blatham wrote:As it stands with "Toiletgate," the "proof" Newsweek had for their story was an unnamed source, who is apparently unreliable.
"Proof" is the wrong word using the wrong criteria. Credible evidence and relevance to matters of citizen/government are the criteria involved here.
Why did Newsweek retract its story? Why did Newsweek indicate "sources" told them, when it was apparently just one unnamed source. Is this anonymous source to be considered as "credible evidence"?
Quote:Do you consider that to be proof of the story?
Proof of the event? Clearly not. Credible evidence of the event, yes. Other such evidence is available and has been reported elsewhere, adding to the credibility.
What is credible about it? That terrorists have made the claim? You need no substantiation other than the word of a terrorist? ... I do forget that you were prepared to take the word of Saddam Hussein, so I shouldn't be surprised.
Quote:I don't care whether Newsweek admits the underlying event didn't happen ... the story is false because there's no substantiation.
No. You use a definition of 'false' which is not to be found in any dictionary. You forward a conception that any account (say, a historical account) which doesn't reach some level of epistemological purity you have in mind is 'false', when the correct term would be 'uncertain' or 'insufficiently evidence' or 'not yet known'. You are a prosecuter, for goodness sakes. How often do you describe the rascal who is let go due to insufficient certainty in evidence as a victim of a 'false' charge?
What isn't done in such an instance, is to hold up the rascal and say, "here he is, he's guilty ... I can't prove it ... but he's guilty. He's guilty because I say he's guilty ... and I think he's guilty because somebody -- I can't tell you who -- told me he read somewhere -- and don't ask me where because he can't remember -- that he knows he's guilty." You might think he's guilty, but you don't proclaim his guilt if you don't have the evidence.
(I know you won't be able to, but please try and see the distinction between what I just said and what is taking place at Gitmo. I really shouldn't have to explain every little step along the way to you people.)
Quote:You can protest all day long that you "believe" its true
My belief, which I don't think I've forwarded, is that it likely is true. If not in this instance, in others. I have scant reason, after all we do know now, to assume it more probable the military and civilian command would have insisted from the get go that Muslim religious sensibilities be considered out of bounds in the handling of prisoners in custody. That belief - that estimation of probabilities - is however, junior to facts or compelling evidence in the other direction. If, for example, that source were to come out and confess he'd lied, and if it was clear that confession was not exacted through pressure, then I would consider it more likely that the event had not happened, in this particular case.
As I said, you
believe it's true.
Quote:.. but all that's going to do is raise questions about this, what Olansky referred to as "sickness at the heart," which leads you and others to want the Guantanamo story to be true.
Well, do you have a name for the sickness in those who wish it were not true even though it may well be?
My initial diagnosis would be acute liberalism, but I only play a doctor in the Internet.
Quote:But why would you assume I wish it true? Given wish-freedom, I would wish it untrue, and much else as well.
I suspect your real notion here, and Olasky's, is that you suspect I am to some degree or in some manner pleased that this story will have a negative consequence for this administration. In that, you'd be correct. But I would not wish that accounts which are lies or 'false' (in the correct sense of never having happened) are the means by which this administration looses credibility. You might believe that I would consider, if the event took place, that coverage of it produces a deserved negative consequence for this administration, and you'd be correct again. [/color]
Yes, I know you are pleased to see any story with a negative consequence for this administration. Unfortunately, I believe that same feeling is shared by a great many of your like-minded friends. Liberals with this "sickness" have quite a conflict internally when they proclaim they don't want a negative story to have happened, but they're glad it did, This is why they rejoice when they read any story that casts the US in a negative light (sure you will say, "not the US, only the Bush Administration"), to where their hearts dance when they read about somebody coming over and making the US Senate look bad, where they desparately want to believe a story about the military flushing a Koran down the toilet (and Newsweeks zeal to print such a story) ... and this is especially troublesom when they have that feeling when they hear about US military personnel getting blown up in Iraq. Liberals have positioned themselves such that when the news is bad for the US, including the Bush Administration, it's good for them. And I have a very hard time believing that liberals in general, not you in particular, don't actively wish to hear negative stories. In their hearts, I believe they really do want to see bad news, so long as it makes the Bush administration look bad.
Quote:The "knowledge claim" of Olasky is simply to the unsubstantiation of the story. Your maintaining that the story is not "false"
As I pointed out earlier, your use of 'false' here is definitionally inappropriate... wrong. Use 'imprudent' or 'careless' or ' suffering insufficient verification'
If the facts can't be substantiated, Newsweek should assume its false, and not print it. That's what it should have done.
Quote: is akin to CBS maintaining for so long that the Memogate story was not "false," because they believed the underlying story was "true."
That case is irrelevant here.
It's relevant as I referred to it.
