Mswas, you, of all people, castigating others for being willing to believe something despite a lack of evidence skyrocketed this thread to rarefied heights of hilarity.
…or they would have been paid, if the money hadn’t been stolen by a guy in a black eye-mask and a shirt with horizontal stripes.
I don’t wanna be a pseudo-intellectual when I grow up; I wanna be a junkie.
Umm no, it just proves that they never found them.
Well hopefully that’s true.
No, I don’t think so. I was always against the war, even though I always believed Saddam was likely to have WMDs. I never believed he was a serious threat to us.
It’s for deciding that one thing is true even though the evidence is inconclusive either way? Do you have evidence to falsify the hypothesis that weapons were moved to Syria?
No, the difference is that you BELIEVE your views are based in reality. We don’t have proof any which way on the issue. So if my view that we don’t have conclusive enough proof by which to arrogantly dismiss this man’s claims, then I’ll reside here happily in fantasy land.
Yeah, I hate the way lack of evidence won’t support either side of an argument, fuck that lack of evidence. Enjoy cough reality.
Erek
This is quite possibly the stupidest thing I’ve read here this month. Let’s take your argument to the logical extreme: I’ve never seen a pink unicorn. No one I know has ever seen a pink unicorn. You’re saying I should, nevertheless, believe that pink unicorns may exist after all? Preposterous! Look, it’s true that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, however, in the face of a lack of evidence to the contrary, it is more logical to believe that something does not exist than the other way around. I agree with you that just because no evidence of WMDs has been found, this does not mean they did not exist, but the longer it goes with no such evidence being found, the less likely this possibility becomes. The race does not always go to the swift, nor the battle to the strong–but that’s the way to bet.
Nah, I am castigating others for scoffing haughtily about their belief in something that for which they lack evidence. The same thing I have been castigating people in other threads for ironically.
At what age do they program the Pink Unicorn argument into you people? Don’t you have any other processes you can run?
The article in question is from someone who possibly has evidence regarding the issue, but mainly what I see are people making character judgements that conveniently support their position. If this guy was Saddam’s #2 man, then he probably has info on the WMDs, but conveniently because he was Saddam’s #2 man he’s not to be trusted. It’s great how that works right?
Erek
Does common usage invalidate the argument? If all you can do is scoff at the form of the argument and not address its substance, I have to assume you have nothing.
And he didn’t go to authorities about this, he wrote a book. If you want to find out more, you have to buy his book.
It’s great how that works right?
He says that the weapons were moved in 2002 which would be about the right time to get them out of the country so that Hans Blix wouldn’t find them.
I’m not claiming that what he is saying is true, only that it’s plausible, and that people here are just kind of parroting a party line dismissing something for which they don’t have the answer. So if this board is dedicated to fighting ignorance, then people shouldn’t be simply accepting bias that readily and scoffing at anyone that challenges that bias.
It’s one thing to disbelieve it’s another to scoff.
Where on Earth are you getting that he was Saddam’s #2 man???
I know Ronald Reagan was once quoted as saying that “facts are stupid things” but most of us here at SDMB do appreciate facts.
If you are going to invoke the IPU for an argument you should at least remember the “Invisible” part. 
I trip over Pink Unicorns almost daily but I have an 8 year old daughter with a large unicorn collection.
MSWAS, your argument is truly strange. Reread it, pretend someone else wrote it and tell me it doesn’t sound at least a little like a Tinfoil Hat argument.
Please be honest and at least you will be able to understand why no one is treating it seriously.
Jim
It’s a stupid preprogrammed response that people parrot in order to mutter a platitude that they learned about evidence. I seem to recall that in addition to making a crack about that dumbass argument, I also said other things. You may want to scroll back up and read what I wrote.
Erek
The man who served as the no. 2 official in Saddam Hussein’s air force says Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria before the war by loading the weapons into civilian aircraft in which the passenger seats were removed.
Sorry # 2 in the Air Force.
What Exit? I know that the ‘tin foil hat’ argument is an appeal to emotion and is used by people who want to support their bias.
Politics IS a conspiracy. That’s the whole point of it. Depending on which side you are on, the machinations of politics might seem sinister. People hide things all the time, lies are bandied about constantly. If you think that me saying that you shouldn’t judge either way when you lack evidence is a tin foil hat argument then I’ll wear my tin foil hat proudly.
It’s one thing to go forward pragmatically with a certain position on something while lacking evidence, it’s another thing to scoff at the possibility that your position is incorrect even though their is insufficient evidence to come to a solid conclusion either way about something.
Erek
How can anybody prove they weren’t moved to Syria when there’s no proof they existed in the first place, you stupid ass?
I think it’s sort of amazing that we even have to have this argument at this late date. Don’t you think, if there was any proof, Bush would have seized on it long ago? There’s no evidence of weapons after '98, and no evidence that anybody was working on them. If somebody moved the weapons to Syria, as Clothahump is unsurprisingly willing to believe, they also packed up every shred of evidence and moved that, too. It’s not as if this is a philosophical question where a lack of evidence can be interpreted in a ton of different ways. There isn’t any evidence these post-'98 weapons were there in the first place, and that’s after years of inspections. So arguing about evidence they were moved out of Iraq and hidden is really fucking stupid.
Me too. I’d like to know what part of the no fly zone they took off from. Without us noticing and starting the war right then, moreover.
mswas, yes, normally lack of evidence means you cannot prove something one way or the other. For example, If I were to say “all sheep are blue” and you were to argue that actually “all sheep are green”, and neither of us had seen any sheep, then yes, that would be a lack of evidence. Neither of us can prove our respective arguments.
In this case, however, the two arguments are “these things are there” and “these things are not there”. The second argument, that WMD are/were there, may be proved by their actually being present/having been present. Corroboration by an independent body would confirm this. However - the evidence for the other side, that there are no WMD’s, is supported by evidence of there not being any WMD’s. Every time a check is made, and no WMD’s are found, that’s extra evidence for that point of view.
mswas, far from us “parroting the party line” (I myself am not a Democrat, and i’ve noticed a few Republicans posting in this thread in opposition to Clothahump) you yourself are parroting the logical fallacy that lack of evidence means no proof either way - despite the fact it is **not applicable ** in this case, a case in which a lack of evidence is indeed the claim of one side.
The vaunted inspections occurred after this guy is claiming they were moved to Syria, you smart ass. 
Erek
Whoops. The** first** argument. :smack:
Yeah, he stuffed it into a giant bulging sack with “Swag” written on it. Last I saw, he was being chased by a bunch of cops wearing Kaiser Wilhelm moustaches and tit helmets, furiously waving nightsticks, and frantically falling over and getting up a lot.