Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
I am guilty of "cherry picking". When I support my opinions I purposefully pick the data that supports my opinion. When I form my opinion I look at data from various sources and generally give more weight to data that supports my biases. When my opinion is challenged with data that contradicts my opinion, I consider it and either change my view or I "cherry pick" more information to present, that of course supports my view.
I must be the only one who does this. I am guilty, I tell you, guilty, guilty, guilty. What should my punishment be?
Or, you folks can give me your data, challenge my views, man-up and debate like I know you are capable. Maybe it is just to easy to attack the source, rather than the information.
|
Actually I believe I made the claim the source you sighted was "cherry picking."
Your source claimed:
Quote:
2004
There were no successful attacks inside the U.S. or against American interests abroad.
2005
There were no successful attacks inside the U.S. or against American interests abroad.
2006
There were no successful attacks inside the U.S. or against American interests abroad.
2007
There were no successful attacks inside the U.S. or against American interests abroad.
2008
So far, there have been no successful attacks inside the U.S. or against American interests abroad.
|
So, either your source doesn't believe we have an interest in our troops currently serving abroad or it's cherry picking its data. Either way I think it's offensive to the many dead and wounded soldiers, not to mention their families. If that's the source you "purposefully pick" to support your opinions I'm not really sure what you expect me to "man up" and debate you on. I guess I could give you a list, from the DoD, of all fatalities, injuries and IED's et el.