Text 18709, 186 rader
Skriven 2005-12-15 14:38:00 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
     Kommentar till en text av FRANK SCHEIDT (1:123/140)
Ärende: [2/2] [1/2] Sociopaths!
===============================
 MVDV>>> Everything points to it.
 >
 >> Not *everything*, just evidence *you* want to consider ...

 MVDV>> There is nothing else to consider. I have not seen evidence for the
 MVDV>> presence of WMD's in Iraq.

 > Do you have to actually *see* something to believe it?

Preferebly, but not necessarily. A primary requirement for something to be
acceptable as true is that it is *verifiable*. Preferably by direct
observation, but under circumstances indirect means of verification can be
acceptable as well.

 > After all, George W. Bush, a demonstrably honest man,

I contest that.

 > *believed* the intelligence services WRT the WMDs in Iraq so
 > why shouldn't *we* believe that?

Because we are not as gullible as GWB?

I understand that it is different in the US but here the first thing they teach
you when you go to university is to never accept something as true just because
someone with "authority" says so. Not from the Pope, not from the King and not
from the professor. Verify!

George Bush's claim that they were WMD's was unverifiable because he refused to
disclose the proof that he claimed that he had.

Don't you know that claiming to have proof but refusing to disclose it,
automatically disqualifies it?

 > At least until it's shown what *happened* to those WMDs ...

Showing what happened to something that never existed is difficult...

 MVDV>> All assuming that they were actually there.

 > GWB said they were ...

And Albert Einstein said that God does not throw dice....

 >> The reason I believe GWB did *not* lie to us is because *I*
 >> know what the word "lie" means and I know GWB had a lot of evidence

 MVDV>> How do you know he had a lot of evidence? Did you see any of it?

 > There are many things I've never actually seen yet I believe
 > exist.  For example I've never seen Antwerp, Belgium, yet I
 > firmly believe it exists.  Furthermore I don't even know
 > anyone who *has* ever seen it.

I have seen it many times: it exists.

OTOH, I have never seen New York. I *could* however go there to see for myself
if I wanted or needed to. In this case I do not find that necessary. The theory
that New York exists matches perfectly with anything else that I already know.
So I can accept the existence of New York as a working hypothesis. Should it
become of primary importance that I know for 100% sure, I can always go see
myself.

 > However, I'd be shocked to find its existence was all made up.

That is because the existance of Antwerp does not conflict with other knowledge
that you have and have accepted as true.

 > While actually *seeing* something makes it easier to believe, that
 > isn't necessary.

In the case of the WMD's seeing the evidence myself is a requirement because:

1) It DOES conflict with other information at my disposal.

2) There is a strong suspicion of an ulterior motive.

3) GWB disqualified himself by claiming to have proof but refusing to show it.

 MVDV>> Just a few messages ago you said the US had made the world
 MVDV>> a safer place by removing the threat of Saddam's WMD'. Now
 MVDV>> you imply the threat still exists.

 > *Saddam's* WMD threat doesn't exist as he's currently in
 > custody, on trial.

Word game. Of course, technically they are no longer Saddam's weapons. if they
still exist however, they are not in the hands of friends (as friends would no
longer keep the existence secret) and so they are still a threat.

 >>> He didn't lie.  The intelligence services of *five* nations
 >>> indicated the presence of WMDs in Iraq.

 MVDV>>> Name them.
 >
 >> Gladly, (1)  The US of course, (2) The United Kingdom, (3)
 >> Russia, (4) Egypt, and (5) Jordan.  Were they *all* liars?!?!?

 MVDV>> The UK? Strange *they* say they based their convictions on
 MVDV>> *other* sources, mainly US sources.

 > I don't think so ...

I *know* so. See Ward's message about the secret meeting between Tony Blair and
GWB.

 MVDV>> Russia? What I seem to recall is that they said they did
 MVDV>> NOT think there was real evidence.

 > So why did they claim earlier the WMDs *did* exist.

They didn't. Your information is false.

 MVDV>> Egypt and Jordan? I think we need not discuss the credibility
 MVDV>> of those two.

 > They are actually probably the two *best* sources of information
 > since they both had contacts withing Saddam's Iraq, being
 > fellow Arabs.

Makes no sense. In the eyes of the Muslim governed states Saddam was an
apostate. His neighbours were not his friends.

 >> GWB's administration has three years to go.  That's plenty of
 >> time to neaten things out and present the evidence to the
 >> American people.

 MVDV>> You don't really believe that do you?

 > I *know* he has three years to go!  It's in the constitution.

I meant you don't really believe he will produce the evidence? Get real man, he
himself now said that the intellence was false a few days ago.

 MVDV>>> If he really had proof, he would have shown enough of it to
 MVDV>>> convince the rest of the world. He didn't. Ergo conclusio,
 MVDV>>> he lied when he said he had proof.
 >
 >> Since your premise is false your "Ergo" vanishes ...

 MVDV>> What premise?

 > That GWB lacked evidence WRT the WMDs ...

Shrug... he more or less admitted it himself.


 >> I'll wait ...

 MVDV>> That's what the Bush defenders said before the invasion: "wait and see
 MVDV>> what will be uncovered when we get free access to all places." Well we
 MVDV>> waited. And waited... and waited.... Nothing was uncovered.

 > You must develop more patience ... Rome wasn't built in a day,
 > as that old European saying goes ... [sigh] ...

You should have told that to GWB before the invasion. He was the man "losing
his patience" when the UN inspectors were doing their job.

 > Actually what I do is to take the *easy* side of a debate.
 > I'm not proud of that, despite the fact it has given me an
 > unbroken string of victories.

When I worked at the devision of alternative energy of the University of
Utrecht, for some reason they sent the "perpetuum mobile" letters to us.

in the beginning I sometimes went into debate with the authors of those
letters. Later I got bored an just walked away when the umpteenth inventor of a
perpetuum mobile turned up.

Me walking away didn't mean that the inventor of the thing had "won". Just that
I had given up on him.


 > BTW, I'll have to congratulate you WRT one aspect of your
 > debating -- you've avoided the ad hominem attack ... so far
 > ...

I try to avoid personal attacks. But as I am human I sometimes retaliate when
provoked.


Cheers, Michiel

---
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)