Michael,
You start here: <<My point isn't whether I believe one report or another. My point is we simply do not know. It's an unknown and unknowable given the current situation.>>
And you end up here: <<But no, instead we have a bunch of overactive government officials, dragging the constitution through the mud. This process, combined with Ruby Ridge and Waaco, have set a dangerous precedence toward our freedom and liberty. >>
You would have been better served to quit while you were ahead.
I agree there's a lot that we don't know. Actually, we don't "know" much of anything. Sometimes we all say "know" when we mean "believe" or "conclude" or "find it most plausible." Such is the sloppy nature of our language usage, particularly in this type of forum. I think we all need to make some allowances for that sort of talk. We also need to make allowances for a bit of hyperbole. "Kidnap" is hyperbole. I'm sure that the gang will correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that the kidnap proponents really mean that. You realize it's hyperbole. You said so.
<<So, all this nonsense I've seen spewed here regarding "kidnapping" is ludicrous hyperbole. If it was kidnapping, why didn't someone get arrested? The answer is quite simple. It wasn't kidnapping, yet we see people here persist in this charade of illogical thinking.>>
How do you get from hyperbole to illogical thinking? Hyperbole is exaggeration to emphasize a point. It may be excessive and overly dramatic, but it's not inherently illogical.
<<Rambi, I'm interested in how you've come to these conclusions with such certainty.>>
What seems illogical to me is that, in a post that has as its apparent main point the notion that we don't know enough to come to come to such strong conclusions, you then proceed to verbalize a whole bunch of strong conclusions as though they were proven. For example:
-Justice Departments illegal action;
-The relatives weren't doing anything illegal;
-to clear a custody dispute; and
-that home was broken into was for political purpose.
Neither you nor I knows any of those things for sure.
While we're on the subject of illogic, here are a couple of beauts.
<<Lastly, the belief that this sort of thing happens all the time is simply nonsense....I've asked Steven to post one article where this sort of thing has happened. And he has been unable to find one.>>
So, Steven hasn't posted an article here on SI, ergo this sort of thing doesn't happen all the time? Is that like the tree falling in the forest--if Steven doesn't hear it it doesn't make a sound? First of all, if this sort of thing happens all the time, then it wouldn't be reported in the papers any more than my trip to the grocery store would be reported. Secondly, just because Steven didn't post it or couldn't find it, that doesn't mean that it wasn't reported. Egads!
<< The relatives weren't doing anything illegal. The meer fact that they were never arrested testifies to that quite clearly.>>
So, if I drive at 90 MPH on the interstate and I don't get arrested, speeding is not illegal? Or, since Clinton didn't get arrested, perjury must not be illegal. "Interesting" argument.
I suggest you re-evaluate your own thought processes before you criticize Rambi for hers.
Karen |
