Proof Bush Fixed the Facts...

Joe Nation wrote:

I want to get a job like the President's. If I got my company involved in a multi-billion dollar project that turned out to be based on wrong information, even if I really really really believed the wrong information, I'd still be fired.

And if my company building was being evacuted and my wife and mother were being accompanied to a secure location and I was otherwise engaged and no body told me what was going on.... I'd quit. Imagine how little respect that shows.

Joe(or I could become a weatherman, they can be wrong almost all the time and still keep their jobs)Nation

Sometimes it's prudent to check a possible severe danger out. And the fact that it was no longer present certainly doesn't mean that checking wasn't the thing to do. I would fire someone who didn't check out something that, were it still there, could have posed a huge risk.

The fact that a test for cancer comes back negative by no means shows that the doctor shouldn't have performed it. Even if the test itself has negative consequences and dangers, that doesn't mean you shouldn't do it if the disease you are checking for is grave enough.

0 Replies

What a thoroughly feeble and inappropriate set of analogies you have provided. That is just disgusting.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

What a thoroughly feeble and inappropriate set of analogies you have provided. That is just disgusting.

One presumes that if you were able to respond on point, you wouldn't limit your response to name calling, which may accompany a valid response, but is never a valid response by itself.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

What a thoroughly feeble and inappropriate set of analogies you have provided. That is just disgusting.

Perhaps a better one would be. If the tests come back negative, the doctor removes both lungs and then just to make sure it hasn't spread he amputates all the limbs. Can't be too careful and it is best to make sure you remove all possibilities of danger. We wouldn't want Brandon firing them for incompetence.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Setanta wrote:
What a thoroughly feeble and inappropriate set of analogies you have provided. That is just disgusting.

One presumes that if you were able to respond on point, you wouldn't limit your response to name calling, which may accompany a valid response, but is never a valid response by itself.

Name calling? Where was the name calling? He was saying your statement was weak. Not exactly name calling.

By the way, in this case your statement is without basis and rather weak.

0 Replies

Brandon, i did no name calling, so despite your desire to portray your matrydom for your political beliefs, you have no case . . .

Brandon9000 wrote:

Sometimes it's prudent to check a possible severe danger out. And the fact that it was no longer present certainly doesn't mean that checking wasn't the thing to do. I would fire someone who didn't check out something that, were it still there, could have posed a huge risk.

The fact that a test for cancer comes back negative by no means shows that the doctor shouldn't have performed it. Even if the test itself has negative consequences and dangers, that doesn't mean you shouldn't do it if the disease you are checking for is grave enough.

An invasion which results in the deaths of more than one hundred thousand people is not to be compared to a rational process of medical diagnosis and treatment. And any attempt to so construe it is simply disgusting.

Disagreeing with you when you post absolute tripe does not constitute name calling, for however unpleasant you may find it to be.

0 Replies

Parados: The operation was a success ! ! !

Unfortunately, the patient is now dying.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Setanta wrote:
What a thoroughly feeble and inappropriate set of analogies you have provided. That is just disgusting.

Perhaps a better one would be. If the tests come back negative, the doctor removes both lungs and then just to make sure it hasn't spread he amputates all the limbs. Can't be too careful and it is best to make sure you remove all possibilities of danger. We wouldn't want Brandon firing them for incompetence.

You have given one of many possible scenarios, which, by itself, does not define the situation. Hypothetically, if there are indications that you may have a disease, and the truth can only be determined by a surgery which can fix the disease on the spot if it finds it, but which, in itself, does harm, whether the disease is present or not, sometimes it will be prudent to do the test surgery and sometimes it will not. In general, as I have argued before, the problem can be analyzed like this:

1. What is the probability that the disease is present based on what is known before doing the exploratory surgery?
2. If the disease is present, how negative are the consequences?
3. What are the negative consequences of the exploratory surgery?

One can construct a million specific examples. In some cases it will be wise to do the surgical test, even though it has consequences, and in some cases it will not. One thing that is sure, however, is that the mere fact that the surgery does not find the disease, does not, taken in a vacuum, indicate that the test was not the best course of action given what was known before it was done.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Parados: The operation was a success ! ! !

Unfortunately, the patient is now dying.

What was it that you said? Oh, yes....guffaw.

0 Replies

I see, Brandon, that you have yet to provide an explanation of how you construe my remarks to be name calling.

Just thought you'd throw that out there to prove your martyrdom for your beliefs, huh?

0 Replies

not2know wrote:

tommrr wrote:
Not2Know,
1 big problem (among the many problems) with your theory. The abscense of the earpiece. I deal with them on a daily basis, and there are NONE available that are not somewhat visible. And, I won't even go into the whole that is not the size or the shape of a receiver under the jacket.

Looks like one "conspiracy theory" solved :wink: , oh and it not my theory.

1 down and a million to go. Razz

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Setanta wrote:
What a thoroughly feeble and inappropriate set of analogies you have provided. That is just disgusting.

One presumes that if you were able to respond on point, you wouldn't limit your response to name calling, which may accompany a valid response, but is never a valid response by itself.

Name calling? Where was the name calling? He was saying your statement was weak. Not exactly name calling.

By the way, in this case your statement is without basis and rather weak.

I can look at some great document like the Constitution and say, "how disgusting," "how pathetic," etc., but in the absence of an actual arguement, such insults are of no consequence. Your previous response was a valid argument. These unsupported adjectives are just fluff.

0 Replies

I followed a basic rule of internet debate sites, Brandon--attack the idea, not the person. It is not possible to insult an idea.

So i will ask you directly, when did i call you a name?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I see, Brandon, that you have yet to provide an explanation of how you construe my remarks to be name calling.

Just thought you'd throw that out there to prove your martyrdom for your beliefs, huh?

A response to an actual argument, whether that argument is right or wrong, which consists solely of negative adjectives, but no counter-argument, is of zero consequence, and does nothing to disprove or diminish the argument. It is a favorite technique of people who suspect that they cannot actually defend their viewpoints.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I followed a basic rule of internet debate sites, Brandon--attack the idea, not the person. It is not possible to insult an idea.

So i will ask you directly, when did i call you a name?

Why, who on Earth said that you called me a name? You called my reasoning a few names. See previous post for a really slow explanation.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Quote:

Sometimes it's prudent to check a possible severe danger out. And the fact that it was no longer present certainly doesn't mean that checking wasn't the thing to do. I would fire someone who didn't check out something that, were it still there, could have posed a huge risk.

There's a considerable difference between checking out a danger (hey, that sound like further UN INSPECTIONS!!) and actually launching a pre-emptive war, but then again you might have another way of doing things in the businesses you operate, Bush certainly does.

You know what chaps my ass? I thought someone in this administration would have the balls to admit they were wrong. You know, come on tv and make an apology to the nation, say "We thought the weapons were there and they are not. We are going to find better ways of knowing the facts before taking pre-emptive action again. We regret anything we said that might have been misleading and look forward to the present opportunity to bring democracy to Iraq. This Weapons of Mass Destruction Intelligence fiasco is a perfect example of how imperfect democracy is, but that we always try to do things better. Thank you and Good Night."

Joe(fugging weasels never mutter a word of sorrow)Nation

0 Replies

My viewpoint is simple, and i have explained it. Your argument is not analogous to an invasion which results in more than one hundred thousand deaths.

Now, ignoring the rather poor attempt at sentence construction above, i ask you once again, when did i call you any names?

Absent any evidence from you on that point, i feel justified in characterizing your unfounded accusation as an attempt to portray yourself as a martyr for your beliefs.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Why, who on Earth said that you called me a name? You called my reasoning a few names. See previous post for a really slow explanation.

Keep your snotty remarks to yourself, Brandon. You're not half so fast intellectually as you like to preen yourself on being. A fine example is included in this post. You do seriously expect that any reasonable person considers it possible to call names in regard to reasoning? That is a contention which is as pathetic as was your analogy.

You're really reaching here, and then try to characterize me as slow to understand--which is far more like ad hominem than is any amount of ridicule for your reasoning.

0 Replies

Pot, meet kettle . . .

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Setanta wrote:
What a thoroughly feeble and inappropriate set of analogies you have provided. That is just disgusting.

Perhaps a better one would be. If the tests come back negative, the doctor removes both lungs and then just to make sure it hasn't spread he amputates all the limbs. Can't be too careful and it is best to make sure you remove all possibilities of danger. We wouldn't want Brandon firing them for incompetence.

Prevention is the best cure ...

0 Replies

Proof Bush Fixed the Facts...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know