Quote:
Originally Posted by biznatch
OK. Except in this case, the war in Iraq, we're not talking about a house.
Even if we were talking about a house, the example is so irrelevant, so isolated from any other factors and, in general, absurd, that it doesn't really hold.
But, fuck it, let's take this house example.
Are you arguing that the alleged "risks" and threats that Saddam caused America, even if they were 1%(again, I'm typing this, and it makes no sense, but your example), were reason enough for going in there?
Damn it you make my head hurt. Please don't give me a "well, it's my reality" type answer. Please don't dodge it. Please try to explain it to me.
|
I guess this is the bottom line.
I think a person wants to kill me, and I tell you.
You present factual evidence that he did not go to Africa to buy a gun.
I think the person still wants to kill me and I tell you.
You present factual evidence that he does not have a gun.
I think the person still wants to kill me, and I tell you.
You present factual evidence that his wife likes me.
I think the person still wants to kill me, and I tell you.
You present statistics showing that the odds are 99 to 1 that he won't kill me.
I think the person still wants to kill me, and I tell you. I take action.
You say I ignored all of your facts.
I tell you that your facts were not relevant. I tell you that I thought the person wanted to kill me.
I tell you that I am prepared to live with the consequences of my actions. Because I know that I would rather deal with the consequences of my actions than be a victim to the person who I think wants to kill me.
You conclude I am not rational, out of touch with reality, ignoring facts, ect.
I ask you, who really is in denial?