Dookiestix wrote:Quote:Brandon9000 wrote:old europe wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:You make the same mistake over and over, and appear to be incapable of understanding the situation. Here is an analogy. Let's suppose that your doctor tells you that you may have a certain disease. The only way to really know for sure is to do exploratory surgery.
Wrong analogy, Branny. It should be "Let's suppose that your doctor tells you that
he knows for a fact that you have a certain disease."
Would you sue him afterwards, when it turns out you didn't have the disease at all?
You're obsessed with what Bush said. The scenario I gave is present just in the events in the newspaper. Do you base all of your beliefs and thoughts on what other people tell you? The case I made is apparent just from the recent history of Iraq - some probability Hussein still had WMD and/or development programs, some consequences for invasion, some consequences of no invasion if he did have them. You don't have the guts to face the analogy head on. I await your next evasion.
Talk about evasion, you can't answer a question regarding the medical anology. If the doctor had to remove your testicles due to testicular cancer, and then you found out you never had it, what would be you response? I honestly believe that you cannot answer that, and it is EXACTLY anologous to Bush's myriad lies regarding this illegal war.
old europe wrote:Would you sue him afterwards, when it turns out you didn't have the disease at all?
That's kind of the whole point of the analogy. If you do the sugery based on the odds, you have done the right thing, even if you find that you don't have the disease.
But how would you FEEL, Brandon? Are you also an ardent supporter of tort reform as well? Would you really not care at all if the doctor and/or hospital totally screwed up?
I presented a hypothetical situation in which there was 25% chance of having a fatal disease that could be determined by exploratory surgery which could also fix it on the spot. The exploratory surgery itself had a 10% chance of fatality, and waiting for symptoms to emerge would be guaranteed fatal. I made crystal clear that I was not asserting it was an analogous situation to the war in Iraq except in the single sense that it required you too look both at the likelihood the disease was present and the consequences of the disease and combine them, not just stare fixedly at the likelihood of the disease. To me, in that situation, the exploratory surgery would be the smartest move, because although the chance of having the disease was far from certain, the consequences were incalculably bad, if you turned out to have it. If I had the surgery and didn't have the disease after all, I would have no reason to sue. I would have acted correctly based on the odds.
The situation in Iraq had an independent reality apart from how anyone in the administration characterized it. Although I do not believe that Bush lied, ultimately it doesn't affect my decision, because I could analyze the situation for myself. I believe that invasion was necessary for our self-preservation, not because it was certain that Hussein had retained some of his WMD or programs, but because had he done so, the consequences someday could have been hundreds of thousands of deaths, maybe of American civilians, and he certainly had screwed around with the UN inspections for years, and lied to the inspectors.
To answer your question directly, I am completely opposed to tort reform for the reasons you suggested.
