to do with A, B, or C?

    RU just providing an example to support

    If “zog,” “wog,” and “boz” are meaningless words, then the sentence fails to express a proposition; the sentence is neither true nor false—thus the sentence is both not true and not false. There is no proposition (at all) and no statement to be either true or false.
    ?

    If so its a fail since what you wrote was true 25 years ago.

  9. Top | #789
    Veteran Member skepticalbip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Searching for reality along the long and winding road
    Posts
    4,944
    Archived
    12,976
    Total Posts
    17,920
    Rep Power
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by James Brown View Post
    One criticism of Bush's Iraq War is that we invaded without an exit plan.

    Did the Allies have an exit plan when we entered World War II?
    Absolutely. But exit plan doesn't necessarily mean pulling our military out. It is defining the goals of the conflict so we will know before we get involved how we determine that we achieved our goals.

    The plan for WWII was to beat the shit out of the enemy and destroy their ability to make war until they formally surrendered. Then to occupy their territory until they had formed a government system we approved of.

    The U.S. plan in the many current conflicts is rather nebulous and constantly changing... amounting to something like 'make them be nice' but the 'them' keeps changing.

  10. Top | #790
    Fair dinkum thinkum bilby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
    Posts
    21,555
    Archived
    10,477
    Total Posts
    32,032
    Rep Power
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by James Brown View Post
    One criticism of Bush's Iraq War is that we invaded without an exit plan.

    Did the Allies have an exit plan when we entered World War II?
    Of the five major allies, three (China, the USSR and the USA) didn't 'enter' WWII until they were attacked by the Axis, so the question doesn't really apply - their entry was forced upon them, rather than being a matter of choice. The exit plan was "stop these fuckers from attacking us again".

    France was also pretty much compelled to join the war, as they shared a border with Germany, and the German desire to expand until they occupied all of mainland Europe had become clear even to the most optimistic pacifists by that point.

    So of the five, only the UK had the option to stay out of the war, without a direct and immediate expectation of being attacked whether they wanted peace or not. But that's only true if you take the narrow, modern, post-Suez view that the UK is synonymous with the Home Islands. In 1939, the British Empire was a global entity, and both Japan and Germany were directly threatening many parts of their imperial territory.

    The British and French strategy in 1939 was the use of war as an extension of diplomacy, and their goal was the reversal of the German/Soviet invasion and carve-up of Poland through the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. The exit strategy was more of a 'not entering too far' strategy. By declaring war, they could use the Royal Navy to blockade Germany, in the hope that Hitler would say "Sorry for invading Poland. I'll go home now, and promise not to do it again". Until the Germans invaded France, the war between Britain and Germany was almost exclusively a naval war, in which both nations attempted to blockade the other to force them to capitulate. So the British 'exit strategy' was to force the German borders back into their post-Versailles positions (or a reasonable facsimile thereof), at which point the war could be ended with a gentleman's agreement, and they could return to trying to mold the world via less noisy diplomacy.

    Of course, once the Germans started dropping bombs on London, the only possible exit strategy was unconditional surrender of their enemies. It was like 9/11 happening every day, for eight months. Nobody was going to pursue a diplomatic solution that left the Nazis in power after that.

Similar Threads

  1. Quick Questions Thread
    By Kharakov in forum Mathematics
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 01-14-2019, 02:15 AM
  2. The dumb statement's thread
    By Kharakov in forum Logic and Epistemology
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 02-23-2018, 01:35 AM
  3. Really dumb questions
    By Davka in forum Natural Science
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 12-26-2014, 10:36 AM
  4. Dumb Questions
    By spikepipsqueak in forum Natural Science
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-22-2014, 08:46 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •