Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Stopping at this point, do you think you know that with absolute certainty?
|
I know beyond a reasonable doubt. Very few things can be known with true absolute certainty. The only thing I know with absolute certainty is that I exist. Je pense donc je suis. After that, everything is about following established and verifiable methodology to determine a thing. I've been saying this all along.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Assuming less than absolute certainty, how can you conclude the story was fabricated? If the proof is 99% certain and I act on the 1% of uncertainty, why do you take on an air of superiority regarding your judgment? Certainly the odds are in your favor, but factoring in the consequences of being wrong it is possible there is greater value in the 1% choice.
|
This is the strangest incarnation of Pascal's Wager/Fallacy-esque thinking I've come across. By your logic, we should always act as if the least desirable outcome will happen, regardless of it's likelihood. Moreover, you're also assuming that there is only one least desirable outcome (the same mistake Pascal made). What if the least desirable outcome isn't Saddam getting yellowcake, but in his search for yellowcake finding a biological weapon that can devastate an entire continent? It's incredibly unlikely, but it's not totally impossible. And it's certainly worse than Saddam only having a small piece of nuclear material of questionable purity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
We are not. We will never be on this subject. I understand why, but I can not explain it to you.
|
You don't understand why, seriously.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
This point of view seems to suggest that emotion is not real.
|
Show me where I said that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
In most cases it leads to what we believe or accept as truth. Truth is pretty elusive.
|
I'm talking about objective verification. Do you understand what objective verification is? Can you grasp the concept that there are methods that can establish facts and likelihoods omitting human bias?
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
I am repeating myself in different ways, and it is not connecting with you. That is why I say I am beyond my capacity to communicate with you on this. My words seem to have no meaning to you. You simply do not accept my "reality". Your position seems to be that if "it" doesn't fit your view of a rational reality, it is not real.
|
That's not my position at all. My position is that, regardless of personal bias, there is an objective reality which can often be verified objectively using proven methodology. You don't get to have your own reality just like I don't get to have mine. When I'm wrong about something I can be proven wrong. I have to adapt my understanding of the world to objective and verifiable facts regardless of how I feel about them. If it hurts my feelings, tough shit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
The issue is not the documents, the issue is - Saddam attempting to develop or enhance his capacity to destroy innocent life.
|
Do you have objecvtively verifiable information that Saddam was attempting to develop or enhance his weapons, or do you simply have the claims of known liars?