Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (9251)	1/7/2002 10:09:31 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

As a rather bizarre evolution of an argument, with inherent interest as a case study, it is hard to say. I'm finding it more bizarre by the minute... The fact that something is logically valid does not mean that it is factually correct. To say that there were no inconsistencies with the interpretation is merely to state that it was plausible, not that it was true. I was imaging a shared event that I think parallels this diaglog. You and I are standing on the edge of a field; you with your sherry and I with a lemonade. At some medium distance I notice something. jttmab: Look Neocon there is a flock of ducks? Neocon: You can't be certain. jttmab: Huh? Neocon: Look over to the right; you see that pond? jttmab: Eh-yup. Neocon: Well, I can tell you that over in that pond there is what appears to be a duck, but it's not. It's a decoy. jttmab: Ok, so what? Neocon: Aren't you going to argue with me over whether that decoy is a duck or a decoy? jttmab: Not especially. I don't see what that has to do with the "ducks" in the field. Neocon: Well, what I've shown you is that there is more than once explanation for what you see in that field; they may not be ducks. jttmab: But they look like ducks, they quack like ducks, they fly like ducks; there's a lot of duck doo doo on the ground. I've even got a duck expert to agree that they are ducks....there's a lot of "ducks". There's a lot more ducks around than there are decoys. Everything we know about ducks is consistent with what we see in that field. There is nothing in that field which suggests that they could be something else. Neocon: But over in that pond there is a decoy, which you might have thought was a duck. Just because they walk like ducks, quack like ducks, fly like ducks, you have an expert that says that they are ducks only means it's plausible that they are ducks. This is getting bizarre. jttmab: Yes, it is. I can repost the Skokie exchange. You did, in fact, argue against my point of view, in a contemptuous fashion. I find it bizarre for you to mention your sympathy at this point. (Repost forthcoming.....) I looked over the repost. Something is going wrong with our communication, that I'm fairly certain....or you're just jerking my chain. There are two potential "opinions" that might be speculated on within that post and some of the others that we have had on this matter: (1) your opinion of the ACLU and (2) your opinion on the Skokie case. I've been discussing (1) and making arguments related to that. I read your posts as insisting that we debate (2) and that I argue [or have argued] with that opinion. When I review that repost, it's quite clear to me that I'm referring to (1) and you are insisting that it is about(2). I've been trying to express in previous posts that it isn't (2) that I'm talking about, it's (1). jttmab