 |
| |
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:33
|
|
quote:
We are talking about what the man believed when he made his statements. If he believed, he was not lying. Quite simple. There is no way you can know what he believed. The brain is not always logical. YOU CAN NOT KNOW WHAT HE BELIEVED. IT's quite simple. Unless he tells you he lied, there is no proof, and you're left with just YOUR OPINION> |
Like I said, rah would make the worlds worst prosecutor.
So basically, until somone confesses, you can never know if they lied. Obviously rah was one that agreed with the OJ verdict, after all, OJ never admited, and only if someone admits guilt are they guilty, cause otherwise, how do you "really" know? right?
I return to Guynemer's statement- now, I will assume it is an accurate quote- how is that NOT a lie? You have never addressed that quote, but I don;t expect you to. For it comes down more simply: KNOW and BELIEVE are fundamentally different things: even if I can not know what the president believed, I can guess at what he knew as fact (or more specifically, what he did NOT know as fact). I can also say that to state that your beliefs are = to knowledge is false. Do you honestly think the president saying "I am steadfast in my belief that Saddam has WMD's" is the same as saying "I know Saddam has WMD's"? NO, those two things are not the same. BY your own standards of proof Rah the president or any member of the admin. could never have said "we know Saddam has WMD's" becuase they could never KNOW until they actually found them, no? So what do you label making a statement that is fundamnetally impossible? I am curious, what do you call it?
quote:
I just get tired of his continued statements of it as a fact that's already been proved. |
First fell free to address me. I don;t mind people using my call name. I would say though that your position on what can be "proven" is certainly the extreme one: to say no one can ever be said to have lied until they tell you they did? How many people would agree with that?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Bush and Blair both vindicated on the same day? What a world...  |
How is Bush vindicated? To use a little rahism here, all Kay did was state his opinions (right rah?), and opinions can not vindicate, as they have no probative value.
Even if we forgo the rahism, that remains correct-Kay thinks fault lies with the intellienge agencies-but Kay was not part of those that planned for war, he is a biased observer (his new arguement, that we needed to take out Saddam not becuase of the threat of his strength, but of his weakness, which all of a sudden was an even bigger danger! is extremely lame) stating his opinion.
What we need is an inquiry into how we got to war: it would be nice for the administration to proceed (at minimum, even if they want to whitewash themselves, investigate the utter incorrectness of the intelliegence) with one. But this admin. will block the suggestions all the way.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
I dont think Bush lied about the WMDs, but on the other hand I do think he has to do something about this. The CIA has to do better than this if we are to prevent anther terrorist attack. They really messed this one up, but even before Kay came out to talk about this I knew that the US would not find these WMDs a few months after the end of the war.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
I agree with GePap.
[philosophy pedant mode]One may have a justified belief that someone is lying even if they are not.
Say for example you tell me you haven't been stealing cookies, but I see you have cookie crumbs on your shirt. I formulate the justified belief that you are lying.
As it happens, you haven't been stealing cookies, Ming has and he spat crumbs at you. It still doesn't alter the fact that the most reasonable thing for me to believe is that you stole cookies.
That's what's happening here. If I couldn't make such probabilistic inferences it would be impossible to believe that anyone is lying. That is unless they told me they were lying and that invites the famous paradox.[philosophy pedant mode]
In short, we can't be sure Bush is lying, but it's the most reasonable inference - it's certainly more reasonable than believing he's a complete retard, although that is, on occasion, compelling nonetheless.  |
The most reasonable inference about Saddam was that he had WMD. Not only the CIA, but the U.N. and almost any intelligence service you care to name believed this as did the commanders of the various Republican Guard units. Tariq Aziz says that even Saddam believed it. There just wasn't much of a case made before the war for what seems to be the truth, that Saddam didn't have much if anything in the way of WMD ready to roll. Interestingly Cheney is partly vindicated in his "Saddam is reconstituting his nuclear weapons program." remarks, insofar as Saddam was paying people to reconstitute those programs and apparantly believed that the effort was underway.
Am I the only one who remembers that Bush strongly intimated that he was going after Iraq during the campaign of 2000? It was perfectly clear to anyone who listened to the foreign policy speech that Condi Rice wrote and he read during the campaign. I have no idea why the press didn't make more of it at the time, but Bush's agenda was clear before anyone voted for him in 2000.
Did Bush "sex up" his claims about WMD in order to get foreign and domestic support for a war that he wanted to fight for numerous reasons?
It sures seems like it. More than Tony Blair did I'm sure. I thought the war was justified for other reasons myself and felt that the WMD thing was overemphasized at the time. I also understood that to make the legal argument in the U.N. WMD were going to have to be the salient point. That nonetheless failed, but Bush and Blair were committed by then, and not unaware of the greater impact that a WMD argument would have to a post 9/11 domestic audience.
Was Bush too reliant on intelligence reports that told him what everyone supposed was common knowledge?
In hindsight yes, but I'm not sure I blame him for not seeing what numerous professionals were not seeing. I blame him more for not seeming to be very curious as to why U.S. intel didn't know that the Iraqi regime was coming apart at the seems, or the degree to which both the Iranian and Libyan nuclear programs were both proceeding apace.
Also, I am vastly amused that Kay, an analyst, blames faulty and skimpy collection of intelligence for the stunning across the board failure of the analysis. That is supposed to be impossible, or only possible when a much more skilled organization runs an elaborate deception program on you. Analysts must be able to say "I don't know" for any system to work at all. Some things never change.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by rah
As opposed to Gepapism. If Gepap believes something then it must be fact.  |
Lets examine rahism:
lets say in 20 years I am walking with my son, and we go past a Holocaust denier, and we hear him state the holocaust never happened. As we walk away, my son asks if what the man said was true. I tell him , no, the holocaust happened. Then my child asks me why the guy was lying, and I have to say:
"Well, son, you see, that man may believe the holocaust did not happened, so no son, I can not tell you he lied, I can only tell you it is my opinion he lied." Because, of course, since the man may believe the holocaust never happened, obviously when he says it did not happen, I can't say he is lying: the fact the holocaust did happened notwithstanding, the possible political implications of what the man is doing notwithstanding.
This is where rah's statements about the nature of lying lead, and I will be honest and say I think that is absurd.
What exasperates me about rah is that he claims all he did was make a 'simple' statement and is then amazed everyone does not jump and accept it as self-evident fact: well, saying the sky is blue is a simple statement, saying we could never accertain the relaity of the color of the sky is not. And the only arguements rah gives about the validity of his statement is the capitalization of words. Well, sorry, no, if someone is pusing an extreme version of relativism when it comes to the truth, I am not just going to sit back and accept it as self-evident, no matter how many words are capitalized and smileys added. I can acknowledge them just fine (yes Rah, i heard what you said), but I can not accept them, for you have not backed them up.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:33
|
|
All you said sikander is reasonable, but it ignores one simple thing: members of the amdin. stated as fact the notions that Iraq still had WMD's, an active nuclear program (as oppose dto one someone was trying to restart who knows when), as opposed to stating things as thier conclusions based on the evidence given. That is why I say it was a lie- becuase by saying "I KNOW", you undercut the ability for anyone to debate your assertions- after all, how can one debate FACTS? All people in the admin. have to say to undercut opponents is to say : "we know more than you, we KNOW what they have, we KNOW what they plan, so we are right". That is being dishonest. They did NOT KNOW. They could not have kown.
Even if some of the claims they were making are shown to be true, they had no proof until after the fact (yes, this sounds like rahism, sounds, but it is not, and if someone wants me to explain the difference, I can go ahead elsewhere), and for them to paint the discussion as on of "we know, you have nothing" was false.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
MrFun
|
 |
of Iowa
Nov 2000
time: 23:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Lets examine rahism:
lets say in 20 years I am walking with my son, and we go past a Holocaust denier, and we hear him state the holocaust never happened. As we walk away, my son asks if what the man said was true. I tell him , no, the holocaust happened. Then my child asks me why the guy was lying, and I have to say:
"Well, son, you see, that man may believe the holocaust did not happened, so no son, I can not tell you he lied, I can only tell you it is my opinion he lied." Because, of course, since the man may believe the holocaust never happened, obviously when he says it did not happen, I can't say he is lying: the fact the holocaust did happened notwithstanding, the possible political implications of what the man is doing notwithstanding.
This is where rah's statements about the nature of lying lead, and I will be honest and say I think that is absurd.
What exasperates me about rah is that he claims all he did was make a 'simple' statement and is then amazed everyone does not jump and accept it as self-evident fact: well, saying the sky is blue is a simple statement, saying we could never accertain the relaity of the color of the sky is not. And the only arguements rah gives about the validity of his statement is the capitalization of words. Well, sorry, no, if someone is pusing an extreme version of relativism when it comes to the truth, I am not just going to sit back and accept it as self-evident, no matter how many words are capitalized and smileys added. I can acknowledge them just fine (yes Rah, i heard what you said), but I can not accept them, for you have not backed them up. |
Who wants to set up bets right now on who will win this round of trollfest? 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
rah
|
|
Apolyton Prince of Moderators, Master of Reason
|
 |
Lord of the Ferrets
Jan 1970
time: 23:33
|
|
quote:
"Well, son, you see, that man may believe the holocaust did not happened, so no son, I can not tell you he lied, I can only tell you it is my opinion he lied." Because, of course, since the man may believe the holocaust never happened, obviously when he says it did not happen, I can't say he is lying: the fact the holocaust did happened notwithstanding, the possible political implications of what the man is doing notwithstanding. |
The man wasn't lying, he is just wrong. Got it.
You're just too stuborn to admit that your's is just an opinion and not necessarily fact. You look more foolish everytime you resist.
So it's your opinion then that if they find WMD, Bush didn't lie? Answer that.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
29-01-2004 06:41
|