be truthful, you've been silent cause you can't in good conscience claim we are the best... On other topics you don't seem to place such restrictions on yourself.
No, like I said, I'm silent because I don't have an opinion and I don't have an opinion because I don't have the data to form a supportable conclusion. And neither does anyone else. I don't even hold claims I can't support let alone argue them. Perhaps you can give me an example of where I've done otherwise.
I'm also silent because I find the question silly and arguing about it even sillier. It doesn't matter for any reason I can discern.
As for your comment about my conscience, that suggests that I have a stake in who's best and I don't. I'm not a cheerleader for America. I'm well traveled and cosmopolitan, not some flag-waving yahoo. Also, I don't seem to have the competitive gene. I'm pleased, though, that you recognize that I have enough integrity to have a conscience. <g>
How would you do it?
I couldn't. I don't have the wherewithal. I could write a request for proposals for a study to do it and I could manage the study and evaluate the results but I couldn't do it. It would take way too much in the way of resources. It takes an outfit like WHO to do something like that.
And it you haven't done that in your own mind...
Good grief, you must think I have a supercomputer for a brain...
And it you haven't done that in your own mind, why are opposed to the new law...?
Two reasons. First is because it's not my job. The default is always the status quo. If someone proposes change, the onus is on him to demonstrate the benefit, not mine to disprove it. The proponents haven't done their job. Made a lot of claims but they are full of holes. My job is only to point out that they haven't done theirs.
I wpould oppose anything this big and this important and this disruptive and this costly undertaken without sufficient foresight.
The other is because I can see huge risks without having to get into the weeds to find them, risks that are intuitively obvious, risks that haven't been adequately addressed, which makes me question the thoughtfulness of the proponents and dramatically lowers my confidence that the proponents have a clue. Which takes me back to reason one. I wanted to see more thoughtfulness, a better explanation. The default is the status quo. Undertaking risk requires forethought proportional to the risk. Didn't happen. That does not demonstrate that the outcome will be bad, only fail to demonstrate that the outcome will be good.
you've been able to avoid the questions once more..
I'm sorry if I've missed some question on the table. Perhaps you could refresh my memory. |
