|
So... I'm really confused here. First off, how is this a philosophy post? Secondly, are you suggesting that Micheal Moore is wrong because his evidence could be wrong about Bush? It seems to me that if you're going to take that approach you should do the same things that scholars of all subjects do - research, post evidence, and give a convincing argument using that evidence. Micheal Moore didn't say that Bush planned the terrorist attacks, so I really don't follow your logic here. Also, why do you think Bush is such a great guy? It sounds like your evidence for this is that the counterfactual to this (which you pose as only speculation) might be wrong. I just don't get it... how does this prove or support anything?
__________________
Innominate.
|