SDMB - Fair and Balanced ?

Great Debates
101

Righto. The court here is the one of public opinion, standards of common sense do apply, and the criterion that must be met is the preponderance of evidence (in its ordinary meaning), not beyond all possible doubt. In further fairness to Bricker, he’s not the only lawyer to try that approach on us here; but in further fairness to me, he’s had it pointed out to him often enough that by now he should realize it when he does it.

And that statement would still carry exactly zero weight.

Is that the sum total of the “evidence” you are able to present for our consideration in the Great Debate “Resolved: Bush lied us into a war in Iraq”? His own assertion that he did not? Whom are you attempting to convince, and of what?

102

(getting off the anti-Bush angle)

What is justice? What is truth? What are facts? What things have value – and which do not? Who/what can we believe – and who/what can we not?

Can’t you all see that fundamental, to-the-core differences are what separates folks’s opinions? There’s no common ground here … not when the most basic of concepts are not viewed in the same way.

All is dogma. :frowning:

103

How, precisely, is it intellectually dishonest? How does being “business-friendly” relate to being “stupid and evil?” Are business-friendly folks more prone to evil or stupidity?

104

I don’t think that I fully understand this statement. It seems to be saying that business friendly is synonymous to stupid and evil. Do I have that right? Also, assuming that I do understand what you are saying here, and I confess to be numbered with the folks that can have trouble parsing your posts, how is it intellectually dishonest of me to assume that the Bush supporters and Conservatives around here, like the Lefties, want what is best for this country and simply have reached a different conclusion about what that will look like and how we will get there than I have?

105

That’s easy to answer:

Read our posts carefully before you start tearing them apart.
Actually read our links to controlled studies so reasonable comments on them can be exchanged.
Don’t spin our words to your meanings, take what is said at face value.
Don’t assume you know what we are thinking, unless you are a card carrying psychic.
Understand and respect there will be differing opinions on every subject.
Never, never post an angry, snarky, insulting cheap shot because you think it’s funny.
Never call anyone a name other than his/her real one.
Remember that respect is the cornerstone of all debates.
Never assume at attitude of superiority, or indicate your opponent is ignorant.
Debates are basically an exchange of opposing ideas designed to impart knowledge to all participates.

106

No. There is other evidence.

Candian Prime Minister Paul Martin: “The fact is that there is now, we know well, a proliferation of nuclear weapons, and that many weapons that Saddam Hussein had, we don’t know where they are. That means terrorists have access to all of that.”

Nancy Pelosi: “Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”

Robert Byrd: “We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons.”

That is additional evidence.

I understand wanting to give zero weight to anything Nancy Pelosi says, but try to keep an open mind on this one.

107

Be careful Scott Plaid, your underlying assumption here seems to be that business *itself * is stupid and evil. Being “business friendly” in and of itself is neither a good thing nor a bad thing; it’s in the implementation of policies in relation to other demands (fair labor practices, employment, taxation, protection of the environment, etc.) that the goodness of a particular stance is demonstrated.

108

Awwwwwww. :frowning:

Whooooole other debate. Suffice it to say, in this circumstance, after exhaustive investigation and factual claims, I think we have a pretty good handle on the truth re: the war in Iraq.

Everybody is entitled to their own opinion. Nobody is entitled to their own facts. Opinions can be wrong, you know. Unless they about things like “I prefer vanilla to chocolate.”

There was once a time when some people knew the world was round, and some believed it was flat and that ‘there be dragons’ off the edge of it. There was no common ground. There was still truth.

Including the position that all is dogma?

109

This is exactly the problem. One can try to conduct a civil debate with a civil opponent while the knuckleheads in the audience sing songs and yell obscenities … but after awhile you start asking what the point is. It’s not fun anymore, and the undecided people in the audience (whom debates are often supposed to benefit) have a hard time hearing what the civil people have to say.

I have an ignore list, so I don’t have to read the drivel that some people spout; but I still know that an undecided person is less likely to hear what I have to say because it’s surrounded by nimrods repeating that brilliant line they read in Tom Tomorrow – or because an honestly undecided person looking for a healthy debate atmosphere decides that this isn’t the place for them.

I’m simultaneously trying to get a freind turned onto the GD and the Dope (because of all the good it’s done me in the past) and wondering if I should make like Sam Stone and Manny and leave (because of what it’s become). She’s a very bright and gracious person who likes hearing new ideas … but she also is not the sort of person to relish hearing rancorous bile. I’m going to be very interested to see what her reaction is.

110

I don’t think it’s a “limited supply” sort of thing, it’s more the head vs. wall thing. If I may presume to speak for others, those of us that support the President in most things got tired of being called an asshole (or worse) when we dared to do so. Eventually, we stopped posting such messages, which leaves the Bash-Bush-At-Any-Cost-Whether-Right-Or-Wrong Brigade to spew its venom hither, thither and yon unchecked.

111

Ouch ! Touché !

112

Those are other people’s opinions at best, calculated political statements more likely, based solely on what *Bush * had told them. And *this * is the basis you offer for your refusal to conclude that Bush lied us into war? Please. What comes after “Fool me three times …”?
To the OP topic, who’d like to claim that the above exchange is a case of the board being biased toward “The Left”, rather than toward fact?

113

You are assuming that a lot of thought went into the design of the SDMB and that Ed and company stewed over its political leanings and whether it should skew more American or international. I suggest, though without any hard evidence, that nothing of the sort occurred; that, like most of the early internet, the board was first created because it seemed like a good idea at the time; and that nobody was more surprised than Ed and Co. when the first non-American joined.

114

I’d chalk it up to some people not knowing the difference between “reasonable hypothesis” and “fact.”

115

But then there’s no “Debate” in Great Debates if all agree.

You might as well open a thread in the Pit rather than put up a charade Great Debate discussing the merits/content of a political speech.

116

So long as we are applying rigorous rules of evidence, may I point out that all that is hearsay? Furthermore, we have the materials on which these (and others) based these conclusions and in all cases it is reasonable to conclude that in all cases one or more of the following apply:

  1. The conclusions were based on misleading characterisations drawn by the Bush administration.

  2. The conclusions were based on “evidence” that had already been in advance by intelligence experts. The experts were variously disregarded, defamed, or punished for not reaching the conclusion desired by the administration.

  3. The statements were made in fear of appearing unpatriotic or “soft on terrorism” as a result of the propaganda campaign embarked on by the Bush administration.

  4. The statements were made to retroactively justify policy decisions that the Bush administration had coerced them into.

117

Rhetorical argument only:

I cannot, through my own resources, even confirm that the war in Iraq is even going on.

Do you see where I’m going with this? Here’s the question your response begs: what are factual claims? How do you (or any human) chose what to accept and what to reject out of the information you receive?

I have serious doubts that any unfiltered information exits in the world about anything. If one human being had to share information with a second human, that’s a filter. Any and all filters corrupt “truth”. That means people have to choose what is true and what is not. “Truth” does not make itself plain.

118

Yes, of course. Why not?

119

Not so fast – his point is conceded. Doesn’t address my point, though.

120

First of all, since it seems relevant to this thread, here’s the long post I wrote on the general topic of board slant last time it came up, which I think makes some interesting points, and was sadly ignored the first time I post it. Sniff. You meanieheads!

On the topic of general board slant, I agree that this board leans left, and Anti-Bush, politically. I think that the only thing that can be really done about it is for everyone to keep it in mind and not let it get to them. If you’re a conservative, prepare yourself for the fact that anything you post is going to have 2 hysterical responses, 2 rude responses, and 3 or 4 thinking responses. Ignore the first 4, and do your best to respond to the next 3 or 4. If you’re a polite and thinking liberal, disavow the hysterical and rude anti-Bush rants when they get out of line, be polite and friendly when chatting with thinking conservatives, and be aware that some of your well thought out posts will not get responded to (frustrating though that is).

Anyhow, on the question of “did Bush lie”, I think that you guys who are arguing with Bricker about it are, bluntly, being a bit silly. So Bush got up in front of the nation and said that a whole bunch of things were true, and that because of them, we should go to war. So we went to war. Now it turns out that those things weren’t true.

What explanation is there for that:
(1) Bush actively knew he was telling falsehoods, and is a liar
(2) Bush believed he was telling the truth, and is incompetent and irresponsible
or
(3) some combination of the above, at which point he’s somewhere between incompetent and a liar, and a bit of both, but not necessarily PROVABLY a liar.

Why are you so fixated on it being (1)? That’s an incredibly difficult thing to PROVE, since it requires trying to demonstrate what Bush’s mindset was at any given time. And, frankly, who cares? I mean, suppose Bricker eventually wins this argument, what do you say to him then, “OK, you’re right, he’s not a liar, I give up, ok, fine, I give, I guess he IS incompetent and irresponsible”?

You’re getting sucked into a precisely defined argument about a relatively precisely defined word, and are missing the forest for the trees, and letting the debate completely get away from you. And because you’re so focussed on that one precise issue, you’re ignoring all the other slimy and dishonest things going on, for instance, the ongoing historical revisionism about what the motivation for the Iraq war was, etc.
Before the war, Rumsfeld said (this is close to a precise quote) “I can’t tell you how long the war will be… 6 days, 6 weeks, I don’t think as long as 6 months”. We should trumpet this quote from the rooftops, but NOT because it proves he’s a liar, because it proves he, and the administration as a whole, were criminally unprepared for this war.