Kay's Senate Hearings on Weapons Inspections

[GePap]

Originally posted by rah


You keep proving my point. A logical arguement as proof is not proof. It's a logical arguement. Until there is material proof, it's only an opinion. QED MATERIAL PROOF IS THE ONLY PROOF. Anything less is just a logical arguement. OPINION. NOT PROVEN FACT.

The burden of proof is on you. Not me. Mine is just an opinion, I'm not stating it as fact. YOU ARE>

I assume you have taken higher levels of math above arithmatic. Remember "proofs", those things they made you do using LOGICAL arguements, like if a=b and b=c, then a=c. Now, is a=c an OPINION? after all, give that a and c are variables, and that the letter a is not actually the letter c, this can only be an opinion, correct?

Here is another one: will the sun rise tommorrow? if you say :hey, lets wait for sunrise to do this tommorrow", are you expressing an opinion? After all, you can provide no proof the sun will rise tommorrow- its extremely probable, but according to you, high probability is not same as proof.

Finally, if your statement is just an opinion, then you can not prove anything by it, so all your statements about my statements are nothing but opinions, and thus you have yet to prove I have yet to prove the admin. lied.

Or should I continue to delve deeply into the implied logic of your statement?

[Sava]

Originally posted by Agathon
Look they could have been honest:

They could have said: it is likely that Iraq has some chemical artillery shells that would only be of use against massed infantry without chem gear. They may also have some biological agents which aren't a great threat either. He does want nuclear weapons, but he doesn't have the fissile material or the industrial capacity to make them.

Now, should we keep aggressive watch on him until he dies a few years down the track, which is what we've been doing? Or should we invade Iraq which will cause thousands of casualties, probably will cause political instability, and may well cause regional instability?

When you put it like that it's quite simple.

c'mon now Aggy... if you are honest, you can't execute your agenda!!!!!

[rah]

Originally posted by Agathon

Now, should we keep aggressive watch on him until he dies a few years down the track, which is what we've been doing? Or should we invade Iraq which will cause thousands of casualties, probably will cause political instability, and may well cause regional instability?

When you put it like that it's quite simple.

Looking at the high moral fiber of his sons, his death probably would have made things worse. Not that it justifies anything.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by rah


Tough question. My OPINION is that he's probably both.

Fair enough. (Though the facts say he MUST be at least one, if not both.)

But I still agree with some of the things he's trying to accomplish.

Just serves as proof that not even Poly mods are perfect.

[Sava]

Here is another one: will the sun rise tommorrow? if you say :hey, lets wait for sunrise to do this tommorrow", are you expressing an opinion? After all, you can provide no proof the sun will rise tommorrow- its extremely probable, but according to you, high probability is not same as proof.

Gepap

YOU ARE WRONG AND FALSE BECAUSE THE SUN DOESN'T RISE THE EARTH ROTATES GIVING THE ILLUSIONS OF "RISING AND SETTING"

HAHAHHAHBAWHBAWHBHWBHAHHAHHAHA

[Sava]

But I still agree with some of the things he's trying to accomplish.

bankrupting the federal government? massively subsidizing corporations (destroying the idea of free markets)? creating a regressive tax system where the poor and what's left of the middle classes support the rich?

yikes!

[chequita guevara]

Ferrets are eating his brain.

[Sava]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Ferrets are eating his brain.

no... I've seen this phenomenon before... it's a sad case of "thinking Bush is really conservative". Perhaps we should help rah see that his trusted conservative ideals are being as abused as our own ideals.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by rah

Looking at the high moral fiber of his sons, his death probably would have made things worse. Not that it justifies anything.

Do you really think they would have survived his death long? Both were detested even more than him and no doubt some strong general would have come forth and done a Musharraf.

[rah]

Originally posted by GePap


I assume you have taken higher levels of math above arithmatic. Remember "proofs", those things they made you do using LOGICAL arguements, like if a=b and b=c, then a=c. Now, is a=c an OPINION? after all, give that a and c are variables, and that the letter a is not actually the letter c, this can only be an opinion, correct?

Here is another one: will the sun rise tommorrow? if you say :hey, lets wait for sunrise to do this tommorrow", are you expressing an opinion? After all, you can provide no proof the sun will rise tommorrow- its extremely probable, but according to you, high probability is not same as proof.

Finally, if your statement is just an opinion, then you can not prove anything by it, so all your statements about my statements are nothing but opinions, and thus you have yet to prove I have yet to prove the admin. lied.

Or should I continue to delve deeply into the implied logic of your statement?

Now you're just reaching. Yes, I've probably had more math classes than you, since I was an engeneering student for awhile. But That's just my opinion since I don't know for sure.

THERE IS NO 100% probability that the sun will rise tomorrow. It's a very very high probability, but to say it will is just your opinion based on your belief in the law of averages, Not fact, and it won't be fact till the sun does come up. Where do you make this stuff up from?

We are not talking about mathmatically equations here no matter how much that conforts your brain.

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>

[Sava]

Yes, I've probably had more math classes than you, since I was an engeneering student for awhile. But That's just my opinion since I don't know for sure.

OMFG I have DONE MO MATHEMATRONICS THAN j00!!!

I love it when adults sound like children!

[Agathon]

Rah: with your implicit support of cognitive relativism I request that you be confined to a thread along with Whaleboy, where you two as Poly's relativist clique can rally your arguments before setting forth again to stir up mass indifference among the general Poly population.

But that's just my opinion.

[Patroklos]

Yeah, and there was this guy Kay who was a weapons inspector who was paraphrased to lead people that he was of a certain opinion but it couldn't be further from the truth...

Seriously, any of you catch any of the hearing or perhaps some comentary on it since then?

[rah]

Originally posted by Agathon
Rah: with your implicit support of cognitive relativism I request that you be confined to a thread along with Whaleboy, where you two as Poly's relativist clique can rally your arguments before setting forth again to stir up mass indifference among the general Poly population.

But that's just my opinion.

At least it's only your opinion.

I probably should just ignore his blathering. But proving that someone is lying (when you question what a person believes at the time) is quite different the proving most things. The only one that can prove it beyond question is the one that that is accused. Even when faced with overwhelming evidence, if a person had not admitted it, it would just be opinion that he lied. If he was convicted, the only fact would be that he was convicted. That doesn't necessisarily make him a liar.

Don't throw up other types of lying like, I wasn't at home or I didn't do it types that can be proven. We're talking about what a person believed when making a statement.

I just get tired of his continued statements of it as a fact that's already been proved.

[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 ******, although that is, on occasion, compelling nonetheless.