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 : Bush-The Mastermind behind 9/11? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Don Earl who wrote (799)	6/13/2003 10:51:30 AM
From: LPS5	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

Lest you further sully the title "skeptic" by applying it to yourself, take it from an academically-trained and professionally applying one: unquestioningly absorbing conspiratorial, evidence-free websites and, adjacent to that, adjusting facts to suit opinions is quite far from being truly skeptical; it is, in fact, quite doctrinal in nature, which I might suggest is the diametric and moral opposite of skepticism. It's not a contest to see who can adopt the most far-out viewpoint, although I understand the tendency of some individuals to do so; it's probably more fulfilling, and definitely more fun. Instead, scholarly skepticism hinges upon raising questions and rigidly rejecting unsupported claims. E.g.: Hearsay from Iraqi prisoners being tortured, excuse me, I mean "interrogated" is hardly a reliable source of information. No, it isn't. Now, what reliable source of information are you utilizing to come to the conclusion that "Iraqi prisoners [are] being tortured" by U.S. troops? Likewise, anyone (including bought and paid for generals) expressing opinions in court, without a shred of evidence to back up those opinions, would also be rejected as testimony. Opinions, in and of themselves, don't require evidence. As you well know, they have little if any magnitude when based upon specious information, but they are ultimately reflective of an individual viewpoint and to that extent, impregnable. On the other hand, assertions - such as that some of these Generals are "bought and paid for" - would require some evidence backing them. Have you that supporting documentation, other than that military personnel customarily - and, in my opinion, justifiably - receive a salary? LPS5