leemond2008 Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 No, that's not correct. The degree to which a claim is believable is not in anyway affected by the number of people who believe it. You are mixing cause and effect. I disagree. I'm not talking about the scientific or literary definition of "believable". Merely the increased likelihood of someone believing a certain scenario. If you don't think that likelihood increases if billions of people believe it and have done for centuries then that's fair enough. But I wholeheartedly disagree. No, I absolutely agree with herd mentality. That doesn't increase the believability of something though. This is the fallacy of an appeal to popularity. It doesn't matter how many believe in something; that does not change the nature of the thing. However, as you insist and acknowledge that you are using the word incorrectly, we should leave it there. We are arguing about definitions, nothing more. believable bɪˈliːvəbl/ adjective able to be believed; credible. I'd argue billions of people believing something makes it both more able to be believed AND lends it a lot of credence. So I don't believe I'm using the word wrongly, just differently to you. And you cant spell Believable without 'bible' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted July 2, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted July 2, 2015 No, that's not correct. The degree to which a claim is believable is not in anyway affected by the number of people who believe it. You are mixing cause and effect. I disagree. I'm not talking about the scientific or literary definition of "believable". Merely the increased likelihood of someone believing a certain scenario. If you don't think that likelihood increases if billions of people believe it and have done for centuries then that's fair enough. But I wholeheartedly disagree. No, I absolutely agree with herd mentality. That doesn't increase the believability of something though. This is the fallacy of an appeal to popularity. It doesn't matter how many believe in something; that does not change the nature of the thing. However, as you insist and acknowledge that you are using the word incorrectly, we should leave it there. We are arguing about definitions, nothing more. believable bɪˈliːvəbl/ adjective able to be believed; credible. I'd argue billions of people believing something makes it both more able to be believed AND lends it a lot of credence. So I don't believe I'm using the word wrongly, just differently to you. And you cant spell Believable without 'bible' or "lie" Coincidence? I think not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leemond2008 Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 oohhh snap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ingram85 Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 And bile, and bib. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PongRiddims Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 My college tutor once said to me: "There are enough resources, minerals and knowledge on this planet for every man, woman and child to live comfortably now and for the rest of time, so why is there war? How do you make the world realise this?" Which was a marvellously profound and thought provoking point for him to make, but he was supposed to be teaching SSRS joins at the time so a little out of place. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 The question is whether since fewer people now believe in religion, are we more rational as a nation? The fact that both the government and the opposition, think we are in a sufficiently emotional state after the murders in Tunisia, to now accept the extension of air-strikes to Syria, seems to suggest that they don't think we are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wainy316 Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 (edited) So our response to having innocent civilians killed is to kill innocent civilians? Surely boots on the ground is a better option if anything? Edited July 3, 2015 by Wainy316 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rugeley Villa Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 dropping a few bombs is much easier than having soldiers on the battlefield but imo it will do very little in terms of stopping isis. it wont be long before we have boots on the ground and unfortunately its the only option but you can bet your bottom dollar its going to leave us more open to terrorists attacks on the homeland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 I like the idea of boots on the ground across north africa, across Iraq, through Syria and up to the borders of Turkey and Iran in order to finally bring this to a definitive conclusion. After all, it worked so well in Afghanistan. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tayls Posted July 10, 2015 Author Share Posted July 10, 2015 So with the news of shootings in Germany - I am probably jumping to conclusions here, but one would expect this to be terror related? Will probably need to change the name of the thread again to cover the whole of 2015. When will the killings of innocent people stop? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted July 10, 2015 Administrator Share Posted July 10, 2015 Or a new thread could be created.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 So with the news of shootings in Germany - I am probably jumping to conclusions here, but one would expect this to be terror related? Will probably need to change the name of the thread again to cover the whole of 2015. When will the killings of innocent people stop? Apparently went down in rural Bavaria so unlikely to be either terrorism or connected in any way to the religion of peace. Some lone wacko seems much more likely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts